Peran Matematika dalam Pendidikan STEM: Tinjauan Literatur Sistematis tentang Integrasi Kurikulum dan Pendekatan Pedagogis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25139/smj.v13i2.10599Abstract
Abstract
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education is increasingly becoming a major fokus in education, with the goal of equipping students with 21st-century skills. Mathematics serves as a foundation in STEM, supporting conceptual understanding in science and engineering. However, the integration of mathematics into the STEM curriculum remains a challenge, such as teacher readiness, curriculum flexibility, and the availability of supporting media and technology. This Systematic Literature Review (SLR) aims to examine the latest developments and future directions of STEM education with a fokus on curriculum integration and pedagogical approaches involving mathematics. This study uses the PRISMA approach, selecting 48 articles from the Scopus database that are relevant to this topic. The results show that manipulative tools (concrete and virtual), interdisciplinary approaches, and educational technology play a significant role in the successful integration of mathematics into STEM. The main contribution of this study is to provide a thematic map of trends, approaches, and challenges in integrating mathematics, as well as suggesting directions for further research to develop adaptive and collaborative STEM learning models.
Keywords: Mathematics Integration, Pedagogical Approach, STEM Education.
Abstrak
Pendidikan STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) semakin menjadi fokus utama dalam dunia pendidikan, dengan tujuan membekali siswa dengan keterampilan abad ke-21. Matematika berperan sebagai fondasi dalam STEM, mendukung pemahaman konsep dalam bidang sains dan teknik. Namun, integrasi matematika dalam kurikulum STEM masih menjadi tantangan, seperti kesiapan guru, fleksibilitas kurikulum, serta ketersediaan media dan teknologi pendukung. Kajian Sistematis Literatur (SLR) ini bertujuan untuk menelaah perkembangan terbaru dan arah masa depan pendidikan STEM dengan fokus pada integrasi kurikulum dan pendekatan pedagogis yang melibatkan matematika. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan PRISMA, dengan memilih 48 artikel dari database Scopus yang relevan dengan topik ini. Hasil menunjukan bahwa alat bantu manipulatif (konkret dan virtual), pendekatan interdisipliner, serta teknologi pendidikan memainkan peran penting dalam keberhasilan integrasi matematika dalam STEM. Kontribusi utama penelitian ini adalah memberikan peta tematik terkait tren, pendekatan dan tantangan dalam integrasikan matematika, serta menyarankan arah fokus penelitian selanjutnya untuk mengembangkan model pembelajaran STEM yang adaptif dan kolaboratif.
Kata Kunci: Integrasi matematika, Pendekatan Pedagogis, Pendidikan STEM
References
M. Goos, S. Carreira, and I. K. Namukasa, “Mathematics and interdisciplinary STEM education: recent developments and future directions,” ZDM - Math. Educ., vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 1199–1217, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11858-023-01533-z.
C. A. Thomas, R. Q. Berry, and R. Sebastian, “Examining the elements of culturally relevant pedagogy captured and missed in a measure of high-quality mathematics instruction,” ZDM - Math. Educ., Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11858-024-01595-7.
T. Bolstad, I. M. Høyvik, L. Lundheim, M. Nome, and F. Rønning, “Study programme driven engineering education: interplay between mathematics and engineering subjects,” Teach. Math. its Appl., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 329–344, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1093/teamat/hrac010.
K. J. Carbonneau, R. M. Wong, and N. Borysenko, “The influence of perceptually rich manipulatives and collaboration on mathematic problem-solving and perseverance,” Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 61, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101846.
S. K. Cheung, W. W. L. Chan, and J. L. Y. Kwan, “An investigation into the concreteness of manipulatives in mathematical instruction: Do the object and its label matter?,” Early Child. Res. Q., vol. 65, pp. 275–283, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.07.005.
E. Rzyankina, F. George, and Z. Simpson, “Enhancing Conceptual Understanding in Engineering Mathematics Through E-Textbooks,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 534–541, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TE.2024.3387102.
C. D. O’Rear, E. L. Zippert, P. Ehrman, L. Westerberg, C. J. Lonigan, and D. J. Purpura, “Use them or lose them: Are manipulatives needed to assess numeracy and geometry performance in preschool?,” Infant Child Dev., vol. 32, no. 5, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1002/icd.2444.
S. S. Pratt, “Area models to image integer and binomial multiplication,” Investig. Math. Learn., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 85–105, 2018, doi: 10.1080/19477503.2017.1375352.
C. Naroth and K. Luneta, “Implementing the Singapore mathematics curriculum in South Africa: Experiences of foundation phase teachers,” African J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 267–277, 2015, doi: 10.1080/10288457.2015.1089675.
K. K. D. Liburd and H. Y. Jen, “Investigating the effectiveness of using a technological approach on students’ achievement in mathematics–case study of a high school in a Caribbean country,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 10, May 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13105586.
T. White, “Artifacts, Agency and Classroom Activity: Materialist Perspectives on Mathematics Education Technology,” Cogn. Instr., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 169–200, 2019, doi: 10.1080/07370008.2019.1578775.
K. Corum and J. Garofalo, “Using Digital Fabrication to Support Student Learning,” 3D Print. Addit. Manuf., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 50–55, Jun. 2015, doi: 10.1089/3dp.2015.0008.
I. Jones, M. Bisson, C. Gilmore, and M. Inglis, “Measuring conceptual understanding in randomised controlled trials: can comparative judgement help?”
L. - and M. Suryani, “Metode SLR untuk Mengidentifikasi Isu-Isu dalam Software Engineering,” SATIN - Sains dan Teknol. Inf., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2018, doi: 10.33372/stn.v3i1.347.
G. Mutaqin, F. P. Admaja, M. H. Devi, and M. A. Yaqin, “Survei Metode Penilaian Resiko Proyek Menggunakan System Literature Review ( SLR ),” vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 346–350, 2022.
H. S. Siller and S. Ahmad, “The Effect of Concrete and Virtual Manipulative Blended Instruction on Mathematical Achievement for Elementary School Students,” Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ., Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s42330-024-00336-y.
E. Saparbayeva, M. Abdualiyeva, Y. Torebek, N. Madiyarov, and A. Tursynbayev, “Leveraging digital tools to advance mathematics competencies among construction students,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2319436.
N. K. Al Farra, S. Belbase, H. Tairab, A. Qablan, M. P. Opoku, and S. K. Safi, “Impact of using virtual and concrete manipulatives on students’ learning of fractions,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2379712.
M. Cutumisu, K. Garn, and R. J. Spiteri, “Assessing Numerical Analysis Performance with the Practi Mobile App,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 4, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14040404.
J. Franco Seguí, Á. Alsina, and C. Vásquez, “Teaching Statistics for Sustainability across Contexts: Exploring the Knowledge and Beliefs of Teachers,” Sustain., vol. 16, no. 2, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.3390/su16020692.
T. Evans and I. Jeong, “Concept maps as assessment for learning in university mathematics,” Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 475–498, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10649-023-10209-0.
J. Watson, N. Fitzallen, and B. Kelly, “Interpolation and extrapolation in Year 5 STEM activities: exploring data about viscosity without advanced statistics,” Math. Educ. Res. J., Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s13394-023-00473-x.
E. A. Flaherty et al., “Teaching Mammalogy in the 21st century: advances in undergraduate education,” J. Mammal., vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 655–666, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1093/jmammal/gyac121.
R. Wakhata, V. Mutarutinya, and S. Balimuttajjo, “Secondary school students’ attitude towards mathematics word problems,” Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun., vol. 9, no. 1, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01449-1.
A. M. Donovan and E. Fyfe, “Connecting concrete objects and abstract symbols promotes children’s mathematics learning,” Jun. 21, 2019. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/ye2j6.
T. Vessonen, A. Hakkarainen, E. Väisänen, A. Laine, P. Aunio, and J. C. Gagnon, “Differential Effects of Virtual and Concrete Manipulatives in a Fraction Intervention on Fourth and Fifth Grade Students’ Fraction Skills,” Investig. Math. Learn., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 323–337, 2021, doi: 10.1080/19477503.2021.1982586.
P. Friederich, M. Krenn, I. Tamblyn, and A. A. Guzik, “Scientific intuition inspired by machine learning-generated hypotheses,” Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol., vol. 2, no. 2, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1088/2632-2153/abda08.
S. Küchemann et al., “Inventory for the assessment of representational competence of vector fields,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 17, no. 2, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020126.
G. Yakubova, E. M. Hughes, and B. B. Chen, “Teaching students with ASD to solve fraction computations using a video modeling instructional package,” Res. Dev. Disabil., vol. 101, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103637.
L. Bassette et al., “A Comparison of Manipulative Use on Mathematics Efficiency in Elementary Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder,” J. Spec. Educ. Technol., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 179–190, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1177/0162643419854504.
H. P. Osana, E. Adrien, and N. Duponsel, “Effects of instructional guidance and sequencing of manipulatives and written symbols on second graders’ numeration knowledge,” Educ. Sci., vol. 7, no. 2, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.3390/educsci7020052.
N. Fang and Y. Guo, “Interactive computer simulation and animation for improving student learning of particle kinetics,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 443–455, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1111/jcal.12145.
E. R. Fyfe, N. M. McNeil, and S. Borjas, “Benefits of ‘concreteness fading’ for children’s mathematics understanding,” Learn. Instr., vol. 35, pp. 104–120, Feb. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.004.
S. Li and L. Fan, “Using social network analysis to investigate mathematical connections in U.S. and Chinese textbook problems,” Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun., vol. 11, no. 1, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-02991-w.
F. Abakah and D. Brijlall, “Finding an Effective Assessment Approach to Enhance the Teaching and Learning of Circle Geometry,” Africa Educ. Rev., 2024, doi: 10.1080/18146627.2024.2402772.
A. I. Mørch, E. E. Flø, K. T. Litherland, and R. Andersen, “Makerspace activities in a school setting: Top-down and bottom-up approaches for teachers to leverage pupils’ making in science education,” Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact., vol. 39, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100697.
A. R. English, K. Tyson, A. Hintz, D. Murdoch, and J. Anderson, “Pedagogical listening: understanding how teachers listen to student struggle during mathematical sense-making discussions,” Teach. Teach. Theory Pract., 2023, doi: 10.1080/13540602.2023.2263738.
C. Finesilver, “Beyond categories: dynamic qualitative analysis of visuospatial representation in arithmetic,” Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 271–290, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10649-021-10123-3.
L. Xu and C. Mesiti, “Teacher orchestration of student responses to rich mathematics tasks in the US and Japanese classrooms,” ZDM - Math. Educ., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 273–286, May 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11858-021-01322-6.
M. van Dijke-Droogers, P. Drijvers, and A. Bakker, “Statistical modeling processes through the lens of instrumental genesis,” Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 235–260, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10649-020-10023-y.
J. Rodway, S. MacGregor, A. Daly, Y. H. Liou, S. Yonezawa, and M. Pollock, “A network case of knowledge brokering,” J. Prof. Cap. Community, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 148–163, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1108/JPCC-11-2020-0089.
B. Gleason and S. Manca, “Curriculum and instruction: pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning with Twitter in higher education,” Horiz., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1–8, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1108/OTH-03-2019-0014.
M. Askew, “Multiplicative reasoning: teaching primary pupils in ways that fokus on functional relations,” Curric. J., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 406–423, 2018, doi: 10.1080/09585176.2018.1433545.
D. Mavani, B. Mavani, and M. Schäfer, “A Case Study of Two Selected Teachers as they Integrated Dynamic Geometry Software as a Visualisation Tool in Teaching Geometry,” African J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 297–307, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1080/18117295.2018.1522716.
I. Resnick, A. Davatzes, N. S. Newcombe, and T. F. Shipley, “Using Relational Reasoning to Learn About Scientific Phenomena at Unfamiliar Scales,” Mar. 01, 2017, Springer New York LLC. doi: 10.1007/s10648-016-9371-5.
D. Brijlall and C. Niranjan, “Using manipulatives to support an embodied approach to learning trigonometry in a south african school: a case study,” Africa Educ. Rev., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 361–380, Jul. 2015, doi: 10.1080/18146627.2015.1110893.
E. Lankeit and R. Biehler, “The meaning landscape of the concept of the total derivative in multivariable real analysis textbooks: an analysis based on a new model of meaning,” ZDM - Math. Educ., 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11858-024-01584-w.
J. A. Bowman, J. McDonnell, J. H. Ryan, and O. Fudge-Coleman, “Effective Mathematics Instruction for Students With Moderate and Severe Disabilities: A Review of the Literature,” Dec. 01, 2019, SAGE Publications Inc. doi: 10.1177/1088357619827932.
R. Satsangi and B. Miller, “The case for adopting virtual manipulatives in mathematics education for students with disabilities,” Prev. Sch. Fail., vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 303–310, 2017, doi: 10.1080/1045988X.2016.1275505.
Z. C. K. Hawes, K. A. Gilligan-Lee, and K. S. Mix, “Effects of Spatial Training on Mathematics Performance: A Meta-Analysis,” Dev. Psychol., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 112–137, 2022, doi: 10.1037/dev0001281.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Jurnal Ilmiah Soulmath by http://ejournal.unitomo.ac.id/index.php/mipa is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.Â
