The Effectiveness of STEM-Based on Gender Differences: The Impact of Physics Concept Understanding

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to describe the effectiveness of STEM on the physics concepts understanding seen from gender differences. The research method used is a type of quasi-experimental design with 2x2 factorial design and saturated sampling technique. The data collecting technique used a tested method to see the results of students’ concept understanding. Hypothesis testing was done using two-way ANOVA 2 x 2 factorial designs. The results of the study are: (1) there are differences in STEM and conventional learning on concepts understanding and the use of STEM learning is more effective than the conventional one; (2) there are differences in the results of understanding the concept between male and female students where male students are higher than female students; and, (3) there is no interaction between learning and gender towards concepts understanding. The research recommends designing the STEM-integrated ESciT learning to be relevant with the indicator measurements and to manage the learning effectively to obtain optimum learning outcome.

Keywords

• ESciT,STEM,gender differences,understanding concepts

References

1. Abdurrahman, A., Saregar, A., & Umam, R. (2018). The Effect of Feedback as Soft Scaffolding on Ongoing Assessment Toward The Quantum Physics Concept Mastery of The Prospective Physics Teachers. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(1), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v6i2.7239
2. Afriana, J., Permanasari, A., & Fitriani, A. (2016). Penerapan Project Based Learning Terintegrasi STEM untuk Meningkatkan Literasi Sains Siswa Ditinjau dari Gender Implementation Project-Based Learning Integrated STEM to Improve Scientific Literacy Based on Gender. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan IPA, 2(2), 202–212.
3. Anwar, C., Saregar, A., Hasanah, U., & Widayanti, W. (2018). The Effectiveness of Islamic Religious Education in the Universities : The Effects on the Students ’ Characters in the Era of Industry 4 . 0. Tadris: Jurnal Keguruan Dan Ilmu Tarbiyah, 3(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.24042/tadris.v3i1.2162
4. Anwar, C., Saregar, A., Yuberti, Y., Zellia, N., Widayanti, W., Diani, R., & Wekke, I. (2019). Effect Size Test of Learning Model ARIAS and PBL: Concept Mastery of Temperature and Heat on Senior High School Students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103032
5. Cedefop for the European Commission. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills. EU Skills Panorama 2014.
6. Chein, P. L. K., & Lajium, D. A. D. (2016). The Effectiveness of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Learning Approach Among Secondary School Students. In International Conference on Education and Psychology 2016 (ICEduPsy16) (pp. 95–104). Kinabalu: Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS).
7. DeCoito, I. (2016). STEM Education in Canada: A Knowledge Synthesis. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16(2), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1166297
8. Dupri, D., & Abduljabar, B. (2015). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran dan Gender terhadap Kepedulian Sosial Siswa pada Pembelajaran Pendidikan Jasmani [The Influence of Learning Models and Genders Toward Students' Social Awareness on Physical Education]. Edusentris, Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan dan Pengajaran, 2(1), 22–33.

9. Ernst, J. V., Williams, T. O., Clark, A. C., Kelly, D. P., & Sutton, K. (2018). K-12 STEM Educator Autonomy: An Investigation of School Influence and Classroom Control. Journal of STEM Education, 18(5), 5–9.
10. Firman, H. (2016). Pendidikan STEM sebagai Kerangka Inovasi Pembelajaran Kimia untuk Meningkatkan Daya Saing Bangsa dalam Era Masyarakat Ekonomi ASEAN STEM [STEM Education As The Framework of Chemistry Learning Innovation To Improve The Nation's Competitiveness In The ASEAN Economic Community Era]. In Prosiding Seminar Nasional Kimia dan Pembelajarannya (pp. 1–7). Surabaya: Jurusan Kimia FMIPA Universitas Negeri Surabaya.
11. Fitzakerley, J. L., Michlin, M. L., Paton, J., & Dubinsky, J. M. (2013). Neuroscientists’ Classroom Visits Positively Impact Student Attitudes. PLoS ONE, 8(12), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084035
12. Han, S. W. (2016). National Education Systems and Gender Gaps in STEM Occupational Expectations. International Journal of Educational Development, 49, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.03.004
13. Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St Rose, A. (2010). Why So Few ? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. American Association of University Women. Washington, DC: AAUW.
14. Hurk, A. Van Den, Meelissen, M., & van Langen, A. (2019). Interventions in education to prevent STEM pipeline leakage. International Journal of Science Education, 41(2), 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1540897
15. Irwandani, & Rofiah, S. (2015). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Generatif Terhadap Pemahaman Konsep Fisika Pokok Bahasan Bunyi Peserta Didik MTs Al-Hikmah Bandar Lampung [He Influence of Generative Learning Model Toward Physics Concept Understanding on Sound Material of The Students of Mts Al-Hikmah Bandar Lampung]. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni, 4(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.24042/jpifalbiruni.v4i2.90
16. Irwansyah, I., Sukarmin, S., & Harjana, H. (2018). Development of Three-Tier Diagnostics Instruments on Students Misconception Test in Fluid Concept. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni, 7(2), 207. https://doi.org/10.24042/jipfalbiruni.v7i2.2703
17. Ismayani, A. (2016). Pengaruh Penerapan Stem Project- Based Learning Terhadap Kreativitas. Indonesian Digital Journal of Mathematics and Education, 3(4), 264–272. https://doi.org/2407-8530
18. Lestari, F., Saryantono, B., Syazali, M., Jauhariyah, D., & Umam, R. (2019). Cooperative Learning Application with the Method of Network Tree Concept Map : Based on Japanese Learning System Approach. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young, 7(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.471466
19. Mccullough, L. (2011). Women’s Leadership in Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics: Barriers to Participation. West Florida. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ944199.pdf
20. Mukti, A. G. (2018). Formula 4C untuk Bertahan pada Era Revolusi Industri 4.0 [4C Formula To Survive The Industrial Revolution Era 4.0]. Retrieved from http://sumberdaya.ristekdikti.go.id/index.php/2018/05/04/formula-4c-untuk-bertahan-pada-era-revolusi-industri-4-0/
21. Mutakinati, L., Anwari, I., & Yoshisuke, K. (2018). Analysis of Students’ Critical Thinking Skill of Middle School Through Stem Education Project-Based Learning. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v7i1.10495
22. Nuyami, N. M. S., Suastra, I. W., & Sadia, I. W. (2014). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Think-Pair-Share terhadap Self-Efficacy Siswa SMP ditinjau dari Gender [The Influence of Think-Pair-Share of The Cooperative Learning Toward Junior High School Students' Sell-Efficacy Viewed from Gender]. Jurnal Program Pascasarjana Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Program Studi IPA, 4(3), 1–11.
23. Permanasari, A. (2016). STEM Education: Inovasi dalam Pembelajaran Sains [Innovation In Science Learning]. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Sains VI, 2016–2023.
24. Pitan, O. S., & Atiku, S. O. (2017). Structural Determinants of Students’ Employability: Influence of Career Guidance Activities. South African Journal of Education, 37(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v37n4a1424
25. Pusfarini, P. (2017). Efektivitas Model Problem Based Learning untuk Mereduksi Disparitas Gender dalam Capaian Pembelajaran Sains [The Effectiveness of Problem-Based Learning Model To Reduce The Gender Discrepancy In Science Learning Achievement]. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni, 6(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.24042/jpifalbiruni.v6i1.909
26. Ritz, J. M., & Fan, S. (2015). STEM and technology education: International state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 429–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9290-z
27. Rusmana, I. M. (2014). Efektivitas Penggunaan Pendekatan SLIM-N-BIL [The Effectiveness of SLIM-N-BIL Approach]. Jurnal Formatif, 4(3), 208–218.
28. Sanchis-Segura, C., Aguirre, N., Cruz-Gómez, Á. J., Solozano, N., & Forn, C. (2018). Do Gender-Related Stereotypes Affect Spatial Performance? Exploring When, How and to Whom using a Chronometric Two-Choice Mental Rotation Task. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01261
29. Saregar, A., Irwandani, I., Abdurrahman, A., Parmin, P., Septiana, S., Diani, R., & Sagala, R. (2018). Temperature and Heat Learning Through SSCS Model with Scaffolding: Impact on Students’ Critical Thinking Ability. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(3), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.2018.80
30. Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719
31. Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2019). A Simplified Approach to Measuring National Gender Inequality. Plos One, 14(1), e0205349. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205349
32. Syukri, M., Lilia, H., & Subahan, M. M. T. (2013). Pendidikan STEM dalam Entrepreneurial Science Thinking “ESciT”: Satu Perkongsian Pengalaman dari UKM untuk Aceh [STEM Education In Entrepreneurial Science Thinking ESciT : A Collaboration of Experience From Small Medium Enterprises to Aceh]. In Aceh Development International Conference (pp. 105–112). Kuala Lumpur: Academy of Islamic Studies, University of Malaya.
33. Tsai, H. Y., Chung, C. C., & Lou, S. J. (2018). Construction and Development of iSTEM Learning Model. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/78019
34. Tseng, K. hung. (2011). Attitudes Towards Science, Technology, Engineering And Mathematics (STEM) in A Project-Based Learning (PjBL) Environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10793-011-9169s
35. Vennix, J., den Brok, P., & Taconis, R. (2018). Do Outreach Activities In Secondary STEM Education Motivate Students And Improve Their Attitudes Towards STEM? International Journal of Science Education, 40(11), 1263–1283. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1473659
36. Vulperhorst, J. P., Wessels, K. R., Bakker, A., & Akkerman, S. F. (2018). How do STEM-Interested Students Pursue Multiple Interests in Their Higher Educational Choice?, International Journal of Science Education, 40(8), 828–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1452306
37. Wahyudi, W. (2014). Penerapan Model Direct Instruction Terhadap Hasil Belajar Fisika Materi Pengukuran Ditinjau dari Gender Pada Siswa [The Application of Direct Instruction Model Toward Physics Learning Outcome on Measurement Material Viewed From The Genders of The Learners]. Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika IKIP PGRI Pontianak, 1(2), 178–186.
38. Williams, P. J., & Mangan, J. (2016). The Effectiveness of Using Young Professionals to Influence STEM Career Choices of Secondary School Students. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 2(1), 2–17.