Improving Interpersonal Intelligence Regarding Social Sensitivity Through the CTL Method in Social Studies Learning

Nurdiansyah Nurdiansyah, Wina Mustikaati, Primanita Sholihah Rosmana, Muhammad Nurfitrian

Abstract


     With the development of the times, marked by changes in social life, students’ social sensitivity has decreased, including at the basic education level. On the other hand, the importance of developing 21st-century competencies encourages changes in the learning process (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009). Achieving 21st-century competency goals requires development within the learning process, particularly by enhancing soft skills. Developing students’ soft skills, combined with the Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) method, is a solution to the problem of social sensitivity among students at SD Islam Cendekia. In this context, it is necessary to conduct research to measure students’ social sensitivity using the CTL learning method. The research uses a quantitative, experimental approach, with data collected via Likert-scale instruments to measure students’ social sensitivity. The instrument data obtained is then analyzed using descriptive statistics. Based on the data obtained and analyzed, there is a significant 19% increase in their social sensitivity attitude after CTL implementation.


Keywords


Interpersonal intelligence; CTL method; social studies learning; social sensitivity

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alamer, A., & Almaghlouth, S. (2024). Autonomous single-language interest predicts vocabulary achievement: A latent growth curve model approach—International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 0.

Ciolan, L., & Manasia, L. (2024). Picturing innovation in higher education: A photovoice study of innovative pedagogies. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14697874241245350.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. Routledge.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., and Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.

Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage Publications Limited.

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic books.

Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam.

Hammond, M., and Wellington, J. (2019). Education research: The basics. Routledge.

Johnson, E. B. (2002). Contextual teaching and learning: What it is and why it’s here to stay. Corwin Press.

Lau, D. C.-M. (2001). Analysing the curriculum development process: Three models. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 9(1), 29–44.

Lederman, N. G., & Abell, S. K. (2014). Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2). Routledge, New York.

Pendidikan, D. (2011). Undang-Undang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional. Jakarta: Pustaka Belajar.

Rao, N. (2020). Outcome-based education: An outline. Higher Education for the Future, 7(1), 5–21.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/md.v22i1.96391

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Purwakarta Campus
Jl. Veteran No. 8. Purkawarta
West Java, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]

Metodik Didaktik: Jurnal Pendidikan Ke-SD-an © 1999 by Jane Doe is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International