STEAM-based Diagnostic Assessment Design in Mathematics Economics Course
Abstract
Purpose of the study: This study aims to design a STEAM-based diagnostic assessment framework for the Mathematics Economics course to identify students’ cognitive and non-cognitive profiles while supporting differentiated instruction and fostering interdisciplinary problem-solving skills.
Methodology: The study applied a Research and Development (R&D) approach using the ADDIE model, limited to the Analysis and Design stages. Data collection involved curriculum review, instructor interviews, and literature review. Assessment instruments incorporated case studies, questionnaires, and rubrics integrating science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics components.
Main Findings: The assessment revealed that students generally understood the link between mathematics and economics, could integrate STEAM principles, and demonstrated creativity in visualization. Strengths were seen in conceptual understanding and scientific-economic connections, while gaps emerged in advanced technological skills, mathematical modeling complexity, and depth of elasticity concept application.
Novelty/Originality of this study: This study introduces an interdisciplinary diagnostic assessment specifically integrating STEAM principles within Mathematics Economics education, addressing a gap in existing tools that are typically subject-specific. It advances knowledge by combining cognitive and creative dimensions, aligning with differentiated and inclusive learning practices.
Views / Downloads
Files
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ranti Kurnia, Fransiskus Gatot Iman Santoso (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
[1] A. C. Graesser, S. Greiff, M. Stadler, and K. T. Shubeck, “Collaboration in the 21st century: The theory, assessment, and teaching of collaborative problem solving,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 104. Elsevier, p. 106134, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.010.
[2] G. A. Nortvedt et al., “Aiding culturally responsive assessment in schools in a globalising world,” Educ. Assessment, Eval. Account., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 5–27, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09316-w.
[3] J. H. Nieminen, “Assessment for Inclusion: rethinking inclusive assessment in higher education,” Teach. High. Educ., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 841–859, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.2021395.
[4] I. Maryani and E. Hasanah, Asesmen Diagnostik Pendukung Pembelajaran Berdiferensiasi pada Kurikulum Merdeka. K-Media, 2023.
[5] R. Shadri, N. Hermita, D. Deswarni, A. Purnamasari, L. J. Lingga, and H. Wijoyo, “ASSESSMENT IN THE MERDEKA CURRICULUM: HOW ARE THE TEACHERS’PERSPECTIVES ON IT?,” J. Pajar (Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran), vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 202–209, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.33578/pjr.v7i1.9127.
[6] S. Satriani, W. Wahyuddin, and A. A. Syahri, “DEVELOPMENT OF HOTS-BASED FUNCTION DERIVATIVE WORKSHEET THROUGH A NETWORK LEARNING SYSTEM SPADA,” MaPan, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 320, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.24252/mapan.2021v9n2a9.
[7] E. İbili, M. Çat, D. Resnyansky, S. Şahin, and M. Billinghurst, “An assessment of geometry teaching supported with augmented reality teaching materials to enhance students’ 3D geometry thinking skills,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 224–246, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1583382.
[8] P. Black and D. Wiliam, “Classroom assessment and pedagogy,” Assess. Educ. Princ. policy Pract., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 551–575, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807.
[9] Z. Yan and S. Pastore, “Are teachers literate in formative assessment? The development and validation of the Teacher Formative Assessment Literacy Scale,” Stud. Educ. Eval., vol. 74, p. 101183, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101183.
[10] A. H. Mahmudah, P. N. Sinambela, Z. Zulkarnaen, and S. Atin, “Analisis Asesmen Diagnostik Kognitif Dan Non Kognitif Pada Materi Persamaan Dan Fungsi Kuadrat,” in Prosiding Seminar Nasional PPG Universitas Mulawarman, 2023, vol. 4, pp. 231–236, doi: https://doi.org/10.30872/semnasppg.v4.3104.
[11] T. Triyono, M. Masrukan, and M. Mulyono, “Pengembangan Tes Diagnostik Matematika Kurikulum Merdeka,” PRISMA, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 560–569, 2023.
[12] S. Supriyadi, R. M. Lia, A. Rusilowati, W. Isnaeni, E. Susilaningsih, and S. Suraji, “Penyusunan instrumen asesmen diagnostik untuk persiapan kurikulum merdeka,” J. Community Empower., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 67–73, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.15294/jce.v2i2.61886.
[13] S. Mohseni, N. Zarei, and E. D. Ragan, “A multidisciplinary survey and framework for design and evaluation of explainable AI systems,” ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst., vol. 11, no. 3–4, pp. 1–45, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3387166.
[14] L. W. T. Schuwirth and C. P. M. Van der Vleuten, “How to design a useful test: the principles of assessment,” Underst. Med. Educ. Evidence, theory, Pract., pp. 275–289, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119373780.ch20.
[15] P. L. Maki, Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the institution. Routledge, 2023.
[16] K. Kasman and S. K. Lubis, “Teachers’ performance evaluation instrument designs in the implementation of the new learning paradigm of the Merdeka Curriculum,” J. Kependidikan J. Has. Penelit. Dan Kaji. Kepustakaan Di Bid. Pendidikan, Pengajaran Dan Pembelajaran, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 760–775, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.33394/jk.v8i3.5674.
[17] G. R. N. Jaki, E. S. B. Djegho, A. N. E. Minggu, I. K. S. Blegur, and D. D. Samo, “Asesmen Diagnostik, Pembelajaran ASESMEN DIAGNOSTIK DALAM PEMBELAJARAN BERDIFERENSIASI,” in SANTIKA: Seminar Nasional Tadris Matematika, 2024, vol. 4, pp. 374–382.
[18] T. Li, Y. Gao, K. Wang, S. Guo, H. Liu, and H. Kang, “Diagnostic assessment of deep learning algorithms for diabetic retinopathy screening,” Inf. Sci. (Ny)., vol. 501, pp. 511–522, 2019.
