Bagaimana perbandingan kurikulum 2013 dengan kurikulum Australia pada mata pelajaran IPA?

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30738/natural.v7i1.8117

Keywords:

Kurikulum 2013, Kurikulum Australia, Pembelajaran IPA

Abstract

Permasalahan pendidikan di Indonesia terutama bidang pelajaran IPA sangat memprihatinkan. Hasil survei yang dilakukan oleh PISA dan TIMSS memberikan gambaran bahwa posisi peserta didik di Indonesia masih berada dalam rangking bawah dengan skor rata-rata yang rendah. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk (1) membandingkan secara filosofis antara kurikulum Indonesia dengan kurikulum di Australia; (2) membandingkan konten pembelajaran IPA di Indonesia dan Australia dalam perspektif kurikulum; dan (3) membandingkan kendala pembelajaran IPA di Indonesia dan Australia dalam perspektif kurikulum. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif yang bersifat studi pustaka (library research). Teknik pengumpulan data memakai dokumentasi, dan dianalisis secara deskriptif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa (1) secara filosofis, Kurikulum 2013 di Indonesia cenderung berbasis budaya dan agama, sedangkan kurikulum Australia cenderung mengembangkan cara berpikir dan intelektual; (2) konten materi pada Australian Curriculum: Science penekanannya pada ilmu bumi dan ruang angkasa, sedangkan Kurikulum 2013 pada sistem tubuh manusia; dan (3) kendala dalam pembelajaran IPA pada Kurikulum 2013 adalah kurangnya konten sains, guru belum kompeten dalam membelajarkan sains integratif, hasil TIMSS dan PISA rendah, dan kurangnya literasi ilmiah, sedangkan pada Australian Curriculum: Science dimensi spiritual, moral, dan budaya belum dimasukkan.

 

The problem of education in Indonesia, especially in science lessons, is very concerning. The results of the survey conducted by PISA and TIMSS show that students in Indonesia are still in the lower ranks with low average scores. This study aims to (1) philosophically compare the Indonesian Curriculum with the Australian Curriculum; (2) analyzing the content of science learning in Indonesia and Australia based on a curriculum perspective; and (3) comparing science learning problems based on a curriculum perspective. This research uses a qualitative approach through a literature study. The data collection technique used documentation, which was analyzed descriptively. The results show that (1) philosophically, the 2013 curriculum in Indonesia tends to be based on culture and religion, while the Australian Curriculum tends to develop a way of thinking and intellectuals; (2) the material contained in the Australian Curriculum focuses on earth and space sciences, while the Indonesian Curriculum is on the human body systems; and (3) the obstacles in learning science in the Indonesian Curriculum are the lack of science content, teachers mostly not yet competent in teaching integrated science, low TIMSS and PISA results, and a lack of scientific literacy, whereas in the Australian Curriculum the spiritual, moral, and cultural dimensions have not included.

Author Biographies

Anggit Grahito Wicaksono, Universitas Slamet Riyadi

Program Studi Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan

Ika Candra Sayekti, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta

Program Studi Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar

Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan

References

Abell, S. K., Appleton, K., & Hanuscin, D. L. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of research on science education. New York: Routledge.

ACARA. (2012). Australian curriculum. Sydney: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.

Barr, A., Gillard, J., Firth, V., Scrymgour, M., Welford, R., Lomax-Smith, J., & Constable, E. (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Carlton South Victoria, 3053, Australia : Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.

Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2010). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools: developing fundamental knowledge and skills 7 (Vol. 105). London: Pearson Education Inc.

Danandjaja, J. (2014). Metode Penelitian Kepustakaan. Antropologi Indonesia. (52), 82-92. https://doi.org/10.7454/ai.v0i52.3318

Fensham, P. J. (2016). The future curriculum for school science: What can be learnt from the past?. Research in science education, 46(2), 165-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9511-9

Hewitt, P. G., Lyons, S., Suchocki, J., & Yeh, J. (2013). Conceptual integrated science. San Francisco : Pearson.

Hidayat, T., Rochintaniawati, D., & Priscylio, G. (2019). Manakah yang lebih mengembangkan HOTS, Kurikulum 2013 atau Cambridge Curriculum?. Natural: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan IPA, 6(2), 69-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.30738/natural.v6i2.5862

Kemdikbud. Dokumen kurikulum 2013. , (2012).

Kemdikbud. Ilmu pengetahuan alam buku guru. , (2013).

Kemdikbud. Kompetensi dasar sekolah dasar/madrasah ibtidaiyah. , (2013).

Kemdikbud. Kompetensi dasar sekolah menengah atas/madrasah aliyah. , (2013).

Kemdikbud. Kompetensi dasar sekolah menengah pertama/madrasah tsanawiyah. , (2013).

Michie, M. (2017). Comparing the Indonesian kurikulum 2013 with the Australian curriculum: Focusing on science for junior secondary schools. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 16(2), 83-96. https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/IEJ/article/view/11031/11183

Michie, M. (2019). Perbandingan kurikulum 2013 Indonesia dengan kurikulum Australia dengan fokus pada ilmu pengetahuan alam. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan, 19(2): 257 – 268. https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/JER/article/view/19770

NSTA. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: National Academy.

Nuh, M. (2013). Pengembangan kurikulum 2013. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Nurutami, A., & Setyawan, F. (2019). Kemampuan literasi matematika siswa berdasarkan konten PISA. Wacana Akademika: Majalah Ilmiah Kependidikan, 3(1), 11-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.30738/wa.v3i1.3216

OECD. (2012). Database: PISA 2012. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Prihantoro, C. R. (2015). The perspective of curriculum in Indonesia on environmental education. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 4(1), 77-83. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2014.915

Rahmawati. (2016). Hasil TIMSS 2015: Trend in international mathematics and science study. Jakarta: Puspendik Kemdikbud.

Ramli, M. (2014). Science educators attitudes toward the new thematic integrated curriculum in Indonesia. Edusains, 6(1), 73-86. https://doi.org/10.15408/es.v6i1.1102

Rebawa, J. (2015). Studi komparasi implementasi kurikulum KTSP dengan kurikulum 2013 mapel pendidikan agama Islam pada kajian standar kompetensi tahun pelajaran 2013/2014. Doctoral dissertation. Salatiga: IAIN Salatiga.

Sulichah, E. (2018). Efektivitas model pembelajaran mind mapping terhadap hasil belajar IPA ditinjau dari motivasi belajar siswa. Natural: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan IPA, 5(2), 71-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.30738/natural.v5i2.2965

Sun, D., Wang, Z. H., Xie, W. T., & Boon, C. C. (2014). Status of integrated science instruction in junior secondary schools of China: An exploratory study. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 808-838. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.829254

Sund, R. B., & Carin, A. A. (2010). Teaching science through discovery. Columbus: Charles E. Merill.

Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M. (2015). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Trefil, J., & Hazen, R. M. (2016). The sciences: An integrated approach. United States of America: John Wiley & Sons.

Wiltshire, K. W., & Donnelly, K. (2014). Review of the Australian curriculum. Australia: Australian Government Department of Education.

Zhang, H., & He, H. (2012). Student perceptions of the integrated ‘science education’major in some Chinese universities. International Journal of Science Education, 34(13), 1991-2013. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.709332

Published

2020-08-30

How to Cite

Wicaksono, A. G., & Sayekti, I. C. (2020). Bagaimana perbandingan kurikulum 2013 dengan kurikulum Australia pada mata pelajaran IPA?. Natural: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan IPA, 7(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.30738/natural.v7i1.8117

Issue

Section

Artikel

Citation Check