Analisis Kesiapan Guru Sekolah Dasar Mengintegrasikan Literasi Numerasi pada Mata Pelajaran IPAS dalam Implementasi Kurikulum

Masyru'iyah Khomisatul Ikna; Effy Mulyasari; Arisal Sopyan

doi:10.24256/pijies.v9i2.10580

Authors

Masyru'iyah Khomisatul Ikna Pendidikan Dasar, Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
Effy Mulyasari Pendidikan Dasar, Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
Arisal Sopyan Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam Riyadhul Jannah Subang, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24256/pijies.v9i2.10580

Keywords:

Kesiapan Guru, Literasi Numerasi, IPAS, Kurikulum Merdeka, TPACK

Abstract

Kesiapan guru dalam mengintegrasikan literasi numerasi pada mata pelajaran Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam dan Sosial (IPAS) merupakan determinan kritis keberhasilan implementasi Kurikulum Merdeka di sekolah dasar. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis kesiapan guru kelas V (Fase C) dalam mengintegrasikan literasi numerasi pada IPAS melalui tiga dimensi: kognitif, pedagogis, dan praktik, berbasis kerangka Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Pendekatan kualitatif dengan desain studi kasus instrumental digunakan, dengan satu partisipan guru yang telah mengimplementasikan Kurikulum Merdeka di Kabupaten Subang. Data dikumpulkan melalui wawancara semi-terstruktur dan observasi pembelajaran terstruktur menggunakan Lembar Observasi Aktivitas Pembelajaran (LOAP), kemudian dianalisis dengan model interaktif Miles, Huberman, dan Saldaña. Hasil menunjukkan: (1) kesiapan kognitif memadai, ditandai kemampuan membedakan numerasi kontekstual dari aritmetika murni dan memetakan topik IPAS bermuatan numerasi; (2) kesiapan pedagogis berkembang, dibuktikan dengan desain modul ajar yang secara deliberate memuat siklus inkuiri data melalui scaffolded integration; dan (3) praktik integrasi cukup efektif pada fase apersepsi dan pemecahan masalah, namun terkendala keterbatasan pemanfaatan teknologi digital. Profil TPACK guru dikategorikan sebagai parsial, dengan defisit pada komponen Technological Knowledge. Temuan ini mengimplikasikan urgensi pengembangan profesional yang berfokus pada dimensi teknologi dan praktik berbasis coaching.

References

Askew, M. (2022). Transforming primary mathematics: Understanding classroom tasks, tools and talk (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003031055

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.

Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). A review of the quantitative measures of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). In Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (pp. 87–106). Routledge.

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/122.311

Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2020). Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 94, 103–116.

Dindyal, J., Schack, E. O., Choy, B. H., & Sherin, M. G. (2021). Exploring a teacher's noticing of students' mathematical thinking in a video club. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01249-y

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press. https://www.tcpress.com/the-new-meaning-of-educational-change-9780807749340

Geiger, V., Goos, M., & Forgasz, H. (2022). A rich interpretation of numeracy for the 21st century: A theoretical framework. ZDM: Mathematics Education, 47(4), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0708-1

Goos, M., Dole, S., & Geiger, V. (2021). Numeracy across the curriculum: Research-based strategies for enhancing teaching and learning. Allen & Unwin. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003116585

Hariyanto, D., Wahyuni, S., & Rahmawati, F. (2023). Implementasi pembelajaran IPAS berbasis proyek pada Kurikulum Merdeka di sekolah dasar. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan, 8(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.24832/jpnk.v8i1.2841

Hoogland, K., & Tout, D. (2022). Computer-based assessment of mathematics in the 21st century: Issues and challenges. ZDM: Mathematics Education, 54(2), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01344-y

Kemendikbud. (2017). Bahan ajar, Budaya sekolah. http://www.gurusmk.com/2017/11/budaya-sekolah.html

Kemendikbudristek. (2022a). Capaian pembelajaran mata pelajaran IPAS fase A, B, C, D. Badan Standar, Kurikulum, dan Asesmen Pendidikan.

Kemendikbudristek. (2022b). Keputusan Menteri Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Nomor 56 Tahun 2022 tentang Pedoman Penerapan Kurikulum dalam rangka Pemulihan Pembelajaran. Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano, J. (2021). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9277-y

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2022). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303

Lamanauskas, V., & Augienė, D. (2022). Development of scientific research competence of university students in a virtual environment: A case study. Research in Science & Technological Education, 40(1), 65–84.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/naturalistic-inquiry/book842

Mailani, E., & Nurhayati. (2022). Kesiapan guru sekolah dasar dalam mengintegrasikan teknologi digital pada pembelajaran matematika. Jurnal Basicedu, 6(2), 2345–2356. https://doi.org/10.31004/basicedu.v6i3.2831

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en

Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2020). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311413609

Priestley, M., Biesta, G. J. J., & Robinson, S. (2021). Teacher agency: An ecological approach (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.

Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 186–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1052663

Rusydiyah, E. F., Purwati, E., & Prabowo, A. (2021). How do we use digital literacy as a learning resource for teacher candidates in Indonesia? Cakrawala Pendidikan, 40(1), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v40i1.30865

Sanjaya, R., Erlyna, B., & Puspitasari, F. (2021). Kesiapan guru dalam mengimplementasikan kurikulum berbasis kompetensi di era revolusi industri 4.0. Jurnal Pendidikan Karacter, 11(2), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.21831/jpk.v11i2.39765

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387

Stake, R. E. (2010). The art of case study research. SAGE Publications.

Sumirattana, S., Makanong, A., & Thipkong, S. (2021). Using realistic mathematics education and the DAPIC problem-solving process to enhance secondary school students' mathematical literacy. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 38(3), 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2016.06.001

Supriatna, N., Hendarwati, E., & Komalasari, K. (2022). Integrasi mata pelajaran IPA dan IPS dalam Kurikulum Merdeka: Peluang dan tantangan bagi guru sekolah dasar. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 28(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.17977/um048v28i12022p1

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

Tout, D., Coben, D., Geiger, V., Ginsburg, L., Hoogland, K., Maguire, T., Thomson, S., & Turner, R. (2022). Review of the PIAAC numeracy assessment framework: Final report. Australian Council for Educational Research.

Wardani, S., & Rumiati, R. (2020). Instrumen penilaian hasil belajar matematika SD: Belajar dari PISA dan TIMSS. Pusat Pengembangan dan Pemberdayaan Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan Matematika.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.