Perbandingan Hasil Belajar Matematika Siswa yang Menggunakan LKS Kurikulum 2013 dan Kurikulum Merdeka di Kelas 6 Sekolah Dasar

The implementation of new educational policies, such as the shift from the 2013 Curriculum to the Merdeka Curriculum, has sparked discussions about their impact on student learning outcomes. One area of particular interest is mathematics, a subject that often presents challenges for students. This article delves into the comparison of mathematics learning outcomes for sixth-grade elementary school students who utilize Learning Activity Sheets (LKS) based on the 2013 Curriculum and the Merdeka Curriculum. By examining the differences in these two approaches, we aim to shed light on their respective strengths and weaknesses in fostering mathematical understanding and skills.

The 2013 Curriculum: A Foundation for Structured Learning

The 2013 Curriculum, with its emphasis on structured learning, has been a cornerstone of Indonesian education for several years. In mathematics, this curriculum emphasizes a systematic approach to teaching concepts, with a focus on problem-solving and critical thinking. The LKS designed for this curriculum typically follow a linear progression, starting with basic concepts and gradually building towards more complex applications. This approach aims to provide students with a solid foundation in mathematical principles, enabling them to tackle increasingly challenging problems.

The Merdeka Curriculum: Embracing Flexibility and Student-Centered Learning

The Merdeka Curriculum, introduced as a more flexible and student-centered approach, aims to empower students to take ownership of their learning. This curriculum encourages teachers to tailor their teaching methods to the specific needs and interests of their students. The LKS developed for the Merdeka Curriculum often incorporate project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and collaborative activities. This approach aims to foster creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills, allowing students to explore mathematical concepts in a more engaging and personalized manner.

Comparing Learning Outcomes: A Mixed Bag of Results

Studies comparing the learning outcomes of students using LKS based on the 2013 Curriculum and the Merdeka Curriculum have yielded mixed results. Some studies have shown that students using the 2013 Curriculum demonstrate higher levels of proficiency in basic mathematical skills, particularly in areas like arithmetic and algebra. This suggests that the structured approach of the 2013 Curriculum can be effective in building a strong foundation in fundamental mathematical concepts.

However, other studies have indicated that students using the Merdeka Curriculum may outperform their counterparts in terms of higher-order thinking skills, such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and creativity. This suggests that the flexibility and student-centered approach of the Merdeka Curriculum can be beneficial in fostering these essential skills.

Factors Influencing Learning Outcomes: Beyond the Curriculum

It is important to note that the effectiveness of any curriculum, including the 2013 Curriculum and the Merdeka Curriculum, is not solely determined by the curriculum itself. Other factors, such as teacher quality, classroom environment, and student motivation, play a significant role in shaping learning outcomes.

For instance, teachers who are well-trained and equipped with the necessary pedagogical skills can effectively implement both curricula, maximizing their potential to enhance student learning. Similarly, a supportive and engaging classroom environment can foster student motivation and engagement, leading to improved learning outcomes.

Conclusion: A Balanced Approach for Optimal Learning

The comparison of mathematics learning outcomes for students using LKS based on the 2013 Curriculum and the Merdeka Curriculum highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. While the 2013 Curriculum provides a strong foundation in basic mathematical skills, the Merdeka Curriculum fosters higher-order thinking skills. Ultimately, the most effective approach may lie in a balanced combination of both curricula, leveraging the strengths of each to create a comprehensive and engaging learning experience for students. By incorporating elements of structure and flexibility, teachers can empower students to develop both foundational mathematical skills and the critical thinking abilities necessary to thrive in an increasingly complex world.