Enhancing Scientific Literacy under the PISA 2025 Framework: A Comparative Study of SQ3R and Discovery Learning Models
), Rina Rahayu(3)
| 
Country:
(1) Department of Science Education, Universitas Tidar, Indonesia
(2) Department of Science Education, Universitas Tidar, Indonesia
(3) Department of Science Education, Universitas Tidar, Indonesia
Corresponding Author
Scientific literacy is a crucial skill for students to understand scientific phenomena and make informed decisions based on evidence. However, many Indonesian students still struggle with these skills, indicating unresolved issues in the classroom implementation of scientific literacy. This study aims to address this issue by examining the effectiveness of the SQ3R (Survey, Question, Read, Recite, and Review) learning model in improving junior high school students' scientific literacy skills compared to the Discovery Learning learning model. The research design was a quasi-experimental design with a control group, and a pretest and posttest were administered. This study involved 60 eight-grade students at SMPN 1 Mertoyudan. The experimental group consisted of 30 students who received instruction using the SQ3R method, while the control group consisted of 30 students who used the Discovery Learning method. Scientific literacy skills were measured using 13 questions, which were tested for validity and reliability (α=0.935) based on the PISA 2025 science competency framework. Pretest and posttest data were analyzed using N-Gain scores and independent sample t-tests. The study showed that the SQ3R group demonstrated greater improvement in scientific literacy skills than the Discovery Learning group. The experimental group’s average score jumped from 38 on the pretest to 83 on the posttest, with an N-Gain of 0.72, which is considered high. Meanwhile, the control group’s score rose from 36 to 70, with an N-Gain of 0.52, which is considered moderate. An independent-samples t-test confirmed a significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.001). This study shows that the SQ3R learning model is superior to Discovery Learning in improving students’ scientific thinking, reading comprehension, and critical evaluation of information, essential components of scientific literacy. The structured SQ3R approach encourages active student participation and a regular observation process, making it an effective strategy for improving scientific literacy at the junior high school level.
Keywords: scientific literacy, junior high school, SQ3R, science competency, reading strategy.
Ahmad, S., Umirzakova, S., Mujtaba, G., Amin, M. S., & Whangbo, T. (2023). Education 5.0: Requirements, enabling technologies, and future directions. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.15846
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students' learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.523
Azzura Salsabilla, D., & Liliana, L. (2022). Profil kemampuan literasi sains siswa smp negeri 4 tambang. Bedelau: Journal of Education and Learning, 3(2), 62–72.
Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.518644
Bybee, R. W. (2015). The case for STEM education: challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.
Bybee, R. W. (2016). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
DeBoer, G. E. (2019). The historical relationship between science and STEM education: Implications for science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(9), 1189–1211.
Efklides, A. (2014). How does metacognition contribute to the regulation of learning? Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
Guthrie, J. T., Klauda, S. L., & Ho, A. N. (2012). Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.008
Karpicke, J., & Blunt, J. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying. Science, 331(6018), 772–775.
Kintsch, W. (2013). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Klemenčič, E., Ploj Virtič, M., & Majer Kovačič, J. (2023). The role of teacher education in the science literacy development. Athens Journal of Education, 10(4), 647–668. https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.10-4-5
Kolić-Vehovec, S., Bajšanski, I., & Rončević Zubković, B. (2011). Metacognition and reading comprehension: Age and gender differences in self-regulation while reading. Psihologijske Teme, 20(1), 47–67.
Lopatovska, I., & Arapakis, I. (2011). Theories, methods and current research on emotions in library and information science, information retrieval and human–computer interaction. Information Processing & Management, 47(4), 575–592.
McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, global competence and financial literacy. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
OECD. (2023a). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/7f0122b8-en
OECD. (2023b). PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning during – and from – disruption. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9cbf2fdc-en
OECD. (2023). PISA 2025 science framework: Draft for field trial. OECD Publishing.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2019). Disciplinary literacy: Just the FAQs. International Literacy Association, 73(5), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1786
Snow, C. E., & O’Connor, C. (2016). Close reading and far-reaching classroom discussion: Fostering a vital connection. International Literacy Association, 70(4), 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1444
Sujudi, M. S., Idris, T., & Handayani, P. H. (2020). Profil kemampuan literasi sains siswa smp islam as-shofa kota pekanbaru berdasarkan PISA. 3(1), 58–69.
Tarchi, C. (2010). Reading comprehension of informative texts in secondary school: A focus on direct and indirect effects of reader's prior knowledge. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 415–420.
Thomas, E. L., & Robinson, H. A. (1972). Improving reading in every class: A sourcebook for teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Yuli, T., & Bayram-Jacobs, D. (2020). Teachers’ approaches to scientific phenomena and memorization-based learning: A comparative study. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 621–639.
No supplementary information available.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.