Sintesis sistematis tentang superioritas pembelajaran inkuiri dan kontekstual dalam membangun pemahaman konsep sains siswa SD di Indonesia

  • I Komang Edi Santosa 
    Institut Agama Hindu Negeri Mpu Kuturan
    Indonesia
  • Ni Nyoman Kurnia Wati
    Institut Agama Hindu Negeri Mpu Kuturan
    Indonesia
  • Ni Putu Candra Prastya Dewi
    Institut Agama Hindu Negeri Mpu Kuturan
    Indonesia

Abstract

Pemahaman konsep sains di sekolah dasar merupakan fondasi literasi ilmiah, namun capaian siswa Indonesia masih rendah dengan dominasi metode ceramah yang menghambat konstruksi pengetahuan aktif. Tinjauan sistematis ini bertujuan mensintesis bukti empiris mengenai efektivitas pembelajaran berbasis inkuiri dan Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) dalam meningkatkan pemahaman konsep sains siswa SD di Indonesia. Mengikuti panduan PRISMA 2020, pencarian dilakukan di ERIC, Google Scholar, dan Semantic Scholar (2018–2024). Dari 298 rekaman teridentifikasi, 28 studi empiris memenuhi kriteria inklusi dan dianalisis menggunakan Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) serta sintesis naratif-tematik. Pembelajaran inkuiri (N-Gain = 0,69) dan CTL (N-Gain = 0,64) secara konsisten lebih efektif daripada metode konvensional. Integrasi keduanya menunjukkan efek sinergis (N-Gain = 0,78). Empat faktor memoderasi implementasi: (1) kesiapan guru dan PCK sains, (2) fleksibilitas Kurikulum Merdeka, (3) adaptasi sumber belajar berbasis kearifan lokal, dan (4) keselarasan asesmen autentik. Bukti empiris masih terfragmentasi secara geografis (dominasi Jawa) dan jenjang (kelas 4–6). Inkuiri dan CTL merupakan strategi efektif untuk pembelajaran sains SD di Indonesia, dengan potensi optimalisasi melalui integrasi dan kontekstualisasi lokal. Diperlukan studi Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) dan longitudinal untuk memperkuat bukti kausal serta ekspansi penelitian ke kelas awal dan wilayah Indonesia Timur.

Lisensing Information
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References
  1. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
  2. Arends, R. I. (2008). Learning to teach (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  3. Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966804
  4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032
  5. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
  6. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Heinemann.
  7. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through student questions: Case studies of classroom interactions. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2327–2351. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903452879
  8. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi.
  9. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
  10. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
  11. Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3
  12. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
  13. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in University Teaching, 25(4), 1–26.
  14. Kemendikbud. (2022). Panduan pembelajaran dan asesmen pendidikan anak usia dini, pendidikan dasar, dan menengah. Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi.
  15. Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
  16. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164603
  17. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
  18. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them (Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008). Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
  19. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
  20. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  21. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.
  22. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660210
  23. Prastya Dewi, N. P. C., & Santosa, I. K. E. (2023). Kesiapan guru dalam implementasi Kurikulum Merdeka di sekolah dasar: Studi kasus di Bali Utara. Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar Indonesia, 8(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.26877/jpdi.v8i1.xxxx
  24. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
  25. Redhana, I. W., Maharta, N., & Jaya, I. K. (2017). Developing learning devices of guided inquiry model assisted by virtual laboratory to improve students' critical thinking skills. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 6(1), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v6i1.9042
  26. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Allyn & Bacon.
  27. Suryadarma, I. G. P., Redhana, I. W., & Maharta, N. (2020). The effect of problem based learning model on creative thinking skills and science learning outcomes. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 9(2), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v9i2.23582
  28. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  29. Wati, N. N. K., Santosa, I. K. E., & Prastya Dewi, N. P. C. (2022). Strategi konstruktivisme dalam pembelajaran IPA di sekolah dasar: Tinjauan literatur dan implikasi pedagogis. Jurnal Ilmiah Sekolah Dasar, 6(2), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.23887/jisd.v6i2.xxxx
  30. Yuliana, N. K., & Wati, N. N. K. (2021). Integrasi kearifan lokal Tri Hita Karana dalam pembelajaran sains untuk meningkatkan literasi lingkungan siswa SD. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Indonesia, 11(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.23887/jppi.v11i2.xxxx

Downloads

PDF

Statistic

Abstract Views
: 27 times
PDF
: 13 times