MODEL AGROSCIENCE KIDS LAB SEBAGAI INOVASI PEMBELAJARAN IPA DI WILAYAH 3T
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23969/jp.v11i02.44583Keywords:
science learning, 3T regions, school garden, educational innovation, scientific literacyAbstract
Science learning in 3T areas (underdeveloped, frontier, and outermost regions) continues to face various limitations, particularly in the availability of contextual teaching materials and practice-based learning approaches. This study aims to develop and describe the AgroScience Kids Lab model as an environmental-based innovation in science learning at the elementary school level. The research employed a qualitative approach with a case study design conducted at SD Inpres Tambat, Merauke. Data were collected through observations, interviews, and documentation, and analyzed using thematic analysis techniques. The findings reveal that the AgroScience Kids Lab model consists of four main components: (1) thematic educational gardens as living laboratories, (2) contextual science experiment media, (3) a mini seed bank, and (4) an Outdoor Science Corner. This model enhances student engagement, experiential understanding of scientific concepts, and awareness of food security and environmental sustainability. Furthermore, the model demonstrates strong potential as an innovative learning approach that is adaptable to resource-limited conditions in 3T regions.
Downloads
References
Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969.
Apeadido, S., Opoku Mensah, G., & Opoku-Mensah, D. (2024). The impact of practical experiential learning on shaping high school students’ attitudes towards biology.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2016). The museum experience revisited. Routledge.
Jadav, V. B., Raval, J. R., Trivedi, M. D., & Andarpa, M. M. (2020). Experiential Learning as an Approach to Learning and Learning related.
Kang, J., Roestel, N. M. E., & Girouard, A. (2022). Experiential learning to teach user experience in higher education in past 20 years: A scoping review. Frontiers in Computer Science, 4, 812907.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press.
Lagua, K. T. (2025). Experiential Learning Strategy: Its Effect on Science Performance of Grade VI Pupils at Ripang Elementary School. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 38(4), 24–30.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. sage.
Schilhab, T. (2021). Nature experiences in science education in
school: Review featuring learning gains, investments, and costs in view of embodied cognition. Frontiers in Education, 6, 739408.
Stern, M. J., & Powell, R. B. (2020). Field trips and the experiential learning cycle. Journal of Interpretation Research, 25(1), 46–50.
Susiloningsih, E., Sumantri, M. S., & Marini, A. (2023). Experiential learning model in science learning: systematic literature review. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(9), 550–557.
Yuliana, R., Wasino, W., & Widiarti, N. (2025). The effectiveness of experiential learning on students’ understanding of science and technology. Inovasi Kurikulum, 22(1), 249–262.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Pendas : Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Dasar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
