Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 317 Download : 126

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Mathematical literacy stands as a critical skill imperative for navigating the complexities of the 21st century. Enhancing students' mathematical literacy necessitates comprehensive engagement across the educational landscape. This aligns with the Guru Penggerak (GP) initiative, established by the government to serve as educational leaders, propelling the entire educational system forward. Nonetheless, the current GP program needs more specific provisions addressing mathematical literacy, and the existing learning environments for mathematical literacy remain constrained. Consequently, there is a pressing need to develop a dedicated mathematical literacy learning environment within the GP framework. This study endeavors to create a mathematically literate learning environment that is both valid and practical, potentially impacting the GP program significantly. Employing a design research approach, the study progresses through three key stages: preliminary, prototyping, and assessment. Seven teachers participated as subjects, using data collection methodologies including walkthroughs, observations, questionnaires, and interviews, which were analyzed descriptively. Findings indicate the development of a model for a mathematical literacy learning environment termed D-C-C with the LEPscO framework, which is deemed valid due to its alignment with the PISA framework, Indonesian educational curriculum, and unambiguous language. Moreover, the model proves practical for implementation within the GP program, exhibiting potential effects such as enhanced teacher satisfaction, learning, organizational support, and utilization of new knowledge, alongside improved student outcomes reflecting heightened mathematical literacy proficiency. This research contributes to educational discourse by introducing the LEPscO Framework, encompassing a Digital-Class-Community learning environment, structured learning processes encompassing training, classroom implementation, knowledge sharing, and community development, and targeted learning outcomes focusing on teachers' comprehension and reinforcement of mathematical literacy in education.

Keywords

Design Research Guru Penggerak Learning Environment LEPscO Mathematical Literacy

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite
Gustiningsi, T., Putri, R. I. I., Zulkardi, & Hapizah. (2024). LEPscO: Mathematical literacy learning environment for the Guru Penggerak program. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(2), 661–682. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i2.pp661-682
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Atase Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan KBRI Singapura. (2021). Bagaimana Singapura menghasilkan guru berkualitas tinggi [How Singapore produces high-quality teachers]. Atase Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan KBRI Singapura.
  2. Bakker, A. (2019). Design research in education: A practical guide for early career researchers. Routledge.
  3. Bautista, A., Wong, J., & Gopinathan, S. (2015). Teacher professional development in Singapore: Depicting the landscape. Psychology, Society and Education, 7(3), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v7i3.523
  4. Boman, B. (2020). What makes Estonia and Singapore so good? Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8(3), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1701420
  5. Chung, J. (2016). The (mis)use of the Finnish teacher education model: ‘Policy-based evidence-making’? Educational Research, 58(2), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2016.1167485
  6. Dewantara, A. H., Zulkardi, & Darmawijoyo. (2015). Assessing seventh graders’ mathematical literacy in solving PISA-like tasks. Journal on Mathematics Education, 6(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.6.2.2163.117-128
  7. Ekawati, R., Susanti, S., & Chen, J.-C. (2020). Primary students’ mathematical literacy: A case study. Infinity Journal, 9(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v9i1.p49-58
  8. Fauziah, A., Putri, R. I. I., Zulkardi, & Somakim. (2020). Developing PMRI learning environment through lesson study for pre-service primary school teacher. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(2), 193-208. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.2.10914.193-208
  9. Fianto, F. (2018). Literasi numerasi dalam pengembangan klub STEAM dan wirausaha di sekolah [Numeracy literacy in STEAM club development and entrepreneurship in schools]. Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah, Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
  10. Goos, M., Geiger, V., Dole, S., Forgasz, H., & Bennison, A. (2020). Numeracy across the curriculum. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003116585
  11. Guskey, T. R. (2016). Gauge impact with 5 levels of data. Journal of Standards and Development, 37(1), 32–37. https://learningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/february-2016-jsd.pdf#page=34
  12. Gustiningsi, T. (2015). Pengembangan soal matematika model PISA untuk mengetahui kemampuan berpikir kritis matematis siswa kelas VII [Developing PISA model math questions to determine the mathematical critical thinking skills for seventh grade students]. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika RAFA, 1(1), 139–158. https://openrecruitment.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/jpmrafa/article/view/1228/1021
  13. Gustiningsi, T., Putri, R. I. I., Zulkardi, & Hapizah. (2022a). Identifikasi lingkungan belajar literasi matematika untuk guru [Identification of math literacy learning environment for teachers]. Histogram: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 6(2), 333–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.31100/histogram.v6i2.2425
  14. Gustiningsi, T., Putri, R. I. I., Zulkardi, & Hapizah. (2022b). Secondary mathematics teachers’ ability in solving PISA-like mathematics problems. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2577(1), 0096217. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0096217
  15. Gustiningsi, T., & Somakim. (2021). Pengembangan soal matematika tipe PISA level 5 konteks pribadi [Developing PISA-type math problems level 5 personal contexts]. Aksioma: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 10(2), 915–926. https://dx.doi.org/10.24127/ajpm.v10i2.3535
  16. Höfer, T., & Beckmann, A. (2009). Supporting mathematical literacy: Examples from a cross-curricular project. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0117-9
  17. Hwang, J., Choi, K. M., Bae, Y., & Shin, D. H. (2018). Do teachers’ instructional practices moderate equity in mathematical and scientific literacy?: An investigation of the PISA 2012 and 2015. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 25-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9909-8
  18. Juan, S. H., Ting, I. W. K., Kweh, Q. L., & Yao, L. (2018). How does knowledge sharing affect employee engagement? Institutions and Economies, 10(4), 49–67. https://juku.um.edu.my/index.php/ijie/article/view/13445/8427
  19. Kemendikbud. (2017a). Materi pendukung literasi numerasi [Numeracy literacy support materials]. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. https://gln.kemdikbud.go.id/glnsite/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/cover-materipendukung-literasi-numerasi-gabung.pdf
  20. Kemendikbud. (2017b). Modul penyusunan soal Higher Order Thinking Skill (HOTS) [Higher Order Thinking Skill (HOTS) question preparation module]. Direktorat Pembinaan SMA, Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  21. Kemendikbud. (2021). Panduan penguatan literasi dan numerasi di sekolah [Guidelines for strengthening literacy and numeracy in schools]. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan
  22. Kemendikbud. (2022). Strategi pengembangan komunitas belajar guru dan kepala sekolah untuk mendukung implementasi kurikulum merdeka [Strategies for developing teacher and principal learning communities to support the implementation of an independent curriculum]. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan
  23. Kemendikbudristek. (2022). Buku panduan capaian hasil asesmen nasional [Guidebook for national assessment results]. Pusat Asesmen Pendidikan Kemdikbudristek. https://pusmendik.kemdikbud.go.id/
  24. Lestari, Y., As’ari, A. R., & Muksar, M. (2021). Analysis of students’ mathematical literacy skill in solving PISA mathematical problems. MaPan, 9(1), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.24252/mapan.2021v9n1a7
  25. Mansyur, A. R. (2021). Wawasan kepemimpinan guru (teacher leadership) dan konsep guru penggerak [Insights into teacher leadership and the concept of teacher mobilizers]. Education and Learning Journal, 2(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.33096/eljour.v2i2.113
  26. Meroni, E. C., Vera-Toscano, E., & Costa, P. (2015). Can low skill teachers make good students? Empirical evidence from PIAAC and PISA. Journal of Policy Modeling, 37(2), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2015.02.006
  27. Msimanga, M. R. (2020). Teaching and learning in multi-grade classrooms: The LEPO framework. Africa Education Review, 17(3), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2019.1671877
  28. Mu, J., Peng, G., & Love, E. (2008). Interfirm networks, social capital, and knowledge flow. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 86-100. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270810884273
  29. Nortvedt, G. A., & Wiese, E. (2020). Numeracy and migrant students: A case study of secondary level mathematics education in Norway. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 52, 527–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01143-z
  30. Novita, R., & Herman, T. (2021). Digital technology in learning mathematical literacy: Can it helpful? Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1776(1), 012027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1776/1/012027
  31. OECD. (2003). Learning for tomorrow’ s world first results from PISA 2003. OECD Publishing.
  32. OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do-student performance in mathematics, reading and science. OECD Publishing.
  33. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results. OECD Publishing.
  34. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 insight and interpretations. OECD Publishing.
  35. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I). OECD Publishing.
  36. Pasaloran, O. (2019). Teori Stewardship: Tinjauan konsep dan implikasinya pada akuntabiitas organisasi sektor public [Stewardship Theory: A review of the concept and its implications for public sector organizational accountability]. Jurnal Bisnis dan Akuntansi, 3(2), 419-432. https://doi.org/10.34208/jba.v3i2.518
  37. Perkins, D. N. (2013). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage?. In Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 45-55). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203461976
  38. Phillips, R., McNaught, C., & Kennedy, G. (2010). Towards a generalised conceptual framework for learning: The Learning Environment, Learning Processes, and Learning Outcomes (LEPO) framework. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual World Conference on Educational Multimedia Hypermedia Telecommunications Toronto Canada 28 June–2 July, 2495–2504.
  39. Phillips, R., McNaught, C., & Kennedy, G. (2019). The Learning Environment, Learning Processes, and Learning Outcomes (LEPO) framework. In Evaluating e-Learning (pp. 23-42). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813362-3
  40. Piper, B., Simmons Zuilkowski, S., Dubeck, M., Jepkemei, E., & King, S. J. (2018). Identifying the essential ingredients to literacy and numeracy improvement: Teacher professional development and coaching, student textbooks, and structured teachers’ guides. World Development, 106, 324-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.01.018
  41. Putri, R. I. I., & Zulkardi. (2020). Designing PISA-like mathematics task using Asian games context. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(1), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.1.9786.135-144
  42. Rahayu, P. T., & Putri, R. I. I. (2020). Project-based mathematics learning: Fruit salad recipes in junior high school. Journal on Mathematics Education, 12(1), 181-198. https://doi.org/10.22342/JME.12.1.13270.181-198
  43. Rieckman, M. (2018). Key themes in education for sustainable development. In Issues and trends in education for sustainable development (pp. 61-84). UNESCO.
  44. Rushby, N., & Surry, D. W. (2016). The Wiley handbook of learning technology. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118736494
  45. Rusiyanti, R. H., Zulkardi, Putri, R. I. I., & Somakim. (2022). Developing RME-based lesson study for learning community in the learning environment of high school mathematics teachers. Journal on Mathematics Education, 13(3), 499–514. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v13i3.pp499-514
  46. Sahlberg, P. (2011). PISA in Finland: An education miracle or an obstacle to change? Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1(3), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.418
  47. Satriawan, W., Santika, I. D., Naim, A., Tarbiyah, F., Raya, B., Selatan, L., Timur, L., Bakoman, A., & Panggung, P. (2021). Guru penggerak dan transformasi sekolah [Guru Penggerak and schools transformation]. Al-Idarah: Jurnal Kependidikan Islam, 11(1), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.24042/alidarah.v11i1.7633
  48. Smith, W. M., Lawler, B. R., & Bowers, J. (2017). Introducing mathematical literacy PDSAs into a partnership team. Association of Public and Land-grant Universities.
  49. Soh, K. (2014). Finland and Singapore in PISA 2009: Similarities and differences in achievements and school management. Compare, 44(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.787286
  50. Stacey, K. (2011). The PISA view of mathematical literacy in Indonesia. Journal on Mathematics Education, 2(2), 95–126. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.2.2.746.95-126
  51. Stacey, K., & Turner, R. (2015). Assessing mathematical literacy: The PISA experience. In Assessing mathematical literacy: The PISA experience. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10121-7
  52. Supriyati, Y., & Muqorobin. (2021). Mixed model Cipp dan Kickpatrick sebagai pendekatan evaluasi program pengembangan kompetensi guru berbasis kebutuhan peningkatan kemampuan asessement literasi-numerasi (Cilapp model dalam evaluasi program) [Mixed model of Cipp and Kickpatrick as a program evaluation approach for need-based teacher competency development to improve literacy-numeracy assessment skills (Cilapp model in program evaluation)]. Jurnal Ilmiah Mandala Education, 7(1), 203–223.
  53. Susanti, E., & Syam, S. S. (2017). Peran guru dalam meningkatkan kemampuan literasi matematika siswa Indonesia [The role of teachers in improving the mathematical literacy skills of Indonesian students]. Seminar Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika UNY. http://seminar.uny.ac.id/semnasmatematika/sites/seminar.uny.ac.id.semnasmatematika/files/full/M-41.pdf
  54. Swan, M., & Swain, J. (2010). The impact of a professional development programme on the practices and beliefs of numeracy teachers. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098771003695445
  55. Tonga, F. E., Eryiğit, S., Yalçın, F. A., & Erden, F. T. (2022). Professional development of teachers in PISA achiever countries: Finland, Estonia, Japan, Singapore, and China. Professional Development in Education, 48(1), 88-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1689521
  56. Van den Akker, J., Bannan, B., Kelly, A. E., Nieveen, N., & Plomp, T. (2007). An introduction to educational design research. SLO.
  57. Widjaja, W. (2011). Towards mathematical literacy in the 21st century: Perspectives from Indonesia. Southeast Asian Mathematics Education Journal, 1(1), 75-84. https://doi.org/10.46517/seamej.v1i1.12
  58. Wijaya, A. (2016). Students’ information literacy: A perspective from mathematical literacy. Journal on Mathematics Education, 7(2), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.22342/jome.v7i2.3532
  59. Wijaya, A., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Doorman, M. (2015a). Opportunity to learn context-based tasks provided by mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89, 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9595-1
  60. Wijaya, A., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Doorman, M. (2015b). Teachers’ teaching practices and beliefs regarding context-based tasks and their relation with students’ difficulties in solving these tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27, 637–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0157-8
  61. Wium, A.-M., & Louw, B. (2012). Continued professional development of teachers to facilitate language used in numeracy and mathematics. South African Journal of Communication Disorders, 59(1), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajcd.v59i1.17
  62. Wong, K., Kapoor, V., Tso, A., OConnor, M., Convissar, D., Kothari, N., & Traba, C. (2021). Environments, processes, and outcomes - using the LEPO framework to examine medical student learning preferences with traditional and electronic resources. Medical Education Online, 26(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2021.1876316
  63. Zulkardi. (2002). Developing a learning environment on Realistic Mathematics Education for Indonesian student teacher. Thesis. University of Twente, Enschede.
  64. Zulkarnain, I., Hidayanto, T., & Kamaliyah. (2021). Students mathematical literacy in solving wetlands contextual problems. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1760(1), 012044. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1760/1/012044

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2