The Effect of STEM-EDP in Professional Learning on Automotive Engineering Competence in Vocational High School

Abstract

The quality of teacher learning practices currently continues to be improved through various training programs, mentoring, and evaluations from Indonesian government support. The 21st-century teacher's ability to develop learning technology is a cooperative learning approach and multidisciplinary integration of science to solve surrounding problems. This study describes the effectiveness and benefits of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in the Automotive Engineering Competency with the Engineering Design Process (EDP) approach in the "motorcycle burglary case studies." This research is a type of pre-experimental design in the form of a pretest-posttest group design. Purposive sampling technique carried out to determine the sample of students of class XI SMK N 2 Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in 2019. The results showed that (1) the assessment of lesson plan in the form of RPP review and RPP supervision was declared complete; (2) aspects of the STEM-EDP assessment consist of formative tests, the 1st Student Worksheet, the 2nd Student Worksheet, and Products which stated in the seven stages of EDP; (3) Wilcoxon test, Z = -4.86 with significance (p) = 0.00 <0.05, illustrates that STEM-EDP is effective than summative learning, and can improve learning.

Keywords

• STEM-EDP,Teacher Ability,effectiveness,cooperative learning,professional learning

References

1. Allen, M. (2017). One-Group Pretest–Posttest Design. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411.n388
2. Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing Engineering Design into High School Science Classrooms: The Heating/Cooling Unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9114-6
3. Argina, A. W., Mitra, D., Ijabah, N., & Setiawan, R. (2017). Indonesian Pisa Result: What Factors and What Should Be Fixed? 1(1), 69-79.
4. Avery, Z. K., & Reeve, E. M. (2013). Developing Effective STEM Professional Development Programs. Journal of Technology Education, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v25i1.a.4
5. Bughin, J., Manyika, J., & Woetzel J. (2017). Jobs lost, Jobs Gained: Workforce Transitions in a Time of Automation. MCKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/
6. Cannon, R. A., & Widodo, S. O. S. (1994). Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning in Indonesian Universities: Issues and Challenges. Higher Education Research & Development, 13(2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436940130201
7. Capraro, R. M., & Slough, Scott. W. (2013). Why PBL? Why STEM? Why now? an Introduction to STEM Project-Based Learning. In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro, & J. R. Morgan (Eds.), STEM Project-Based Learning: An Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Approach (pp. 1–5). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-143-6_1
8. Havice, W., Havice, P., Waugaman, C., & Walker, K. (2018). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Integrative STEM Education: Teacher and Administrator Professional Development. Journal of Technology Education, 29(2), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v29i2.a.5

9. Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912
10. Kurniawati, S., Suryadarma, D., Bima, L., & Yusrina, A. (2018). Education in Indonesia: A White Elephant? 22. http://www.smeru.or.id/sites/default/files/publication/whiteelephant.pdf
11. LaForce, M., Noble, E., & Blackwell, C. (2017). Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and Student Interest in STEM Careers: The Roles of Motivation and Ability Beliefs. Education Sciences, 7(4), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7040092
12. Laius, A., Rannikmäe, M., Rannikmäe, M., & Rannikmäe, M. (2011). Impact on Student Change in Scientific Creativity and Socio-Scientific Reasoning Skills from Teacher Collaboration and Gains from Professional In-Service. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(2), 127-137. http://oaji.net/articles/2014/987-1410008629.pdf
13. Lwakabamba, S., & Lujara, N. K. (2003). Effective Engineering Training: The Case of Kigali Institute of Science, Technology and Management. Global J. of Engng. Educ. 7(1), 71-76. http://www.wiete.com.au/journals/GJEE/Publish/vol7no1/ Lwakabamba.pdf
14. Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 2. 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
15. Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-School Science Through Design-Based Learning versus Scripted Inquiry: Better Overall Science Concept Learning and Equity Gap Reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x
16. Meyrick, K. M. (2011). How STEM Education Improves Student Learning. Meredian K-12 School Computer Technologies Journal, 11(1). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7cab/b5223aa526d2f85ad4c1e675c089cb581895.pdf
17. Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018). Evidence-Based Research in STEM Teacher Education: From Theory to Practice. Frontiers in Education, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00092
18. Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 221–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1289775
19. Nugrahanto, S., & Zuchdi, D. (2019, April). Indonesia PISA Result and Impact on The Reading Learning Program in Indonesia. International Conference on Interdisciplinary Language, Literature and Education (ICILLE 2018). https://doi.org/10.2991/icille-18.2019.77
20. Nurtanto, M., Nurhaji, S., Baser, J. A., & Yadin, Y. (2018). Problem-Based Learning Implementation: Improvement in Learning Process and Results in Vocational Higher Education. Jurnal Pendidikan Teknologi Dan Kejuruan, 24(2), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.21831/jptk.v24i2.19519
21. Nurtanto, M., Nurhaji, S., Widjanarko, D., Wijaya, M. B. R., & Sofyan, H. (2018). Comparison of Scientific Literacy in Engine Tune-up Competencies through Guided Problem-Based Learning and Non-Integrated Problem-Based Learning in Vocational Education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1114, 012038. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1114/1/012038
22. Nurtanto, M., Sofyan, H., Fawaid, M., & Rabiman, R. (2019). Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in Industry 4.0: Improving Learning Quality through Character-Based Literacy Learning and Life Career Skill (LL-LCS). Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(11), 2487–2494. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.071128
23. OECD. (2018). PISA 2015 Results (Volume V) | READ online. OECD ILibrary. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2015-results-volume-v_9789264285521-en
24. Ring, E. A., Dare, E. A., Crotty, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2017). The Evolution of Teacher Conceptions of STEM Education Throughout an Intensive Professional Development Experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(5), 444–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2017.1356671
25. Riskowski, J. L., Todd, C. E. D., Wee, B., Dark, M., & Harbor, J. (2009). Exploring the Effectiveness of an Interdisciplinary Water Resources Engineering Module in an Eighth Grade Science Course. Int. J. Engng Ed. 25(1), 181-195. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e186/eca7bc20901d0be8ab2afc78b405b7a15cf6.pdf
26. Roberts, A., & Cantu, D. (2012). Applying STEM Instructional Strategies to Design and Technology Curriculum. 8. https://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/073/013/ecp12073013.pdf
27. Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing Engineering to Elementary School. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 5, 17–28. http://greenframingham.org/stem/research/item1_bring_engr_elem021505.pdf
28. Rosidin, U. (2019). A Combined HOTS-Based Assessment/STEM Learning Model to Improve Secondary Students’ Thinking Skills: A Development and Evaluation Study. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(3), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.518464
29. Saptarani, D., Widodo, A., & Purwianingsih, W. (2019). Biology teachers and high school students perceptions about STEM learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157, 042007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/4/042007
30. Schnittka, C. G. (2009). Engineering Design Activities and Conceptual Change in Middle School Science. ProQuest LLC.
31. Sohoni, M. (2012). Engineering teaching and research in IITs and its impact on India. Current Science, 102(11), 1510–1515. JSTOR. https://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/102/11/1510.pdf
32. Stacey, K. (2011). The PISA View of Mathematical Literacy in Indonesia. Journal on Mathematics Education, 2(2), 95–126. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.2.2.746.95-126
33. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for Teaching Integrated STEM Education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653
34. Syukri, M., Halim, L., & Mohtar, L. E. (2017). Engineering Design Process: Cultivating Creativity Skills through Development of Science Technical Product. . . Pp, 38(1), pp. 010055- 010065. http://ifm.org.my/sites/default/files/publications/JFM2017_ Vol38No1_010055.pdf
35. Tikly, L., Joubert, M., Barrett, A. M., Bainton, D., Cameron, L., & Doyle, H. (2018). Supporting Secondary School STEM Education for Sustainable Development in Africa. https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/explore/en/publications/supporting-secondary-school-stem-education-for-sustainable-development-in-africa(eb452c9d-d407-4e4d-a25c-da10a56a41b4).html
36. Tortop, H.S. & Akyildiz, V. (2018). Development Study of Gifted Students’ Education for STEM SelfEfficacy Belief Scale for Teacher. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 5(3), 11-22.
37. Turner, K. L., Kirby, M., & Bober, S. (2016). Engineering Design for Engineering Design: Benefits, Models, and Examples from Practice. e.e.: inquiry in education, 8(2), 5. https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol8/iss2/5/
38. Vennix, J., Brok, P. den, & 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
39. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938
40. Widowati, A., Nurohman, S., & Anjarsari, P. (2017). Developing Science Learning Material with Authentic Inquiry Learning Approach to Improve Problem Solving and Scientific Attitude. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v6i1.4851
41. Williams, P. J. (2011). STEM Education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1). https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/1590
42. Zakaria, E., & Iksan, Z. (2007). Promoting Cooperative Learning in Science and Mathematics Education: A Malaysian Perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(1), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75372
43. Zheng, J., Xing, W., Zhu, G., Chen, G., Zhao, H., & Xie, C. (2020). Profiling self-regulation behaviors in STEM learning of engineering design. Computers & Education, 143, 103669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103669