Evaluation of Science curriculum: A literature study

Amsal Alhayat; Zainal Arifin

doi:10.17509/jik.v20i2.58887

Evaluation of Science curriculum: A literature study

Amsal Alhayat, Zainal Arifin

Abstract

The goals and roles of education are reflected in the implementation outlined through a series of curriculum plans. Science as a learning program also has a curriculum that serves as a reference for its performance in the classroom. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the science curriculum to determine the achievement of the established goals, considering various aspects within it. Hence, this research aims to describe the factors that need to be considered in evaluating the science curriculum as a learning program. The research method used is Systematic Literature Review (SLR), which involves the initial stage of identifying the keywords "Evaluation of Science Curriculum" and synthesizing the results of the analysis to arrive at a general conclusion. The research findings indicate that evaluating the science curriculum needs to consider several important factors, including assessing the learning objectives, alignment with standards, relevance to students' lives, instructional effectiveness, availability of resources, stakeholder involvement, and curriculum renewal and development. However, empirical evidence is still needed to support the complexity of this research. A suggestion is to conduct similar research using the Delphi method to obtain better parameters and standards for evaluating the science curriculum by incorporating expert perspectives.

Abstrak

Tujuan dan peran pendidikan tercermin dalam pelaksanaan yang dituangkan melalui serangkaian rencana kurikulum pembelajaran. IPA sebagai program pembelajaran juga memiliki kurikulum yang menjadi acuan dalam penyelenggaraannya di kelas. Seyogyanya kurikulum IPA tersebut perlu dilakukan evaluasi guna mengetahui ketercapaian dari tujuan yang telah ditetapkan dengan memperhatikan berbagai aspek yang ada di dalamnya. Oleh karena itu, tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mendeskripsikan hal-hal yang perlu diperhatikan dalam mengevaluasi kurikulum IPA sebagai program pembelajaran. Metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu Sistematika Literatur Review (SLR) dengan tahapan yang diawali dengan identifikasi kata kunci “Evaluasi Kurikulum IPA” hingga sintesis hasil analisis untuk mendapati kesimpulan secara general. Hasil penelitian diperoleh bahwa dalam melakukan evaluasi kurikulum IPA perlu mempertimbangkan beberapa hal penting, yakni bahwa evaluasi tersebut melibatkan penilaian terhadap tujuan pembelajaran, kesesuaian dengan standar, relevansi dengan kehidupan siswa, efektivitas pembelajaran, ketersediaan sumber daya, keterlibatan stakeholder, dan pembaruan dan pengembangan kurikulum. Namun, masih dibutuhkan hasil empiris untuk mendukung kekompleksitasan penelitian ini, seperti dibutuhkan penelitian senada dengan metode delphi, hal ini dimaksudkan agar dapat memperoleh parameter dan standar evaluasi kurikulum IPA yang lebih baik dengan mempertimbangkan pandangan ahli.

Kata Kunci: Evaluasi kurikulum; Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam (IPA); kurikulum Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam (IPA)

Keywords

Curriculum evaluation; Science; Science curriculum

Full Text:

Download PDF (Bahasa Indonesia)

References

Almanasreh, E., Moles, R., & Chen, T. F. (2019). Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 15(2), 214-221.

Arlinwibowo, J., Retnawati, H., & Kartowagiran, B. (2021). How to integrate STEM education in the Indonesian curriculum? A systematic review. Challenges of science, 4, 18-25.

Atmaja, K. J., & Wijaya, I. N. S. W. (2019). Pengembangan sistem evaluasi kinerja dosen (e-kuesioner) STMIK STIKOM Indonesia. JST (Jurnal Sains dan Teknologi), 8(1), 55-64.

Barrow, D., & Delisle, J. (2010). Evaluation of some teachers' concerns and levels of use of the lower secondary SEMP science curriculum in Trinidad and Tobago. Caribbean Educational Research Journal, 2(1), 3-16.

Bichi, A. A., Hafiz, H., & Abdullahi, S. (2017). Evaluating secondary school students’ science achievement: Implication for curriculum implementation. International Journal for Social Studies, 3(1), 113-121.

Burmeister, M., Rauch, F., & Eilks, I. (2012). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and Chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(2), 59-68.

Cansiz, N., & Cansiz, M. (2019). Evaluating Turkish science curriculum with PISA scientific literacy framework. Turkish Journal of Education, 8(3), 217-236.

Chabalengula, V. M., & Mumba, F. (2012). Inquiry-based science education: A scenario on Zambia's high school science curriculum. Science Education International, 23(4), 307-327.

Chiang, C. L., & Lee, H. (2016). The effect of project-based learning on learning motivation and problem-solving ability of vocational high school students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(9), 709-712.

Colwill, I., & Gallagher, C. (2007). Developing a curriculum for the twenty-first century: The experiences of England and Northern Ireland. Prospects, 37(4), 411-425.

Duruk, U., Akgun, A., Dogan, C., & Gulsuyu, F. (2017). Examining the learning outcomes included in the Turkish science curriculum in terms of science process skills: A document analysis with standards-based assessment. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 12(2), 117-142.

Erişen, Y., Gürültü, E., & Bildik, C. (2018). Evaluation of digital competence by information technology teachers in Turkey in the context of 21st century skills and the quality framework of Ministry of Education. European Journal of Education Studies, 4(7), 294-315.

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.

Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic reviews, 1(1), 1-9.

Haridza, R., & Irving, K. E. (2017). The evolution of Indonesian and American science education curriculum: A comparison study. Educare, 9(2), 95-110.

Hickey, D. T., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Cross, D. (2012). Assessment as learning: Enhancing discourse, understanding, and achievement in innovative science curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(10), 1240-1270.

Huang, S. Y., Kuo, Y. H., & Chen, H. C. (2020). Applying digital escape rooms infused with science teaching in elementary school: Learning performance, learning motivation, and problem-solving ability. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 1-48.

Janehilda, A., Inweregbuh, C., Mbonu, B., & Ndifon, O. (2022). Evaluation of teachers' implementation of curriculum content areas in junior secondary schools' science subject. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 14(2), 1189-120.

Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM education, 3(11), 1-11.

Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-549.

Krell, M., Koska, J., Penning, F., & Kruger, D. (2015). Fostering pre-service teachers' views about Nature of Science: Evaluation of a new STEM curriculum. Research in Science and Technological Education, 33(3), 344-365.

Kusumawati, P. R. (2020). Evaluasi pembelajaran IPA model discovery learning menggunakan model countenance stake. Literasi: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 11(1), 20-31.

Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2015). Post-graduate student performance in ‘supervised in-class’ vs.‘unsupervised online’multiple choice tests: implications for cheating and test security. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(7), 883-897.

Lewthwaite, B., & Fisher, D. (2014). The development and validation of primary science curriculum delivery evaluation questionnaire. International Journal of Science Education, 27(5), 593-606.

Lukum, A. (2015). Evaluasi program pembelajaran IPA SMP menggunakan model countenance stake. Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 19(1), 25-37.

Magdalena, I., Mulyani, F., Fitriyani, N., & Delvia, A. H. (2020). Konsep dasar evaluasi pembelajaran sekolah dasar di SD Negeri Bencongan 1. Pensa, 2(1), 87-98.

Ogunkola, B. J. (2011). Science teachers' and students' perceived difficult topics in the integrated science curriculum of Lower Secondary Schools in Barbados. World Journal of Education, 1(2), 17-29.

Park, K., & Park, H. J. (2020). A comparative analysis of South and North Korean earth science curriculum using the TIMSS 2019 eight grade earth science evaluation framework. Journal Korean Earth, Sci. Soc., 41(3), 261-272.

Purwaningsih, E., & Muslikh, M. (2022). Kampus merdeka dalam pengembangan UMKM (suatu model kolaboratif partisipatif). Nusantara: Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, 9(8), 2731-2740.

Purwanto, A. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic and home online learning system: Does it affect the quality of pharmacy school learning?. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(8), 524-530.

Roblin, N., Schunn, C., & McKenney, S. (2017). What are critical features of science curriculum materials that impact student and teacher outcomes?. Science Education, 102(2), 260-282.

Rohmat, A. N., & Lestari, W. (2019). Pengaruh konsep diri dan percaya diri terhadap kemampuan kemampuan berpikir kritis matematis. JKPM (Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan Matematika), 5(1), 73-84.

Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science education, 88(2), 263-291.

Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2010). 21st-century’ skills. American Educator, 17(1), 17-20.

Sabara, R., & Hamid, A. (2022). Pengembangan model pembelajaran PAI berbasis blended learning pasca pandemi COVID-19. Geneologi PAI: Jurnal Pendidikan Agama Islam, 9(1), 74-84.

Septikasari, R., & Frasandy, R. N. (2018). Keterampilan 4C abad 21 dalam pembelajaran pendidikan dasar. Tarbiyah Al-Awlad: Jurnal Kependidikan Islam Tingkat Dasar, 8(2), 107-117.

Stern, L., & Roseman, J. E. (2004). Can middle-school science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum evaluation study: Life science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 538-568.

Tabany, M. R., & Guy, C. G. (2014, June). An end-to-end QoS performance evaluation of VoLTE in 4G E-UTRAN-based wireless networks. International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Communications, 10, 90-97.

Triandini, E., Jayanatha, S., Indrawan, A., Putra, G. W., & Iswara, B. (2019). Metode systematic literature review untuk identifikasi platform dan metode pengembangan sistem informasi di Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Information Systems, 1(2), 63-77.

Ulger, K. (2018). The effect of problem-based learning on the creative thinking and critical thinking disposition of students in visual arts education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12(1), 1-19.

Wei, B., & Ou, Y. (2019). A comparative analysis of junior high school science curriculum standards in Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao: Based on revised Bloom's Taxonomy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 1459-1474.

Yao, J., & Guo, Y. (2018). Core competences and scientific literacy: The recent reform of the school science curriculum in China. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1913-1933.

Yusof, A., Hassan, Z. F., Rahman, S., & Ghouri, A. M. (2012). Educational service quality at public higher educational institutions: A proposed framework and importance of the sub-dimensions. International Journal of Economics Business and Management Studies, 1(2), 36-49.

Zainur, Z., & Gazali, N. (2019). Evaluation of the “Program Pusat Pembinaan dan Latihan Olahraga Pelajar Daerah (PPLPD)” of Riau. Active: Journal of Physical Education, Sport, Health, and Recreation, 8(1), 1-8.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/jik.v20i2.58887