Duwi Nuvitalia, Ernawati Saptaningrum, Sunan Baedhowi

UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, ART, AND MATHEMATICS (STEAM) IN PGSD STUDENTS OF PGRI UNIVERSITY SEMARANG

Introduction

Understanding of science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics (steam) in pgsd students of pgri university semarang. Explore PGSD students' understanding of STEAM learning at Universitas PGRI Semarang. This study reveals varying levels of comprehension among future primary school teachers.

Abstract

This study aims to describe the understanding of Primary School Teacher Education (PGSD) students regarding Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics (STEAM) learning. The research data were collected from PGSD students at Universitas PGRI Semarang using questionnaires and interviews. A total of 50 students enrolled in the Environmental Education course participated as respondents in this study. The students were given questionnaires and interviewed to obtain data on their understanding of STEAM. The results showed that the understanding of STEAM among PGSD students at Universitas PGRI Semarang could be categorized into five levels: very good understanding (SM), good understanding (M), fair understanding (CM), poor understanding (TM), and very poor understanding (STM). The findings revealed that 46% of students demonstrated a very good understanding of STEAM, 26% had a good understanding, 24% had a fair understanding, 2% had a poor understanding, and 2% had a very poor understanding of STEAM.

Review

The study, titled "UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, ART, AND MATHEMATICS (STEAM) IN PGSD STUDENTS OF PGRI UNIVERSITY SEMARANG," addresses a pertinent topic in contemporary education: the understanding of STEAM among pre-service primary school teachers. The aim to describe PGSD students' comprehension of STEAM learning is clear and relevant, particularly given the growing emphasis on integrated approaches in elementary education. The authors employed a mixed-methods approach, utilizing questionnaires and interviews with 50 students enrolled in an Environmental Education course at Universitas PGRI Semarang. The findings indicate a generally positive picture, with a substantial majority (46% very good, 26% good, 24% fair) demonstrating a satisfactory to strong understanding of STEAM, although a small percentage (4%) showed poor or very poor understanding. This initial assessment provides a useful baseline for the institution to gauge its students' preparedness in this crucial area. While the study offers valuable descriptive data, several aspects could benefit from further elaboration and methodological refinement to enhance its robustness and generalizability. The abstract mentions the use of questionnaires and interviews, but details regarding the development, validity, and reliability of these instruments are absent. Understanding the specific nature of the questions asked would provide greater insight into what "understanding of STEAM" truly entails in this context. Furthermore, the categorization of understanding into five levels (very good to very poor) is presented, but the explicit criteria used to define each level are not detailed. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to fully interpret the reported percentages. The sample size of 50 students from a single, specific course (Environmental Education) raises questions about the representativeness of the findings for all PGSD students at the university, let alone broader populations. The potential influence of the Environmental Education course content on STEAM understanding is also not discussed. To strengthen future iterations of this research, it is recommended that the authors provide a more detailed account of their methodology, including the psychometric properties of their data collection instruments and the explicit rubrics or criteria used for categorizing student understanding. Expanding the sample to include students from various courses or cohorts within the PGSD program would improve the generalizability of the findings. More importantly, the discussion could benefit from a deeper qualitative analysis of the interview data, exploring *what specific aspects* of STEAM are well-understood or challenging for students, rather than just their overall category. This would offer actionable insights for curriculum developers and educators. Finally, the paper could greatly benefit from a dedicated discussion of the implications of these findings for teacher training, curriculum development, and pedagogical practices within the PGSD program, outlining how the observed levels of understanding can be leveraged or addressed to better prepare future primary school teachers.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.