skip to main content

STEM-Blended Learning Regarding Earthquake Disaster: Prospective Teachers Perception

*Didit Ardianto  -  Universitas Pakuan, Indonesia
Bibin Rubini  -  Universitas Pakuan, Indonesia
Indarini Dwi Pursitasari  -  Universitas Pakuan, Indonesia
Indriyani Rachman scopus  -  The University of Kitakyushu, Japan

Citation Format:

This study aims to determine student teacher perceptions of the implementation of STEM-Blended learning. The subjects involved in this study consisted of 25 4th semester students in the elementary school teacher program. The instruments used include closed questionnaires and open questionnaires. The results showed that students gave a positive attitude towards scientific and engineering practices in the lecture process. In addition, they are also very motivated to create a prototype design that integrates STEM

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: STEM education; blended learning; environmental disaster

Article Metrics:

  1. Afriana, J., Permanasari, A., Fitriani, A. 2016. Project based learning integrated to stem to enhance elementary school’s students scientific literacy. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia 5(2), 261–267
  2. Badan Pusat Statistik. 2012. Analisis Statistik Sosial Bonus Demografi dan Pertumbuhan Ekonomi. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik
  3. Becker, K., Park, K. 2011. Effect of integrative approaches among science, technology, rekayasa, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education 12, 23-37
  4. Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R., Pickard, P. 2003. Using blended learning to improve student success rates in learning to program. Journal of Educational Media 28(2–3), 165–178
  5. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., Rogers, C. 2008. Advancing rekayasa education in P-12 classroom. Journal of rekayasa Education 97(3), 369-387
  6. Bybee, R. W. 2013. The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunity. Arlington, VI: National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Press
  7. Dinsmore, D., Alexander, P., Loughlin, S. 2008. The impact of new learning environments in an rekayasa design course. Instructional Science, 36(5/6), 375–393
  8. Firman, H. 2015. Pendidikan STEM. In Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pendidikan IPA dan PKLH, Universitas Pakuan (pp. 1–9)
  9. Graham, C. R. 2004. Blended learning systems: definition, current trends, and future directions. Dalam C. J. Bonk, & C. R. Graham (Penyunting), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs hal. 3–21. Zurich: Pfeiffer Publishing
  10. Garrison, D., Kanuka, Heather. 2004. Blended Learning: Uncovering Its Transformative Potential in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education 7, 95-105
  11. Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., Harwell, M., Moreno, M. 2016. STEM integration in Middle School Life Science: student learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology 25(4), 550-560
  12. Han, S., Capraro, R., Capraro, M. M. 2014. Differently : The impact of student factors. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education
  13. Koszalka, T. A., Wu, Y., Davidson, B. 2007. Instructional design issues in a cross-institutional collaboration within a distributed rekayasa educational environment. World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education
  14. Lawanto, O., Santoso, H.B., Yang, L. 2012. Understanding the relationship between interest and expectancy for success in rekayasa design activity in grades 9–12. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 15(1), 152–161
  15. Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L. 2009. Learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society 12(4), 282–293
  16. Lou, S.‐J., Chou, Y.‐C., Shih, R.‐C., Chung, C.‐C. 2017. A study of creativity in CaC2 steamship‐derived STEM project based learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 13(6), 2387–2404
  17. National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
  18. National STEM Education Center. 2014. STEM education network manual. Bangkok: The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology
  19. O’Toole, J. M., Absalom, D. J. 2003. The impact of blended learning on student outcomes: is there room on the horse for two?. Journal of Educational Media 28(2–3), 179–190
  20. Osguthorpe, T. R., Graham, R. C. 2003. Blended learning environments. Quarterly. Review of Distance Education 4(3), 227–233
  21. Tam, M. 2000. Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: implications for transforming distance learning. Educational Technology and Society 3(2), 50–60
  22. Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C., Lou, S. J., Chen, W. P. 2013. Attitudes towards science, technology, rekayasa and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education: 23(1), 87–102
  23. Stohlmann, M. S., Moore, T. J., Cramer, K. 2013. Preservice elementary teachers’ mathematical content knowledge from an integrated STEM modelling activity. Journal of Mathematical and Application 1(8), 18-31
  24. Voos, R. 2003. Blended learning: What is it and where might it take us?. Sloan-C View 2(1), 2–5
  25. Wagner, T. P., Mccormick, K., Martinez, D. M. 2015. Fostering STEM literacy through a tabletop wind turbine environmental science laboratory activity. Journal Environmental Study of Science

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2024-05-27 09:29:45

No citation recorded.