Available online at http://journal.uny.ac.id/index.

php/jrpm

Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika 7 (2), 2020, 178–194

Development of trigonometry learning kit with a STEM approach to

improve problem-solving skills and learning achievement
Aulia Nur Arivina 1, a, *, Jailani 2, b
1
Masters Program in Mathematics Education, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
Jalan Colombo No 1, Karangmalang, Yogyakarta 55821, Indonesia
2
Department of Mathematics Education, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
Jalan Colombo No 1, Karangmalang, Yogyakarta 55821, Indonesia
E-mail: a [email protected], b [email protected]
* Corresponding Author

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history This study aimed to produce the trigonometry learning kit for tenth-grade high
Received: 13 Oct. 2020 school students using the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Revised: 16 Nov. 2020 Mathematics) approach properly. This study was development research using
Accepted: 16 Dec. 2020 the ADDIE model, which consisted of five stages, namely Analysis, Design,
Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. This study’s subjects were
Keywords tenth-grade high school students (n = 32) in Semarang, Indonesia. Data collec-
learning kit, STEM tion was carried out through questionnaires and tests. To assess the learning
approach, learning kit’s validity, we used a questionnaire with the expert (mathematics education
achievement, problem- lecturers) as data sources. To assess the learning kit's practicality, we used the
solving skill questionnaire (with teacher and student as data sources) and observation
sheets. We used a test to assess the learning kit's effectiveness in terms of
problem- solving skills and learning achievement. This development resulted
in the trigo- nometry learning kit in the form of lesson plans or Rencana
Pelaksanaan Pem- belajaran (RPP) and worksheets or Lembar Kegiatan
Peserta Didik (LKPD) using the STEM approach properly (meet the criteria of
being valid, practical, and effective). The learning kit characteristics were:
facilitating problem-sol- ving skills and learning achievement, using problems
related to Science, Tech- nology, Engineering, and Mathematics, and
organizing based on Engineering Design Process (EDP) steps.
This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license.

How to Cite: Arivina, A. N., & Jailani, J. (2020). Development of trigonometry learning kit with a STEM
approach to improve problem-solving skills and learning achievement. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika,
7(2), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.21831/jrpm.v7i2.35063

INTRODUCTION
The 21st-century competition requires Human Resources to be competent in science,
technology, engineering design, and mathematics (Milaturrahmah et al., 2017). Trilling and Fadel
(2009) state that 21st-century skills demand competent human resources in learning and innovation
skills; information, media, and technology skills; and life and career skills. High school graduates
should be proficient in the dimensions of science and technology (Ministry of Education and Culture,
2016a, p. 4). Hence, every individual must master not only one discipline. Learning uses the STEM
approach in line with the expectations of the Curriculum 2013 regarding proficiency standards for
secondary school graduates and 21st-century requirements. STEM combines some or all of the four
disciplines from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics with real-world problems (Dare et
al., 2018, p. 1). Torlakson (2014, p. 7) states that implementing STEM's objectives includes the need
for the nation to increase the number of STEM experts to encourage innovation and keep a
country competitive in the global

https://doi.org/10.21831/jrpm.v7i2.35063 [email protected]
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
179

Table 1. The percentage of senior high school students who answer the math examination correctly
in Semarang City in 2019
Program
Test Topic Science Social Language
Algebra 56.23 46.27 43.91
Calculus 44.43 32.07 -
Geometry and Trigonometry 44.16 27.29 42.98
Statistics 45.44 46.94 44.07
economy. The research results by Syukri et al. (2013, p. 105), which integrates STEM in learning
science in elementary and middle schools, show that learning can increase achievement and interest in
learning. Table 1 indicates that the geometry and trigonometry test material obtained the lowest
percentage compared to other test materials (Centre for Educational Assessment, n.d.). The number of
indicators algebra, calculus, geometry, trigonometry, and statistics is 14, 9, 3, 4, and 10, respectively.
Three indi- cators on the trigonometry test material had a percentage of students who answered,
correct less than 55%. Those indicators include (1) determining the value of a trigonometry ratio in
various quadrants,
(2) determining a graphical image of a trigonometry function, (3) solving contextual problems related
to the sine and cosine rules, and (4) solving problems related to the cosine rule. Sterling (2014, p. 1)
states that trigonometry forms the basis for many mathematics subjects - starting in elementary school
with geometric shapes such as reading a map and continuing through calculus.
One indicator of questions on the trigonometry test material is solving contextual questions
related to the sine and/or cosine rules. The problem is to determine the distance between bollards A
and C if a triangular plot of land with each vertex is given boundary poles A, B, and C, the distance
between the poles A and B is 300 m, 𝑚∠𝐴𝐵𝐶 = 45°, and 𝑚∠𝐵𝐶𝐴 = 60°. The Computer-Based
National Exami- nation problem on the trigonometry test material has used contextual problems.
However, the percentage of students who answered mathematics problems correctly in the Computer-
Based National Examina- tion in the 2018/2019 academic year on geometry and trigonometry test
material is still low. Based on the results of students’ errors analysis in finishing a problem-solving
test in trigonometry topic, students have errors in choosing what method or formula to used to solve
the problem and do not understand the method or formula is chosen, students do not use all the
information provided on the questions that affect the wrong result (Wahyuni & Widayanti, 2020, p.
85). Using the sine rule in the real context, students already understand the meaning of this picture.
However, they cannot write it in the form of completion, so that students find it difficult to determine
what trigonometry formula is used to solve the problem (Komala et al., 2020, p. 47).
Students’ low competence in mastering the material shows student learning achievement, which
is also low (Hijrihani & Wutsqa, 2015, pp. 2–3). Learning achievement is useful for quantifying the
accomplishment and quality of learning. Dahal (2019, p. 77) states that achievement means the status
of the accomplishment of all tasks or goals. According to Slameto (2010, p. 55), the level of learning
achievement is influenced by two factors: internal and external. Internal factors include physical
factors, psychological factors, and fatigue factors, while external factors include family factors, school
factors, and community factors. External factors that come from schools are influenced by teachers’
skill to deliver material, the availability of supporting facilities and infrastructure, or the use of a
learning kit. One effort that needs to be considered to improve student learning achievement is through
innovative learning models that align with learning objectives and the curriculum (Sidabutar, 2016, p.
10). Learning achievement assessment is needed to determine which students have good abilities or
skills (Podomi & Jailani, 2015, p. 63).
According to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000, p. 29), students
must have mathematical skill standards: problem-solving, reasoning and proof, communication,
connec- tion, and representation. One of the skills that students must master is problem-solving skill.
Problem- solving skills are proficiency or potentials that students have to solve problems and apply
them in every- day life (Gunantara et al., 2014, p. 5). Chabibah et al. (2019, p. 208) state that students’
problem-solving skills can be trained by increasing problem-solving activities in mathematics
learning. Students can practice problem-solving through the use of everyday problems in learning
activities (Suryaningtyas, 2017, pp. 207–208). Nitko and Brokhart (2011, p. 186) state that problem-
solving skills are not needed if the procedure to achieve a goal is well known to students.
Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan
Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
180

Non-routine problem-solving strategies that arise during the learning process encourage students
to think deeply about mathematical concepts related to the given problem (Wisniarti & Sugiman,
2018,
p. 1). The problem-solving skill of Indonesian students is low, it is seen from the 2012 PISA results
(OECD, 2014, p. 19), the difference in score per unit index of openness to problem-solving, Indonesia
scored 7, while the OECD average of other countries was 31. Students’ mathematical problem-solving
can be trained and developed when the teacher can choose approaches, models, methods, or
appropriate learning strategies and follow the material, situations, and conditions of students in
learning (Siregar et al., 2018, pp. 464–465).
A learning kit is a form of preparation made by the teacher before carrying out the learning
process (Tamba et al., 2019, p. 2). The key tasks involved in classroom teaching can usefully be
grouped under three main headings: ‘planning’, ‘presentation and monitoring’, and ‘reflection and
evaluation’ (Kyriacou, 2009, p. 86). Moon et al. (2002, p. 54) state that effective teachers are very
systematic in preparing and implementing each lesson. The learning kit developed in this study focus
on a lesson plan or RPP and worksheet or LKPD. RPP is a description of how the teacher directs
student learning acti- vities to achieve certain goals and functions as a framework to guide students to
these goals (Vdovina & Gaibisso, 2013, p. 58). Ormrod et al. (2017, pp. 442–443) state that the
preparation of RPP needs to consider several things from the students who will learn, namely the level
of development, previous knowledge, cultural background, and other special educational needs. There
are seven domains of lesson planning, namely: alignment with standards, appropriate learning
objectives, opening and warming up, learning activities, closings, methods for measuring student
understanding, instructional support for various students (Lim et al., 2018, p. 527). Besides RPP,
students also need LKPD in the learning process. LKPD, according to Choo et al. (2011, p. 520), is a
teaching kit that consists of a set of questions and information to guide the students to understand the
material when they work systematically. LKPD are written materials containing explanations that
guide activities that students will take in teaching any topic (İnan & Erkuş, 2017, p. 1373). Worksheets
can be useful in many ways in terms of academic achievement, as a supplement to textbooks, to add
information (Lee, 2014, p. 96).
Some teachers have used learning approaches or models that are tailored to the material being
studied by students. However, RPP and LKPD have not been prepared to improve certain skills and
have not used the STEM approach. STEM is suitable for Indonesia because STEM conforms to the
Curriculum 2013 as an applicable curriculum in Indonesia (Arlinwibowo et al., 2020, p. 608). The
STEM approach is an approach that combines two or more fields of science contained in STEM,
namely, Science, Technology, Engineering, dan Mathematics (Khoiriyah et al., 2018, p. 54). Learning
that integrates the STEM approach allows students to experience their learning process. The
knowledge they can absorb and store into memory longer, the students’ knowledge and understanding
are more signi- ficant because the results themselves and not only receive information (Suherman et
al., 2018, p. 2). Several STEM studies usually integrate the STEM approach with other learning
approaches or models such as STEM through Engineering Design Process (EDP) (Winarno et al.,
2020, p. 1346). An engi- neering design process integrates science, mathematics, and technology
(Jolly, 2017, p. 25). According to Jolly, the EDP steps consist of defining the problem, research,
imagine, plan, create, test and evaluate, redesign, and communicate.
Accessing STEM inspires students to think about its application in the real world (Roberts et al.,
2018, p. 8). The integrated STEM approach can motivate students to pursue careers in STEM and
increase their interest and performance in mathematics and science (Stohlmann et al., 2012, p. 32).
The STEM-based PBL learning model’s application can improve the problem-solving skills of XI
Science of MA Nasruddin Dampit (Amelia et al., 2019, p.15). Research conducted by Suherman et al.
(2018, p. 7) shows that students who get a STEM approach in learning have a better understanding of
trigonometry concepts than students who get conventional learning. It shows that students who get a
STEM approach better understand the trigonometry concept than those who receive conventional
learning. Furthermore, the integration approach among STEM has a positive effect on student
achievement (Becker & Park, 2011, p. 25). The STEM approach can further improve problem-solving
skills with an increase in N- gain of 0.67 in the moderate category (Lestari, 2019, p. 108).
Research related to the use of the STEM approach in learning is mostly found in science disci-
plines (Acar et al., 2018, Khoiriyah et al., 2018, Lestari, 2019, Lestari et al., 2018, Sarnita et al., 2019,
Syukri et al., 2013, Yaki et al., 2019). The following is research on STEM in mathematics. Previous
Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan
Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
180
research describes the integration of the STEM approach in quadrilateral material (Utami et al., 2018),

Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan

Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
181

linear program material (Amelia et al., 2019), and three-dimensional material (Bakhtiar et al., 2020).
Research Suherman et al. (2018) found out the increased comprehension of trigonometry concepts bet-
ween the students who received STEM learning, and the who received conventional learning. Their
research does not indicate that the learning kit’s quality is used and not oriented to specific skills.
Based on the background, learning with the STEM approach has many theoretical benefits,
espe- cially learning achievement and problem-solving skills. Wang et al. (2011, p. 2) stated that one
challenge of learning with the STEM approach is the lack of general instructions or examples for
teachers to teach using the classroom’s STEM approach. Therefore, the development of a learning kit
is needed. The development of a learning kit with the STEM approach is a form of support for the
demands of the 21st century that require competent human resources and following the expectations of
the Curriculum 2013 regarding the competency standards of high school graduates. Therefore,
trigonometry learning kit using the STEM approach is expected to be attractive alternative learning
kits and can improve problem- solving skills and learning achievement. Therefore, this study aimed to
produce a trigonometry learning kit for grade X SMA students using the STEM approach and describe
the quality of the developed learning kit in terms of validity, practicality, and effectiveness.

METHOD
This research was research and development (R & D). The R & D method was a research
method used to produce certain products or test their effectiveness (Sugiyono, 2015, p. 407).
Meanwhile, Gay et al. (2011, pp.17–18) defined research and development as the process of
researching and developing products to meet needs. There were many learning development models,
but the developing learning kit in this study was referred to as the ADDIE model (Molenda & Boling,
2008, p. 110). This model consists of five phases: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation,
and Evaluation. The study’s subjects were 32 students of tenth-grade in senior high school (SMA
Negeri 5 Semarang), Indonesia. They con- sisted of 13 boys and 19 girls with heterogeneous
characteristics. The research was conducted for seven meetings from April 2020 to May 2020. The
first meeting was held pretest, the next five meetings were conducted with learning, and the last
meeting was held posttest. In connection with the implementation of research during the COVID-19
pandemic, research activities were conducted online. The test was given using a Google Form while
learning uses WhatsApp and Google Meet media.
Data were collected through questionnaires and tests. The questionnaire was a non-test
instrument in the form of a set of questions, usually in written form and then given to respondents
(Retnawati, 2016,
p. 3). The questionnaire I was used to assessing the learning kit’s validity level with expert lecturers as
data sources. Questionnaire II was used to assess the practicality of the learning kit from teachers and
students. The test was used to measure the effectiveness of the learning kit. We convert quantitative
data into qualitative data based on Table 2 and Table 3 (Retnawati et al., 2017, pp. 127–128).
The learning kit’s quality was determined based on validity, practicality, and effectiveness
criteria (Nieveen, 1999, p. 127). According to Plomp and Nieveen (2010, p. 28), product quality was
said to be valid if it meets needs, the components were based on up-to-date knowledge (content
validity), and all components were consistent with each other (construct validity). According to Plomp
and Nieveen (2010, p. 28), product quality was practical if it made it easy for teachers and students to
use the product and follow the developer’s intent. According to Plomp and Nieveen (2010, p. 28), the
product’s quality was said to be effective if the results were achieved as desired. Normalized gain (N-
gain) as a measure of the effectiveness of a lesson (Hake, 1999) and was used to assess student
performance on the initial and final tests (Bao, 2006, p .917).
The learning kit’s validity was assessed using a questionnaire to choose a rating scale of 1 (not
good) to 5 (very good). The assessment of the RPP instrument’s validity consists of 32 items, and the
assessment of the validity of the RPP instrument consists of 26 items. The assessment aspects of RPP
validity were RPP identity, competence attainment indicators, learning objectives, the suitability of
ma- terial, learning activities, the suitability of media, or learning resources, assessment of learning
out- comes, and language use. The assessment aspects of LKPD validity were identity and guidance,
indi- cators and learning objectives, the suitability with learning achievement, the suitability with the
pro- blem-solving skill, the suitability of content and material, layout, language conformity, the
suitability of presentation component, and benefits of LKPD.

Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan

Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
182

Table 2. Category of validity

Component Interval Category
RPP 144 < X ≤ 160 Very good
128 < X ≤ 144 Good
112 < X ≤ 128 Fair
96 < X ≤ 112 Bad
X ≤ 96 Very bad
LKPD 117 < X ≤ 130 Very good
104 < X ≤ 117 Good
91 < X ≤ 104 Fair
78 < X ≤ 91 Bad
X ≤ 78 Very bad

Table 3. Category of practicality

Component Interval Category
Teacher’s response 85,5 < X ≤ 95 Very good
76 < X ≤ 85.5 Good
66.5 < X ≤ 76 Fair
57 < X ≤ 66.5 Bad
X ≤ 57 Very bad
Students’ response 45 < X ≤ 50 Very good
40 < X ≤ 45 Good
35 < X ≤ 40 Fair
30 < X ≤ 35 Bad
X ≤ 30 Very bad
The learning kit’s practicality was obtained from student assessment sheets, teacher assessment
sheets, and learning implementation sheets. The teacher assessed the RPP and LKPD practicality by
giving a checkmark on each statement’s item to choose a rating scale of 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good).
The practicality assessment of the RPP consists of ten items, and the practicality assessment of the
LKPD consists of nine items. Students assessed the LKPD practicality by giving a checkmark on each
statement’s item to choose a rating scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The LKPD
practicality assessment consists of ten items. Meanwhile, learning implementation observation results
were measured for each meeting, teacher activity, and student activity.
The effectiveness of the learning kit was measured using the problem-solving skills and learning
achievement test. N-gain was used to measure a lesson’s effectiveness (Hake, 1999) and assess
students’ performance on the initial and final tests (Bao, 2006, p.917). The level of N-gain (Hake,
1999) can be classified as follows, if g ≥ 0.7, then the resulting gain was in the high category; if 0.3 ≤
g < 0.7, then the resulting gain was in the medium category; and if g < 0.3, then the resulting gain was
in the low category. The problem-solving skill test consists of five essay questions, and the learning
achievement test consists of ten multiple-choice questions. Figure 1 and 2 was one item on each test.
The question was then measured for validity and reliability. Based on content validation by two
Mathematics Edu- cation lecturers from Yogyakarta State University, both tests were valid. The
problem-solving skill test has a reliability of 0.816 with a very high category, and the learning
achievement test has a reliability of 0.622 with a high category.
The learning kit was valid if each component meets the minimum good category, practical if it
meets the minimum good category, and the percentage of learning implementation at each meeting
was at least 80%, and effective if the N-gain was obtained at least moderate category.

Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan

Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
183

Test item: Translation:

Figure 1. Sample of learning achievement test item

Problem: Translation:
When designing a car that has a high speed, it
requires a front shape that can reduce friction with
the air and save fuel. The amount of air friction is
influenced by the coefficient of friction, the density
of the air, the relative velocity of the object to the
air, and the projected area of the object to the air
flow. The length of the windshields of cars A and B
is 60 cm, and the hood lengths of cars A and B are
70 cm. Meanwhile, the angle between the hood and
the windshield of car A is 135 ° and the angle
between the hood and the windshield of car B is 150
°. If the smaller the cross-sectional area, the lower
the air friction. Which car has lower air friction?

a. What information do you get about this problem?

b.Make an example for information (a)

Car windshield length =….
Hood length = ...

c. What is the cross-sectional area of each

car? The cross-sectional area of the car A =

The cross-sectional area of the car B =

d.Are you sure about answers (a), (b), and (c)? If

the smaller the cross-sectional area, the lower
the air friction. Which car has lower air friction?
...

Figure 2. Sample of problem-solving skill test item

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Description of Learning Kit
The learning kit developed is RPP and LKPD on trigonometry material. RPP components are
developed according to the Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture Number 22/2016
(Ministry of Education and Culture, 2016b, p. 6), consisting of (1) school identity, (2) subject identity,
(3) class/semester, (4) material principal, (5) allocation of time, (6) learning objectives, (7) basic
compe- tencies and competency achievement indicators, (8) learning materials, (9) learning methods,
(10) lear- ning media, (11) learning resources, (12) ) learning steps; and (13) assessment of learning
outcomes. The RPP is developed using the STEM approach, which theoretically can develop problem-
solving skills and learning achievement. RPP has several characteristics. First, structured to improve
problem-solving skills and learning achievement. It is characterized by identifying and understanding
problems, explo- ring possible strategies, using strategies, checking and evaluating the solutions
obtained. Second,

Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan

Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
184

Table 4. Examples of learning activities in the RPP (1)

No. Teacher activities Student activities
Define the Problem & Research:
18. Ask students to discuss a problem related to Identifying the information obtained from the
the sine rule, where an archaeologist is problem (Identifying and understanding the
crossing a rope tied to two cliffs (STEM). problem)
(See an example of the LKPD) The maximum rope tension is
7,8 × 102 𝑁
The mass of the archaeologist is 75 kg
Imagine:
19. Ask students to sketch the archaeologist’s Students sketch the archaeologist’s position
posi- tion against the rope attached to the two against the rope attached to the two cliffs if the
cliffs if the angle θ is 30°. angle θ is 30°.

Plan:
20. Ask students how to determine the rope tension Determine rope tension using the Lamy theo-
and minimum length of rope required. rem.

𝐴 𝐵 𝐶
= =
sin 𝛼 sin 𝛽 sin 𝛾𝛾
Determine the length of the rope required
using the sine rule, then the result is multiplied
by 2. (Exploring possible strategies)
𝑎 𝑏 𝑐
= =
sin 𝐴 sin 𝐵 sin 𝐶
Create
21. Ask students to determine rope tension. Determining rope tension (Using Strategy)
22. Ask students to calculate the minimum length Determine the minimum length of rope requi-
of rope required red (Using Strategy)
23. Invite students to compare the rope’s Answering that, what happens is the rope does
condition when the rope tension angle θ is 30° not break because the tension of the rope when
with the maximum rope tension. the angle θ is 30° is less than the maximum
ten-
sion of the rope.
Next, see Table 5.
learning activities use problems related to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.
Examples of learning activities in the RPP can be seen in Table 4 and Table 5.

Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan

Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
185

Table 5. Examples of learning activities in the RPP (2)

No. Teacher activities Student activities
Test and evaluate:
24. Ask students about the answers obtained. Is Double-check their answers and try other
there an answer or another way to solve the possible methods
problem?
Communicate:
26. Ask students to determine the minimum angle Calculate the minimum angle so that the rope
so that the rope does not break does not break, which is 28.7°
(Check and evaluate the solution obtained)
27. The teacher conducts the confirmation of the Make conclusions of these problems by
students’ responses by giving awards to each rechecking the work that has been done.
group of praise. (Check and evaluate the solution obtained)

Examples of learning activities in the LKPD (1)

Problem:
An archaeologist is crossing a rope stretched between two cliffs by moving his hands slowly alternately. He was righ

Figure 1. An archaeologist is crossing a rope between two cliffs Source: University Physics Book ()

Identifying and Understanding the Problem

What information do you get from the problems?

Exploring Possible Strategies

Sketch the archaeologist’s position against the rope attached to the two cliffs if the angle θ is 30°.

See the next page ...

Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan

Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
186

Examples of learning activities in the LKPD (2)

𝜽𝜽𝟑𝟑 𝐶
𝑇𝟏𝟏
𝜽𝜽𝟑𝟑′

𝜽𝜽𝟑𝟑 𝜽𝜽𝟐𝟐
𝜽𝜽𝟏𝟏 W 𝐴
𝜽𝜽𝟏𝟏′ Description:
𝜽𝜽𝟏𝟏 𝑇 : rope tension
𝑇𝟐𝟐 𝜽𝜽𝟐𝟐′ 𝜽𝜽𝟐𝟐 W : weight
𝐵

Figure 2 Figure 3
The three vectors 𝑇1, 𝑇2, 𝑑𝑎𝑛 W in Figure 2 and Figure 3 are parallel, so that we can draw a triangle
using these three vectors.
Pay attention to ∆ABC
Write the sine rule that applies to ∆ABC
… … … …. (1)
… = … =
…
Use straightened corners and angular relation
sin 𝜃𝜃 ′ = sin(180° − ⋯ ) = sin …
1
sin 𝜃𝜃 ′ = sin(180° − ⋯ ) = sin … (2)
′2
sin 𝜃𝜃 = sin(180° − ⋯ ) = sin …
3
Substitution (2) to equation (1)
…
=
…
=
… …. (3)
… …
…
Equation (3) can be used to calculate rope tension.

c. Write down the formula that will be used to determine the rope tension and the minimum length
of rope required:

Using Strategy
d. What is the minimum rope tension and length?

e. Based on the answer (d), what happened to the rope?

Checking and Evaluating the Solution Obtained

f. What is the minimum angle θ so that the rope does not break? (2𝑇 sin 𝜃𝜃 = W)

Are you sure all the answers are correct? Is there any other way to solve these problems? If
there is, write down how here:

CONCLUSION
a. If the angle θ is 30°, the tension on the rope is … N and the minimum length of rope
required is….
b. The minimum angle θ so that the rope does not break …°.

Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan

Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
187

Furthermore, the LKPD developed uses the STEM approach with EDP steps: define the
problem, research, imagine, plan, create, test and evaluate, redesign, and communicate. In defining the
problem step, a problem is presented, which should be solved by the students. Research, students will
collect information about the problem that may help them understand or resolve it. Imagine, students
will use what they have learned to consider many possible solutions to this issue. Plan, students will
choose a solution and plan for designing and resolving the problem. Create, student members will
design the solution. In the test and evaluate step, the student will test and evaluate their answer to see
if it successfully meets the criteria and accomplishes what it should. Redesign, if students find
mistakes in the process, they may return to the “Plan” or “Create” communication. Students will share
with one other and with the other teams during the lesson.
Eligibility of Learning Kit
The Validity of Learning Kit
The results of the RPP and LKPD assessments of each validator shown in Table 6 and Table 7.
Referring to Table 2, the two validators’ average number of RPP validity scores was 140 with a good
category (128 < X ≤ 144). Based on Table 6, the average score of the validity of the LKPD by the two
validators was 113.5, with a good category (104 < X ≤ 117). It can be concluded that the developed
RPP and LKPD was valid.
Table 6. The validity of the RPP
No. Validator Total score
1. I 150
2. II 130
Average 140
Category Good

Table 7. The validity of the LKPD

No. Validator Total score
1. I 124
2. II 103
Average 113.5
Category Good
Based on Table 6 and Table 7, it can be concluded that the learning kit is ready to be tested in
the field with some improvements according to input from the validator. Improvements to the RPP,
such as the placement of learning syntax, do not follow the learning stages, and indicators and
elements of the assessment section must be written in full. While the improvement on LKPD is adding
a cover to the LKPD and improving its appearance, some problems in the LKPD do not contain
questions and are only in the form of important information. Based on the results of the analysis of the
validity of the RPP and LKPD, it can be concluded that the trigonometry learning kit with the STEM
approach to improve learning achievement and problem-solving skills is valid. It indicates that the
learning kit is feasible and ready to be used for research.
The Practicality of Learning Kit
Based on Table 8, the total score of the practicality by the teacher was 93 in the very good
category (85.5 < X ≤ 95), and the average score of the 32 students was 40.5 in the good category (40 <
X ≤ 45). Table 9 shows that the average percentage of teacher’s activities during five meetings was
87.7%, and the average percentage of students’ activities during five meetings was 84.8%. The teacher
and students’
Table 8. The result of the teacher and students response questionnaire
No. Subject Component Total score Category
1. Teacher RPP 93 Very good
LKPD
2. Student LKPD 40.5 Good
Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan
Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
188

Table 9. Percentage of learning implementation observation results

1 2 3 4 5 Average
Teacher’s activity 90.9 80.9 95.7 81 90 87.7
Students’ activity 86.4 80.9 95.7 81 80 84.8
Average 88.6 80.9 95.7 81 85 86.2
responses meet the minimum good category, and the average percentage of learning implementation
has reached a minimum limit of 80%. Therefore, we can conclude that the trigonometry learning kit
using the STEM approach was practical.
The Effectiveness of Learning Kit
Based on Table 10, it can be seen that the increase in the mean of problem-solving skill is 67.47.
Before learning using the STEM approach, no students reached it completely, but after learning using
the STEM approach, 31 students reached it completely. The percentage of completeness of the
problem- solving skill test has increased by 96.9%. Based on Table 10, it can be seen that the increase
in the mean learning achievement is 34.06. Before learning using the STEM approach, only eight
students achieved completion, but after learning using the STEM approach, 26 students reached
completion. The percen- tage of completeness of the learning achievement test has increased by
56.25%.
Table 10. Description of problem-solving skill and learning achievement test
results
Problem-solving skill Learning achievement
Description Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Mean 14.09 81.56 40 74.06
Standard Deviation 10.30 5.37 20.64 13.41
Highest Score 33 100 70 90
Theoretical Highest Score 100 100 100 100
Lowest Score 0 69 10 40
Theoretical Lowest Score 0 0 0 0
The number of students who completed 0 31 8 26
The number of students 32 32 32 32
The percentage of completeness 0 96.9 25 81.25

The following is the calculation of the N-gain on the results of the learning achievement test:

Percentage of posttest scores – Percentage of pretest

g=
scores 100% – Percentage of pretest scores
74.06 – 40
g=
100 – 40
34.06
g=
60
g = 0.567
The following is the calculation of the N-gain on the results of the problem-solving skill test:
81.56 – 14.09
g=
100 – 14.09
72.7
g=
91.09
g = 0.785
The N-gain calculation on the learning achievement test results shows that the increase in
students’ achievement after learning using the STEM approach is in the moderate category. The N-gain
Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan
Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
189

calculation on the problem-solving skill test results shows that the increase in students’ problem-
solving skills after learning using the STEM approach is in the high category. Therefore, the learning
kit deve- loped to fulfill the effectiveness criteria is based on students’ problem-solving skills and
learning achievement.
Discussion
The trigonometry learning kit with the STEM approach is very valid, practical, and effective. It
indicates that the trigonometry learning kit developed is feasible to improve problem-solving and lear-
ning achievement. The LKPD used contains motivation that inspires students to learn and provides an
overview of the benefits of the material, and the problems used are everyday problems (related to
scien- ce, technology, and engineering). Ahmad (2016, p. 271) states that motivation is an impetus that
arises from within students to get high achievement, maintain their achievements, and direct the action
to achieve their achievements. The use of everyday problems in learning activities allows students to
conti- nue to practice problem-solving (Suryaningtyas, 2017). One of the factors that affect students’
difficul- ties in problem-solving is the lack of accuracy in working on questions (Novferma, 2016;
Tias & Wustsqa, 2015). Before students conclude the answers obtained by the problem-solving
process, in the developed LKPD some questions ask students to check their answers again. It aims to
train students’ accuracy.
With STEM, students can understand the concept of trigonometry because the learning process
provides an opportunity to build mathematical concepts and relate them to real-world problems
(Suher- man et al., 2018, p. 7). One of the factors that affect this achievement is the use of the STEM
approach. The learning kit arranged using the STEM approach invites students to learn from various
disciplines. The questions in the LKPD are contextual problems related to Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Math. Some of the STEM learning criteria are science and math content standards-
based, grade- appropriate, and applied; students focus on solving real-world problems, and students
are introduced to STEM careers and/or life applications (Jolly, 2017, p.25). In the teacher's experience,
STEM learning makes students more exploratory toward a case so that the learning material becomes
more meaningful for students (Arlinwibowo et al., 2020, p. 608). The questions contained in the
LKPD may facilitate the problem-solving skill and learning achievement of students. Shernoff et al.
(2017, p. 4) show that the benefits of implementing STEM are providing learning opportunities that
are learner-centered, meaningful, interesting, and facilitating problem-solving skills. According to
Moomaw (2013, p. 8), in STEM activities, teachers encourage students to solve their problems rather
than give direct answers to build the knowledge they already have and deepen their conceptual
understanding. Shernoff et al. (2017,
p. 4) said that integrating STEM disciplines positively affects school responses and learning
achievement.
The initial lesson plan is carried out face-to-face but must be carried out online because of the
Covid-19 pandemic. Of course, this impacts several activities that cannot be carried out as planned,
ineffective discussion activities, and less time allocation. One of the impacts is the second meeting
activity, which requires students to measure the whiteboard’s height when measured by two students
with different elevation angles. The solution taken is to provide information about the height of two
students and two elevation angles so that further activities can still be carried out. The development of
lesson plans in this study has implemented several of these things. For example, starting learning by
recalling the previous material and relating to the material to be studied (prerequisite), learning has
been designed to be student-centered (the teacher becomes the facilitator), understanding student
miscon- ceptions by asking questions to check and evaluate the solutions obtained. The teacher trains
students to work on problems by paying attention to problem-solving steps starting to identify and
understand problems, check and evaluate the solutions obtained, and presenting the problems
presented in students’ worksheets related to real-world problems, especially those related to STEM. To
support those activities, the teacher can apply several technologies (using calculators, use the internet
to check the solutions).

CONCLUSION
This research’s product is a trigonometry learning kit using the STEM approach to improve
students’ problem-solving skills and learning achievement. The learning kit has characteristics of
containing learning activities that facilitate problem-solving skills and learning achievement, and the
Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan
Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
190

problems found in LKPD use real-world problems to introduce STEM careers and life applications.
According to the expert assessment results, the trigonometry learning kit’s validity using the STEM
approach is valid. The practicality assessment by the teacher is in the very good category. The practi-
cality assessment by students is in a good category. The percentage of learning implementation was
over 80%. Therefore, the learning kit is practice. The increase in students’ problem-solving skills and
learning achievement after learning using the STEM approach, respectively, is in the high and
moderate category. It can conclude that the learning kit is effective. The suggestions for further
research, namely (1) need to be a follow-up from other researchers to be tested the learning kit on a
larger subject, (2) the teachers can use the learning kit as a reference to develop a learning kit with the
STEM approach on other mathe- matics topics.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank to all of the participants in this study and greatly acknowledgment the
funding from Direktorat Riset dan Pengabdian Masyarakat, Deputi Bidang Penguatan Riset dan
Pengembangan, Kementerian Riset dan Teknologi/Badan Riset dan Inovasi Nasional Republik
Indonesia (Directorate of Research and Community Service, Deputy for Strengthening Research and
Development, Ministry of Research and Technology/National Research and Innovation Agency,
Indonesia).

REFERENCES
Acar, D., Tertemiz, N., & Tasdemir, A. (2018). The effects of STEM training on the academic
achievement of 4th graders in science and mathematics and their views on STEM training
teachers. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(4), 505–513.
https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/465
Ahmad, S. (2016). Pengaruh math phobia, self-efficacy, adversity quotient dan motivasi berprestasi
terhadap prestasi belajar matematika siswa SMP [The effect of math phobia, self-efficacy,
adversity quotient and achievement motivation on mathematics learning achievement of junior
high school students]. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 3(2), 259–272.
http://doi.org/10.21831/jrpm.v3i2.6138
Amelia, A., Abidin, Z., & Faradiba, S. S. (2019). Penerapan model pembelajaran problem based
learning berbasis STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) untuk
meningkatkan kemampuan pemecahan masalah matematika materi program linear siswa kelas
XI IPA MA Nasruddin Dampit tahun akademik 2018/2019 [Application learning model of
problem-based learning based STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) to
improve mathematical problem-solving skills of students of class XI IPA MA Nasruddin
Dampit in the academic year 2018/2019]. Jurnal Penelitian, Pendidikan, dan Pembelajaran,
14(2), 10–16. http://riset.unisma.ac.id/index.php/jp3/article/view/2497
Arlinwibowo, J., Retnawati, H., & Kartowagiran, B. (2020). The types of STEM education
implementation in Indonesia. Journal of Xi’an University of Architecture & Technology, 12(8),
606–613. https://doi.org/10.37896/JXAT12.08/2664
Bakhtiar, I., Kurniati, L., & Nayazik, A. (2020). Effectiveness of STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, Mathematics) approach towards mathematics learning achievement on point, line
and field material in three dimensions. Jurnal Hipotenusa, 2(1), 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.18326/hipotenusa.v2i1.1-5
Bao, L. (2006). Theoretical comparisons of average normalized gain calculations. American Journal of
Physics, 74(10), 917–922. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2213632
Becker, K. H., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: a preliminary meta analysis.
Journal of STEM Education, 12(5), 23–37.
https://www.jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/1509
Centre for Educational Assessment. (n.d.). Laporan hasil ujian nasional [National exam results report]
Ministry of Education and Culture. https://hasilun.puspendik.kemdikbud.go.id/
Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan
Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
191
Chabibah, L. N., Siswanah, E., & Tsani, D. F. (2019). Analisis kemampuan pemecahan masalah siswa
dalam menyelesaikan soal cerita barisan ditinjau dari adversity quotient [Analysis of students’
problem-

Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan

Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
192

solving skills in solving sequence story questions in terms of adversity quotient]. Pythagoras:
Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 14(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.21831/pg.v14i2.29024
Choo, S. S. Y., Rotgans, J. I., Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Effect of worksheet scaffolds
on student learning in problem-based learning. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16(4),
517– 528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9288-1
Dahal, B. (2019). Formative assessment and achievement of mathematics students in community
schools of Nepal. Social Inquiry: Journal of Social Science Research, 1(1), 75–93.
https://doi.org/10.3126/sijssr.v1i1.26918
Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2018). Understanding science teachers’ implementations of
integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study.
International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-
0101-z
Gay, I. R., Geoffrey, E. M., & Airasian, P. W. (2011). Educational research: Competencies for
analysis and application. Pearson.
Gunantara, G., Suarjana, M., & Riastini, P. N. (2014). Penerapan model pembelajaran problem based
learning untuk meningkatkan kemampuan pemecahan masalah matematika siswa kelas V
[Application of problem-based learning models to improve the mathematics problem solving
skills of fifth-grade students]. Jurnal Mimbar PGSD Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, 2(1), 1–
10. http://doi.org/10.23887/jjpgsd.v2i1.2058
Hake, R. R. (1999). Analyzing change/gain scores. https://www1.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/AnalyzingChange-
Gain.pdf
Hijrihani, C., & Wutsqa, D. (2015). Keefektifan cooperative learning tipe jigsaw dan STAD ditinjau
dari prestasi belajar dan kepercayaan diri siswa [The effectiveness of cooperative learning types
jigsaw and STAD in terms of learning achievement and student self-confidence]. Pythagoras:
Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 10(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.21831/pg.v10i1.9091
İnan, C., & Erkuş, S. (2017). The effect of mathematical worksheets based on multiple intelligences
theory on the academic achievement of the students in the 4th grade primary school. Universal
Journal of Educational Research, 5(8), 1372–1377. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050810
Jolly, A. (2017). STEM by design: Strategies and activities for grades 4–8. Routledge.
Khoiriyah, N., Abdurrahman, A., & Wahyudi, I. (2018). Implementasi pendekatan pembelajaran
STEM untuk meningkatkan kemampuan berpikir kritis siswa SMA pada materi gelombang
bunyi [Implementation of the STEM learning approach to improve high school students' critical
thinking skills in sound wave material]. Jurnal Riset dan Kajian Pendidikan Fisika, 5(2), 53–
62. https://doi.org/10.12928/jrkpf.v5i2.9977
Komala, E., Suryadi, D., & Dasari, D. (2020). Learning obstacle related to the ability of high school
student representation to the trigonometry concept. Proceeding books: The 2nd international
conference and innovation exhibition global education (ICEGE), pp. 43–49.
https://doi.org/10.22236/ie.v1i1.107
Kyriacou, C. (2009). Effective teaching in schools: Theory and practice. Stanley Thornes.
Lee, C. (2014). Worksheet usage, reading achievement, classes’ lack of readiness, and science
achievement: A cross-country comparison. International Journal of Education in Mathematics,
Science and Technology, 2(2), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.38331
Lestari, D. A. B., Astuti, B., & Darsono, T. (2018). Implementasi LKS dengan pendekatan STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) untuk meningkatkan kemampuan
berpikir kritis siswa [Implementation of worksheets with a STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics) approach to improve students’ critical thinking skills]. Jurnal
Pendidikan Fisika dan Teknologi, 4(2), 202–207. http://doi.org/10.29303/jpft.v4i2.809
Lestari, I. F. (2019). Pendekatan Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) untuk
meningkatkan kemampuan pemecahan masalah fisika siswa pada konsep tekanan hidrostatis
Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan
Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
193

[Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) approach to improve students’

physics problem solving skills on the concept of hydrostatic pressure]. Jurnal Pendidikan
Universitas Garut, 13(1), 103–109. https://journal.uniga.ac.id/index.php/JP/article/view/831
Lim, W., Son, J. & Kim, D. (2018). Understanding preservice teacher skills to construct lesson plans.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(3), 519–538.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9783
Milaturrahmah, N., Mardiyana, M., & Pramudya, I. (2017). Mathematics learning process with
Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) approach in Indonesia. Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, 895, 012030. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012030
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2016a). Lampiran Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan
Kebudayaan Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 tentang Standar Kompetensi Lulusan Pendidikan Dasar
dan Menengah. [Attachment Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture No. 20 of
2016 on Graduate Competency Standards for Primary and Secondary Education]. Ministry of
Education and Culture
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2016b). Lampiran Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan
Kebudayaan Nomor 22 Tahun 2016 tentang Standar Proses Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah
[Attachment Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture No. 22 of 2016 on Standards
Process for Primary and Secondary Education]. Ministry of Education and Culture
Molenda, M., & Boling, E. (2008). Creating. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.). Educational
technology: A definition with commentary. Taylor & Francis.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203054000
Moomaw, S. (2013). Teaching STEM in the early years: Activities for integrating science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Redleaf Press
Moon, B., Mayes, A. S., & Hutchinson, S. (2002). Teaching, learning, and the curriculum in
secondary schools: A reader. Routledge.
NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Author.
Nieveen, N. (1999). Prototyping to reach product quality. In J. Van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K.
Gustafson, N. Nieveen, T. Plomp (Eds.) Design approaches and tools in education and training
(pp. 125–136). ICO Cluwer Academic Publisher.
Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment of students. Pearson.
Novferma, N. (2016). Analisis kesulitan dan self-efficacy siswa SMP dalam pemecahan masalah
matematika berbentuk soal cerita [Analysis of the difficulties and self-efficacy of junior high
school students in solving math problems in the form of story questions]. Jurnal Riset
Pendidikan Matematika, 3(1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.21831/jrpm.v3i1.10403
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 result in focus. OECD Publishing.
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf
Ormrod. J. E., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. (2017). Educational Psychology: Developing learners
(9th ed.). Pearson.
Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (2010). An introduction to educational design research. SLO-Netherlands
Institute for Curriculum Development
Podomi, P. A., & Jailani, J. (2015). Pengaruh pendekatan analogi personal terhadap prestasi, penalaran
dan kemandirian siswa materi dimensi dua di SMK [The influence of the personal analogy
approach on student achievement, reasoning and independence in two-dimensional material at
vocational school]. Pythagoras: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 10(1), 61–70.
https://doi.org/10.21831/pg.v10i1.9110
Retnawati, H. (2016). Analisis kuantitatif instrumen penelitian: Panduan peneliti, mahasiswa, dan
psikometrian) [Quantitative analysis of research instruments: Researcher, student, and
psychometric Guidelines)]. Parama.

Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan

Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
194

Retnawati, H., Hadi, S., Nugraha, A. C., Ramadhan, M. T., Apino, E., Djidu, H., Wulandari, N. F., &
Sulistyaningsih, E. (2017). Menyusun laporan hasil asesmen pendidikan di sekolah [Prepare
reports on the results of the assessment of education in schools]. UNY Press.
Roberts, T., Jackson, C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Bush, S. B., Maiorca, C., Cavalcanti, M., D.
Schroeder, C., Delaney, A., Putnam, L., & Cremeans, C. (2018). Students’ perceptions of
STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience. International
Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0133-4
Sarnita, F., Fitriani, A., & Widia, W. (2019). Pengembangan perangkat pembelajaran model PBL
berbasis STEM untuk melatih keterampilan berfikir kreatif siswa tuna netra [Development of
STEM-based PBL learning kit to practice creative thinking skills of visually impaired students].
Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA, 9(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.37630/jpm.v9i1.180
Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and
professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM
education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(13), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-
017-0068-1
Sidabutar, R. (2016). The efforts to improve mathematics learning achievement results of high school
students as required by competency-based curriculum and lesson level-based curriculum. Journal of
Education and Practice, 7(15), 10–15.
https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/30805
Siregar, N., Asmin, D., & Fauzi, K. M. A. (2018). The effect of problem based learning model on
problem solving ability student. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual International Seminar on
Transformative Education and Educational Leadership (AISTEEL 2018).
https://doi.org/10.2991/aisteel-18.2018.100
Slameto, S. (2010). Belajar dan faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhinya [Learning and the factors that
influence it]. Rineka Cipta
Sterling, M. J. (2014). Trigonometry for dummies. John Wiley & Sons.
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM
education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34.
https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653
Sugiyono, S. (2015). Metode penelitian pendidikan: Pendekatan kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R & D
[Educational research methods: Quantitative, qualitative, and R & D approaches]. Alfabeta.
Suherman, S., Komarudin, K., Rosyid, A., Aryanita, S., Asriyanto, D., Putra, T. A., & Anggoro, T.
(2018). Improving trigonometry concept through STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics) learning. International Conference on Multidisciplinary Academic (ICMA)
2018. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3248139
Suryaningtyas, C. P. (2017). Pengembangan perangkat pembelajaran matematika dengan PMRI untuk
meningkatkan kemampuan pemecahan masalah dan komunikasi matematika [Development of
mathematics learning kit with PMRI to improve problem solving skills and mathematics
communication]. Pythagoras: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 12(2), 200–209.
https://doi.org/10.21831/pg.v12i2.14876
Syukri, M., Halim, L., & Meerah, T. S. M. (2013). Pendidikan STEM dalam entrepreneurial science
thinking “ESciT”, satu perkongsian pengalam dari UKM untuk Aceh [STEM education in
entrepreneurial science thinking “ESciT”, sharing experiences of UKM for Aceh]. Aceh
Development International Conference 2013.
Tamba, E. F., Syafari, S., Siagian, P., & Sihotang, M. L. (2019). Development of realistic mathematics
education- based learning devices to improve mathematical problem solving skills of SMP Negeri 1
Medan students. American Journal of Educational Research, 7(1), 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.12691/education-7-1-1
Tias, A. A. W., & Wustsqa, D. U. (2015). Analisis kesulitan siswa SMA dalam pemecahan masalah

Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan

Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
195
matematika kelas XII IPA di Kota Yogyakarta [Difficulty analysis of high school students in
mathematical problem solving class XII science in Yogyakarta]. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan
Matematika, 2(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.21831/jrpm.v2i1.7148

Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan

Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-
 Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7 (2), 2020 -
196

Torlakson, T. (2014). Innovate: A blueprint for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in
California public education. State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.
Utami, T. N., Jatmiko, A., & Suherman, S. (2018). Pengembangan modul matematika dengan
pendekatan Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) pada materi
segiempat [Development of a mathematics module with the Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) approach on quadrilateral material]. Desimal: Jurnal Matematika,
1(2), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.24042/djm.v1i2.2388
Vdovina, E., & Gaibisso, L. C. (2013). Developing critical thinking in the english language classroom:
A lesson plan. ELTA Journal, 1(1), 54–68. https://eltajournal.org.rs/elta-journal-volume-1-no-1-
dec-2013-2/
Wahyuni, N. S., & Widayanti, E. (2020). Students’ errors analysis in finishing a problem solving test
based on newman procedures in trigonometry materials. IndoMath: Indonesia Mathematics
Education, 3(2), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.30738/indomath.v3i2.7213
Wang, H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions
and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636
Winarno, N., Rusdiana, D., Samsudin, A., Susilowati, E., Ahmad, N. J., & Afifah, R. M. A. (2020).
The steps of the engineering design process (EDP) in science education: A systematic literature
review. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(4), 1345–1360.
http://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.766201
Wisniarti, W., & Sugiman, S. (2018). A student’s cognitive dissonance in solving non-routine
perimeter problems. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1097, 012099.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742- 6596/1097/1/012099
Yaki, A. A., Saat, R. M., Sathasivam, R. V., & Zulnaidi, H. (2019). Enhancing science achievement
utilizing an integrated STEM approach. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 16(1),
181–205. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2019.16.1.6
Young, H. D., Freedman, R. A., Sandin, T. R. & Ford, A. L. (2002). Fisika universitas edisi 10
[University physics tenth edition] (E. Juliastuti, Trans.). Erlangga. Original work published 2000.

Copyright © 2020, Jurnal Riset Pendidikan

Matematika ISSN 2356-2684 (print), ISSN 2477-