Priviet Social Sciences Journal

Transformative deep learning in secondary education: the 3P framework for inclusive and sustainable knowledge development

by Efendi Hidayatullah
Vol. 5 No. 10 (2025): October 2025

Abstract

This study explores the potential of the 3P (Precise, Process, Product) framework to incorporate the principles of transformative and deep learning in secondary education. This research addresses the urgent need for meaningful, reflective, and student-centered learning to tackle the complex challenges of the 21st century. A qualitative case study was conducted at a secondary school using purposive sampling of curriculum coordinators, teachers, and policymakers. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and observation of classes. Thematic analysis, supported by NVivo 12 software, showed that the Precise component helps formulate clear and focused learning objectives; the Process component encourages reflective dialogue, active participation, and an inclusive learning environment; and the Product component fosters authentic, project-based assessment practices. The findings indicate that the 3P framework has shifted learning from exam-centered methods to an emphasis on deep understanding, inclusivity, and global citizenship. Challenges included gaps in teacher training, low digital literacy, and unequal access, while solutions emerged at the teacher, school, and policy levels. The framework proved to be versatile and effective, enhancing students’ learning identity and social awareness, and aligning curriculum standards with classroom practice. This study offers a conceptual contribution to curriculum transformation by presenting an adaptive and sustainable pedagogical model that supports Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 on inclusive and quality education.

References

  1. Agustin, A. (2025). Tren dan Evolusi Penelitian Terkait Pendidikan untuk Pembangunan Berkelanjutan: Sebuah Kajian Bibliometrik. Ideguru: Jurnal Karya Ilmiah Guru, 10(2), 944–955. https://doi.org/10.51169/ideguru.v10i2.1190
  2. Anand, T. S., Anand, S. V, Welch, M., Marsick, V. J., & Langer, A. (2020). Overview of transformative learning I: theory and its evolution. Reflective Practice, 21(6), 732–743.
  3. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1821942
  4. Andriana, A. (2021). Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Deep Learning Bagi Siswa Inklusi di Pendidikan Vokasi. Jurnal Tiarsie, 18(4), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.32816/tiarsie.v18i4.129
  5. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Train-the-trainers: Implementing outcomes-based teaching and learning in Malaysian higher education. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 8, 1–19. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ej1137298
  6. Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. John Wiley & Sons.
  7. Compass, O. O. L. (2019). 2030: A Series of Concept Notes. Paris, France: OECD.
  8. Corbin, J. (2021). Strauss’s grounded theory. In Developing grounded theory (pp. 25–44). Routledge.
  9. Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning.
  10. Gottschalk, F., & Weise, C. (2023). Digital equity and inclusion in education: An overview of practice and policy in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, 299, 0_1-75. DOI:10.1787/7cb15030-en
  11. Hancock, D. R., Algozzine, B., & Lim, J. H. (2021). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers.
  12. Hidayatullah, E. (2024). Rekonstruksi konseptual pendidikan holistik: Pendekatan fenomenologis terhadap inklusivitas dan kesadaran sosial. Jurnal Studi Edukasi Integratif, 1(1), 55–68.
  13. Jackson, K., & Bazeley, P. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo.
  14. Koutsouris, G., Bremner, N., & Stentiford, L. (2024). Do we have to rethink inclusive pedagogies for secondary schools? A critical systematic review of the international literature. British Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 260–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3926
  15. Lagoudaki, E., Gareiou, Z., & Zervas, E. (2024). Comparative review of the application of education for sustainable development in secondary education in Europe. E3S Web of Conferences, 585, 4007. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202458504007
  16. Lim, W. M. (2025). What is qualitative research? An overview and guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal, 33(2), 199–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264619
  17. May, T., & Perry, B. (2022). Social research: Issues, methods and process. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
  18. OECD. (2019). An OECD learning framework 2030. In The future of education and labor (pp. 23–35). Springer.
  19. Mailani, E., Rarastika, N., Saragih, H. A., Butar, G. J. P. B., & Tarigan, O. G. (2025). Peningkatan Keterampilan Berpikir Kritis Siswa Kelas 3 SD Melalui Pembelajaran Matematika Dengan
  20. Pendekatan Deep Learning Dan Media Interaktif. Journal Educational Research and Development| EISSN: 3063-9158, 1(4), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.62379/jerd.v1i4
  21. Marradi, C., & Mulder, I. (2022). Scaling local bottom-up innovations through value co-creation. Sustainability, 14(18), 11678. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811678
  22. Maulana, A. R., Subroto, D. E., Oktaviana, Y., Zamri, F. M., & Tirtana, N. Z. (2025). Perbandingan Hasil Belajar Mahasiswa dan Guru yang Menggunakan Kurikulum Berbasis Nilai Filosofi John Dewey dan Kurikulum Tradisional. JIMAD: Jurnal Ilmiah Mutiara Pendidikan, 3(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.61404/jimad.v3i1.361
  23. Meydan, C. H., & Akkaş, H. (2024). The role of triangulation in qualitative research: Converging perspectives. In Principles of conducting qualitative research in multicultural settings (pp. 98–129). IGI Global. DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3693-3306-8.ch006
  24. Mukul, E., & Büyüközkan, G. (2023). Digital transformation in education: A systematic review of education 4.0. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, 122664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122664
  25. Navas-Bonilla, C. del R., Guerra-Arango, J. A., Oviedo-Guado, D. A., & Murillo-Noriega, D. E. (2025).
  26. Inclusive education through technology: a systematic review of types, tools and characteristics. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1527851. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1527851
  27. Osipovskaya, E., & Dmitrieva, S. (2021). The Issue of Adaptive Learning as Educational Innovation. International Conference on Professional Culture of the Specialist of the Future, 606–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89708-6_50
  28. Patton, M. Q. (2020). Evaluation use theory, practice, and future research: reflections on the Alkin and King AJE series. American Journal of Evaluation, 41(4), 581–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/10982140209194
  29. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research and Evaluation methods, 4th edn.(Thousand Oaks; London. Sage Publications New Delhi.
  30. Rieckmann, M. (2012). Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures, 44(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.09.005
  31. Salguero, A., Villegas Molina, I., Elizabeth Margulieux, L., Cutts, Q., & Porter, L. (2024). Applying CS0/CS1 Student Success Factors and Outcomes to Biggs’ 3P Educational Model. Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, 1168–1174.
  32. Saleh, A. R., Muis, A. A., Lestari, U., Irma, I., Tajuddin, T., & Taufik, T. (2025). Designing Meaningful Learning: A Theoretical and Practical Study on Learning and Instruction. Proceeding of Islamic International Conference on Education, Communication, and Economics, 1, 573–583.
  33. Sharma, P. K. (2025). Galvanizing Education for Sustainable Development Practice Through the Greening Education Partnership: Steering Green Schools Towards 2030 and Beyond. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 09734082251355099. https://doi.org/10.1177/09734082251355099
  34. Subban, P., Woodcock, S., Sharma, U., & May, F. (2022). Student experiences of inclusive education in secondary schools: A systematic review of the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 119, 103853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103853
  35. Taylor, E. W. (2018). Transformative learning theory. Educare Gli Affetti: Studi in Onore Di Bruno Rossi.-(I Problemi Dell’educazione), 301–320.
  36. Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M. L. (2015). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. John Wiley & Sons.
  37. Tisdell, E. J., Merriam, S. B., & Stuckey-Peyrot, H. L. (2025). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
  38. Tomaszewski, L. E., Zarestky, J., & Gonzalez, E. (2020). Planning qualitative research: Design and decision making for new researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920967174
  39. United Nations Educational, S. and C. O. (UNESCO). (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. Unesco Paris, France.Vesterinen, M., & Ratinen, I. (2024). Sustainability competences in primary school education–a systematic literature review. Environmental Education Research, 30(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2170984
  40. Ward, R. J., Bristow, S. J., Kovshoff, H., Cortese, S., & Kreppner, J. (2022). The effects of ADHD teacher training programs on teachers and pupils: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of
  41. Attention Disorders, 26(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054720972801
  42. Watson, J., & Smith, C. (2022). Statistics education at a time of global disruption and crises: A growing challenge for the curriculum, classroom and beyond. Curriculum Perspectives, 42(2), 171–179.
  43. Widiastuti, I. (2025). Assessing the Impact of Education Policies in Indonesia: Challenges, Achievement, and Future Direction. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 17(2), 1955–1964. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v17i2.6803
  44. Wolff, L.-A. (2023). Transformative learning. In Encyclopedia of sustainable management (pp. 3763–3772). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25984-5_301807
  45. Yang, J., Shi, G., Zhu, W., & Sun, Y. (2025). Intelligent technologies in smart education: a comprehensive review of transformative pillars and their impact on teaching and learning methods. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05444-0
  46. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (Vol. 6). Sage Thousand Oaks, CA.
  47. Gottschalk, F., & Weise, C. (2023). Digital equity and inclusion in education: An overview of practice and policy in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, 299, 0_1-75. https://doi.org/10.1787/7cb15030-en
  48. Marradi, C., & Mulder, I. (2022). Scaling local bottom-up innovations through value co-creation. Sustainability, 14(18), 11678. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811678
  49. Osipovskaya, E., & Dmitrieva, S. (2021). The Issue of Adaptive Learning as Educational Innovation. International Conference on Professional Culture of the Specialist of the Future, 606–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89708-6_50
  50. Ward, R. J., Bristow, S. J., Kovshoff, H., Cortese, S., & Kreppner, J. (2022). The effects of ADHD teacher training programs on teachers and pupils: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Attention Disorders, 26(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054720972801
  51. Widiastuti, I. (2025). Assessing the Impact of Education Policies in Indonesia: Challenges, Achievement, and Future Direction. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 17(2), 1955–1964. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v17i2.6803