Doctoral Dissertation
STEM Education for the Crucial Thinking Skills in Indonesian
Science Education

USWATUN HASANAH

Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation
Hiroshima University
September 2020

STEM Education for the Crucial Thinking Skills in Indonesian
Science Education

D180171
USWATUN HASANAH

A Dissertation Submitted to
the Graduate School for International Development and Cooperationof Hiroshima University in Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirement for the Degree ofDoctor of Philosophy in Education
September 2020

We hereby recommend that the dissertation by Mrs. USWATUN HASANAH entitled"STEM Education for the Crucial Thinking Skills in Indonesian Science Education':be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF
PHILOSOPHY IN EDUCATION..

✓

沙‘

c....--＼ょo`f;u Kinya, Professor, Cbairpel'.
s
ー

孜

立

二一

NAKAYAAyami, �叙心ate Professor

�\,:J{
IKEDAHideo, Professor Emeritus, Hiroshima University_,
�MA;SUBARAKenji, Senior Researcher
Department for Curriculum Research, Curriculum
Research Center, National Institute for Educational P�licy
Research
Dare:
Approved

ー

k1:J

虚

ノ

2幻

ン菫喜信 喜�\:�羹凸圧手フ／竺lデ��可ICHIHASHI Masaru, Professor
Dean

，，

疇

'

- �-

I-

.-

-

Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation
Hiroshima University

ABSTRACTThis study has confirmed three essential areas of the current condition of STEM educationin Indonesia: Essential skills “crucial thinking skills”; instructional design of STEM education“STEM content integration, real-world application, scaffolding”; and the effectiveness of
STEM education. These three essential areas were addressed in the research questions: RQ1:
What are the most crucial thinking skills for students in science education?; RQ2: To what
extent is the instructional design of STEM education (STEM content integration, real-world
application, and scaffolding) in Indonesia based on teachers’ views?; RQ3: How does STEM
education influence the crucial thinking skills of students in Indonesia?
Firstly, the essential skill in this study was focusing on the crucial thinking skills. It was
found through systematic literature review that students are success in developing some skills,
however, certain crucial skills are also found. The issue in skills development raises importantquestions regarding the crucial skills in the cognition stage among the common skills in scienceeducation-Science Process Skills, Critical Thinking Skills, and Reasoning Skills-. SPS focus
on the whole learning process that consisted of basic and integrated SPS. Based on the findingsin this systematic review, the crucial subskills in SPS are Inference, Measuring, Identifying &controlling variable, Definition operational variable, and Explanation, which mostly consistedof the integrated domain. Also, CTS focus on the evaluation of the learning process with crucial
skills, including Interpreting data, Inference, and Evaluation. In addition, all skills in RS are an
essential element in the learning process and were found as the crucial domain. Further, throughidentifying the skills’ relationships which were divided into five groups based on theirsimilarity, researcher revealed that the crucial skills existed in Group I, II, II and IV. In
conclusion, based on this finding, most of the crucial thinking skills of the students in scienceeducation existed in reasoning skills’ domain which covered all reasoning skills, the integrated
science process skills and three of critical thinking skills.
Secondly, the instructional design of STEM education was confirmed in three parts
through teachers’ perceptions: STEM content integration, real-world application of STEM
education, and scaffolding of STEM education. The condition of STEM content in Indonesia isonly integrated into two or three subjects. The first finding showed that STEM education does
not exist in the university level for the last 30 years based on teachers’ experiences and someof teachers did not know about STEM education before professional development program. In
addition, teachers have conducted STEM education without knowing the term STEM
education. Yet, the implementation is still limited and depended on the teacher’s interest andii

motivations due to unprovided guidance, reference, or instruction. The teachers have confirmed
a huge advantages of STEM Education in improving students' quality of knowledge and skills
and also mentioned three significant points of STEM education such as “STEM education isinteresting”; “STEM education provides hands-on activities”; “STEM education is the most
updated learning process”. They believed that STEM education could give a chance for students
to explore more based on real-life and also to balance the students’ habits in and outside theclasses. Teachers confirmed that STEM education is more appropriate to the current student’characteristics, especially in high school student. The last part emerged the challenges: (i)engineering becomes the most challenging subject in STEM education, followed bymathematics, technology, and science. Teachers need to realize that engineering is the situatedcontext and the platform in STEM education; (ii) Teachers specify some challenges includingtime limitation, lacking of teacher awareness, technology. It was found that implementation of
STEM education will face time limitation, lacking teacher awareness and technology; (iii)
Teachers also mentioned unmatched Indonesian curriculum with STEM education. It was
narrowed down to the relationship between national examination goals in Indonesia and STEM
education goals in case of content integration;
Thirdly, when comparing the subskills’ mean score between traditional and STEM group,
most of the subskills do not have differences even the result of ANCOVA shows the significant
value in the effect of STEM education on the crucial thinking skills. However, the data showeda statistically significant difference between pre- and post-test value of hypothetical-deductive
thinking skill in STEM group. It is supported by the previous research in revealing the positive
impacts of STEM education on hypothetical-deductive thinking skill.
In conclusion, stage 1 and stage 2 resulted in the current conditions of STEM educationin Indonesia. They were confirmed through specific crucial thinking skills and teachers’
perception on the instructional design of STEM education. Although stage 3 failed to support
the effectiveness of STEM education to solve all crucial thinking skills in Indonesia. However,
the mean score in STEM group showed improvement on hypothetical-deductive thinking skills
with the significant difference on the score between pre- and post-test. Preparations need to bemade and the challenges need to be addressed before the official curriculum from thegovernment is fully implemented.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSFirst and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to the Japanese Government
and Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science, and Technology (MEXT) for the great
opportunity to update my knowledge as well as my experiences through Monbukagakusho
scholarship.
I would like to deeply thank to my academic advisors, Professor SHIMIZU Kinya andthe late Professor TSUTAOKA Takanori, for their great support, guidance, critical comments,and encouragement from the beginning till the end of this research work.
Also, I am very grateful to Professor BABA Takuya, Professor NAKAYA Ayami,
Professor IKEDA Hideo, and Dr. MATSUBARA Kenji for their valuable support, comments,
and advice during my study. I would like to thank all professors and colleagues of Educationin IDEC Hiroshima University and my research roommates for their unconditional help andsupport during my study.
I am particularly grateful to the academic staff, managers, teachers and students inIndonesia and Japan, who participated in this research and made it possible for me to conduct
my fieldwork. Without their participation and contribution, the purpose of this research would
not have been achieved.
Last but not least, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my lovely husband,
my adorable parents, whole family`s member and all of best friends for their love,encouragement, and support.

iv

DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my husband Ahmad Eka Siwi, my parents, my family andfriends for the encouragement and unconditional support.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. IIACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... IV
DEDICATION .......................................................................................................................... V
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... IX
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... X
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. XI
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
Background of the Study ..................................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement ............................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................... 7
Skills Gained through STEM Education ........................................................................... 7
Science Process Skills ........................................................................................................ 9
Critical Thinking Skills .................................................................................................... 10
Reasoning Skills ............................................................................................................... 11
The Relationships among Three Thinking Skills ............................................................. 12
STEM Education ................................................................................................................ 15
Definition of STEM Education ........................................................................................ 15
STEM Education and Inquiry-based Instruction .............................................................. 18
STEM Education among the Countries ........................................................................... 22
The Implementation of STEM Education ........................................................................ 22
Factors in Implementation of STEM Education .............................................................. 22
Theoretical Frameworks of the Study .............................................................................. 27
Research Objectives ........................................................................................................... 29
Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 30vi

Significances of the Study .................................................................................................. 30
Composition of the Dissertation ........................................................................................ 31
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................. 36
Overall Research Design .................................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 4 CRUCIAL THINKING SKILLS ....................................................................... 40
Methodology of the First Stage ......................................................................................... 40
Inclusion Criteria .............................................................................................................. 40
Literature Search .............................................................................................................. 42
Analysis Procedures ......................................................................................................... 42
Result and Discussion......................................................................................................... 43
Crucial Domains in Science Process Skills ...................................................................... 43
Crucial Domains in Critical Thinking Skills .................................................................... 56
Crucial Domains in Reasoning Skills............................................................................... 67
The Relationships among Three Thinking Skills ............................................................. 73
CHAPTER 5 INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN OF STEM EDUCATION IN INDONESIA ...... 75
Methodology of the Second Stage ..................................................................................... 75
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 76
Participants ....................................................................................................................... 78
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 78
Result ................................................................................................................................... 79
The results cover the three areas of STEM content integration, real-world application, andscaffolding. ....................................................................................................................... 79
STEM Content Integration ............................................................................................... 79
Real-world Application .................................................................................................... 80
Scaffolding in STEM Education ...................................................................................... 81
Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 83
CHAPTER 6 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM EDUCATION IN INDONESIA .............. 87
Methodology of the Third Stage ....................................................................................... 87
Teaching Intervention ...................................................................................................... 87
Participants, Instrument and Analysis Method .............................................................. 107
vii

Result ................................................................................................................................. 111
Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................................. 114
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ....................................................... 118
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 118
Implications....................................................................................................................... 120
Limitations and Recommendations ................................................................................ 121
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 123
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................ 142

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Main Competency Domains of the 2013 Indonesian National Curriculum ................. 7
Table 2. Essential Elements of Scientific Inquiry .................................................................... 19
Table 3. Inquiry Phases and the Relationship with STEM Disciplines ................................... 21
Table 4. Category of Factor in STEM Education..................................................................... 22
Table 5. The Characteristics of 32 Included Studies in SPS .................................................... 43
Table 6. The Characteristics of 34 Included Studies in CTS ................................................... 56
Table 7. The Characteristics of 12 Included Studies in RS ...................................................... 67
Table 8. Essential Areas and List of the Questions during Interview ...................................... 77
Table 9. Science Teachers’ Knowledge Joining the PD Program............................................ 79
Table 10. Teachers’ Experiences during Pre-service Training ................................................ 80
Table 11. The Most Challenging Field among STEM Disciplines .......................................... 81
Table 12. The Scope of the Competency ................................................................................. 88
Table 13. Basic Competency and Indicators ............................................................................ 90
Table 14. STEM Education Process using Inquiry-based Instruction ..................................... 91
Table 15. Traditional Instruction Process using Discovery Learning .................................... 101
Table 16. Subskills of Reasoning Skills ................................................................................. 109
Table 17. Two-tier Multiple-choice Test Scoring Method .................................................... 111
Table 18. Descriptive Statistics in Both Groups .................................................................... 111
Table 19. Pre-test Analysis..................................................................................................... 112
Table 20. Homogeneity of Regression ................................................................................... 112
Table 21. Analysis Covariance Result ................................................................................... 113
Table 22. Paired Sample t-Test of Traditional Group ............................................................ 113
Table 23. Paired Sample t-Test of STEM Group ................................................................... 114

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Curriculum Development in Indonesia ....................................................................... 1
Figure 2. 2019 National Achievement in Indonesia ................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Conceptual Framework of Relationships among Thinking Skills ............................ 13
Figure 4. Science Education must Expand its Curriculum to Connect with Technology,
Engineering, and Math to Develop a Cogent STEM Curriculum ............................................ 19
Figure 5. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................. 29
Figure 6. Composition of the Dissertation ............................................................................... 31
Figure 7. Research Design ....................................................................................................... 38
Figure 8. Flow Chart of Literature Search ............................................................................... 41
Figure 9. Percentage of each Subskills from 32 Included Studies in SPS ............................... 55
Figure 10. Percentage of each Subskills from 34 Included Studies in CTS............................. 66
Figure 11. Percentage of each Subskills from 12 Included Studies in RS ............................... 72
Figure 12. Conceptual Framework of Relationships among Thinking Skills .......................... 73
Figure 13. The most Crucial Area of Thinking Skills .............................................................. 74
Figure 14. Meeting Details ....................................................................................................... 89
Figure 15. Example of LCTSR Two-tier Item Questions in Probabilistic Reasoning Skill .. 109x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSUNESCOThe United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization

MoEC

Ministry of Education and Culture

MoNE

Ministry of the National Education

SKL

Standar Kompetensi Kelulusan (The standard of graduate
competencies)

PISA

Programme for International Student AssessmentOECD

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

ODI

Overseas Development Institute

STEM

Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics

SPS

Science Process Skill

CTS

Critical Thinking Skill

RS

Reasoning Skill

MGMP

Musyawarah

Guru

Mata

Pelajaran(Physics

Association)
LCTSR

Lawson’s Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning

SAPA

Science – A Process Approach

EI

Empirical Inductive

HD

Hypothetical Deductive

NSF

National Science Foundation

SMET

Science, Mathematics, Engineering, TechnologyxiTeacherCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Curriculum is one of the main components of the education system and plays a significant
role in improving the quality of education. It consists of inputs, processes, and outcomes. It isdeveloped dynamically and continuously in a systematic, flexible, realistic, and contextual way.
Curriculum should recognize that education in school needs support from family and thecommunity, which are also places of learning (UNESCO, 2011). In Indonesia, curriculum
developmemt does not seek to create a single curriculum for all schools. Rather, it can bedifferent for various learning levels of students, with different measurement criteria for eachgroup of students.
The curriculum content must have its foundation in ethics and morals based on religious
and other relevant subject matters. The Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) oversees
the preparation, coordination, facilitation, and execution of curriculum development.
Indonesian curriculum has been changed over the years in order to fulfill and accommodate
public needs and aspirations and promote citizens’ growth, while keeping in tune with the latest
developments in science, technology, and culture. Since independence in 1945, the nation’s
educational curriculum has changed several times, including in 1947, 1952, 1962, 1968, 1975,
1984, 1994, 2004, 2006, and 2013 as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Curriculum Development in Indonesia

1Indonesian curriculum has been designed in accordance with Indonesian national
principles (the so-called Pancasila) and the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia (MoNE, 2012). The
most recently implemented curriculum is the K-13 program in 2013. As part of this program,learners are expected to improve their skills and strike a balance between soft skills and hardskills based on the standard of graduate competencies (SKL), including effective and creative
thinking in abstract and concrete domains (Prihantara, 2015).
The government also developed the MoEC stategic plan of 2015-2019 that covered thepriority agenda of the K-13 curriculum termed Nawacita. The plan aimed to (1) improve thequality of human life in Indonesia by strengthening competencies in applicative fields andbolstering achievements and skills in science, mathematics, and technology, as well as problemsolving abilities based on industry requirements; and (2) enhance productivity and national andinternational competitiveness through innovation and technological capacity (M. o. E. a. C.
MoEC, 2015).
The priority agenda is to strengthen the curriculum and the relevance between the
education system and industry needs to improve students’ career opportunities in the future byemphasizing skills development. This can be achieved by (1) promoting an interactive learning
process that involves students and encourages student creativity and other thinking skills; (2)building 21st century skills in the education sector; and (3) diversifying the curriculum tosupport the development of students’ capability, interest, and intelligence (P. K. d. P. MoEC,
2017). The agenda has emphasized the importance of skills development in the curriculum.
Gropello et al. (2011) have reviewed the main characteristics of and the trends in the
demand for skills in Indonesia. The study sought to document the existence of a possible skills
mismatch between employer demands and the available supply, the contribution of theeducation and training sector to this mismatch, and possible measures to improve the educationand training system’s responsiveness to the needs of the labor market and the economy.
Subjective assessments of the difficulties in matching needs with available skills provide
evidence that skills are becoming an issue overall in Indonesia.
Thinking skills represent one of the major skill gaps across professional profiles. Five
general skill-related priorities can be highlighted for Indonesia. First, the country needs toimprove skill measurement to get a fuller understanding of skill needs and gaps. Second,
Indonesia needs to urgently address the still unsatisfactory quality and relevance of its
education, including higher education. Third, the country needs to set up multiple pathways for2

skill development. Fourth, the country needs to develop an integrated approach to tackle skill
development for youth. Fifth, Indonesia should also tackle labor market constraints, which
affect the skill matching process (Gropello, Kruse, & Tandon, 2011). The five priorities
emphasize the promotion of skills’ capacity and development for Indonesian students and theimplementation of an integrated approach to support those skills.
The skills system is regulated by Law 20/2003 on the Education System, Law 12/2003
on Labor and Manpower, Presidential Regulation 8/2012 on the Indonesian National
Qualification Framework, Presidential Regulation 9/2016 on Revitalization of SMKs,
Government Regulation 31/2006 on National Training System, and Government Regulation
10/2018 on the Indonesian Professional Certification Authority (World Bank, 2019). These
regulations have envisaged the significance of an integrated approach in education for skill
development in Indonesia
Problem Statement
Even though the government has undertaken this impressive fiscal effort, certain issues
may arise during curriculum development. Educational quality and learning outcomes during
the New Order improved little if at all over time and compared poorly to other countries(Rosser, 2018). Nowadays, the national examination system is driving curriculum
implementation and challenging the educational sector in Indonesia. In particular, the national
examination target is pushing science and mathematics education to shift their focus fromteaching to learning. Memorizing mathematical and scientific formulae is more common thanperforming experiments. During the learning process, teachers transfer the knowledge in the
textbooks to the students through lectures and drill students on how to answer multiple choicetype questions (Bahri, 2013; Hendayana, Supriatna, & Imansyah, 2011).
In fact, the Educational Assessment Center in Indonesia has shown that the averagenational achievement score in six subjects at the upper secondary level was 69.69 of 100, with
science subjects, especially physics and mathematics, posting the lowest average scores in 2019as shown in Figure 2 (M. o. E. a. C. MoEC, 2019).

3

Average Score

100
69.69

53.58
50

0

39.33

BahasaIndonesia

EnglishMathematics

46.47

Physics

50.99

50.61

Chemistry

Biology

Subjects

Figure 2. 2019 National Achievement in Indonesia

Science education, which aims to not only build student knowledge but also encourage
scientific behavior, has undergone an extraordinary transformation to create the foundation forprosperity and sustainable development. Indonesia’s performance in international standardized
tests of student achievement from 1999-2015 suggests that little has changed in these respects
since the fall of the New Order. Between 2012 and 2015 alone, science performance among 12year-old students rose by 21 score points. This makes Indonesia the fifth fastest improving
nation in terms of the education system among the 72 countries that took part in the Programme
for International Student Assessment (PISA), with the country’s science performance abovethat of several other nations that participated in PISA 2015. However, the mean performanceof Indonesian science students was lower than the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) average, and more than half of Indonesian students do not possess
the adequate skills to compete in the labor market (Gropello, Kruse, Tandon, & Martawardaya,
2010; OECD, 2016).
Indonesian curriculum needs to focus not only on knowledge transfer in education, butalso on sustainable development and the building of students’ thinking skills and 21 st century
skills. Traditional science teaching falls short in these respects in Indonesia. It is important toknow how to apply scientific concepts to design technologies or products, solve problems, andconnect to real world phenomena (Mullis, Martin, Goh, & Cotter, 2016; Mutakinati, Anwari,& Kumano, 2018; P. D. A. Putra, 2017).
The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) (2014) recommended changes to theIndonesian education system, including implementing curriculum and pedagogy reforms,

4

strengthening the teaching force, and supporting decentralization and school-based
management (Tobias, Wales, Syamsulhakim, & Suharti, 2014). Students assume real-world
connections to what they are learning, or they may completely disengage (El-Deghaidy &Mansour, 2015; Havice, Havice, Waugaman, & Walker, 2018).
Based on these issues, the Indonesian government is adapting STEM education, aninterdisciplinary and applied approach to learning science, technology, engineering, andmathematics, to the 2013 curriculum, especially at the upper secondary level (Fransisca,
Sisdiana, Dian, & Arie, 2019). The government has made preliminary efforts for the
implementation of STEM education, such as conducting STEM training for role model teachersin Indonesia. STEM education is believed to give every student opportunities to improve theirskills, abilities, and fundamentals for 21st century learning by utilizing an assortment of
movement-based learning models. Students are exposed to a wealth of information, which isone of the major issues in Indonesia, and given chances to solve global challenges (Bybee,
2013; Caprile, Palmen, Sanz, & Dente, 2015; Council, 2011, 2014; Meyrick, 2011; Press, 2005;
Scientist, 2013; Shernoff, Sinha, Bressler, & Ginsburg, 2017; Society, 2014; Tanembaum,
Gray, Lee, Williams, & Upton, 2016).
In addition, STEM education provides the positive chance in learning and improving
thinking skills beyond the content knowledge, such as how to cooperate with the group work
process expressing ideas, brainstorming, and creating a product from knowledge, experience,
activities and being able to integrate knowledge to apply in daily life, how to use scientificinstrumentation appropriately, how to gather and analyse data, how to design methods andproblem solved processes, planning and implementing solutions, testing, checking, improving
solutions or products and offering solutions to solve problems, (Reynders et al., 2019;
Changpetch & Seechaliao, 2020).
Moore et al. (2014) designated a framework for quality STEM education that has six key
elements, which are the inclusion of appropriate math and science content based on the gradelevel, adoption of a student-centered pedagogy, allowance for making mistakes in the learning
process, group collaboration, use of an engaging and motivating context, and integration ofengineering design challenges. Students engage in hands-on activities that allow them todiscover new concepts and develop new understandings. Thus, experimental learning is
intentionally used to promote knowledge building, and students are encouraged to test existingideas by taking things apart, making predictions, observing, and recording their explanations.

5In sum, the Indonesian government has had great success in getting children into school
and keeping them at school, at least until the end of the compulsory basic education period.
However, it has had much less success in ensuring that students receive quality of education(Rosser, 2018). Therefore, STEM education has been utilized for educational development inrecent times. However, how and to what extent STEM education can be implemented inIndonesia remains unclear.

6

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKThis chapter outlines the literature review, theoretical framework, research objectives,
research questions, and the significance of the study. The literature review was conducted toprovide a theoretical basis for this study and also convey what knowledge and ideas have been
established by this study and what its strengths and weaknesses are. The study is defined by a
guiding concept, including the research questions and objectives. The literature review was
conducted in three areas, namely STEM education, skills gained through STEM education, and
STEM education systems followed by different countries. The second part outlines thetheoretical framework of this study, followed by the research objectives, research questions,and the significance of the study.
Skills Gained through STEM Education
Many psychologists and psychometricians have acknowledged the close relationshipbetween thinking skills and students’ overall capacity to learn (Colvin, 1921; Han, 2013). Theseskills help students in building their knowledge and developing the competence to solve
problems and formulate results. The 2013 revision of the Indonesian curriculum requiredscience teachers to integrate thinking skills, including reasoning, processing, and presenting
skills, with content learning objectives as part of their general teaching and learning activities.
As can be seen from Table 1, the main competencies can be categorized into spiritual, social,knowledge, and skill domains (MoEC, 2016).
Table 1. Main Competency Domains of the 2013 Indonesian National Curriculum

Main Competencies
Spiritual

Description
Refers to having students understand and practice religious
beliefs and values in their daily lives

SocialRefers to shared social and cultural values, such as
1.

Honesty,2.

Self-discipline,

3.

Responsibility,

4.

Social awareness,7

5.

Cooperation, and6.

Tolerance

These values are essential for children to develop and toeffectively interact with the environment, family, school,community, state, region, nation, and the world
Knowledge

Refers to understanding, implementing, analyzing, and evaluating
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
based on interest in
1.

Science2.

Technology

3.

Art

4.

Culture, and5.

Humanities

Gain insight into how humanity, nationality, statehood, andcivilization are related to phenomena and events, and apply
knowledge in specific fields of study in accordance with theirtalents and interests to solve problems
SkillsRefer to reasoning skills, processing skills, and presenting
skills that are effectively, creatively, productively, critically,
independently, and collaboratively reflected in concrete andabstract contexts related to what is learnt in school, and which canbe used in accordance with scientific principles

This study focused on two main competencies: knowledge and skills. In Indonesia,
knowledge competency relies on science and technology, which are a part of STEM education.
As explained in Chapter 1, the Indonesian government has started to introduce STEM education
to all stakeholders in education, especially at the secondary level.
Meanwhile, Skills competency relies on reasoning, processing, and critical thinking
skills. This study focused only on thinking skills and narrowed them down to three skills:
science process skills (SPS), critical thinking skills (CTS), and reasoning skills (RS). These
thinking skills are the most important skills for social scientists, teachers, and students inscience education (Valentino, 2000) and have become the main objective of education in8

Indonesia (Faisal & Martin, 2019). In addition, these skills are an integral part of becoming ascientist and participating in the scientific community and as apprentice scientists, students inscience interact with each other in a deeply thinking about the content and realistic contexts
where the need for SPS, CTS, and RS can rise organically (Reynders et al., 2019).
Previous studies revealed that the learning process should be conducted via STEM
education to challenge students to learn and improve their CTS, RS, and SPS and makethemselves better prepared for their career in the future (Fulya & Yusuf, 2017; Naimnule &Corebima, 2018).
It also has been mentioned in the previous chapter that STEM education provides the
positive chance in learning and improving these skills beyond the content knowledge, such as
how to use scientific instrumentation appropriately, how to gather and analyse data, how todesign methods and problem solved processes, planning and implementing solutions, testing,checking, improving solutions or products and offering solutions to solve problems, how tocooperate with the group work process expressing ideas, brainstorming, and creating a productfrom knowledge, experience, activities and being able to integrate knowledge to apply in daily
life (Reynders et al., 2019; Changpetch & Seechaliao, 2020).
Science Process Skills
Science process skills (SPS) are defined as mental abilities that can be practiced, learnt,
and developed by children through the learning process and which make them better prepared
to meet the challenges of the 21 st century (Balfakih, 2010; Osman & Vebrianto, 2013). SPS are
essential for acquiring knowledge and ensuring that students have a meaningful learning
experience (Lee, Hairston, Thames, Lawrence, & Herron, 2002; Rauf, Rasul, Mansor, Othman,& Lyndon, 2013).
Today, the expression “Science Process Skills” is commonly used, and based on Science– A Process Approach (SAPA), these skills can be classified into basic and integrated SPS.
Germann & Aram (1996) and Rauf et al. (2013) define basic skills as the intellectual foundationin scientific inquiry. Basic skills are the preconditions to integrated process skills, which are
the final set of skills required for solving problems or performing science experiments. The
details of each sub-skill are as follows (Padilla, 1990):
1.

Observation: Using intelligence and common sense to gather information about an object
or event92.

Inference: Making an “educated guess” about an object or event based on previously
gathered data and information

3.

Measurement: Using both standard and non-standard measures or estimates to describe thedimensions of an object or event

4.

Communication: Using words or graphic symbols to describe an action, object, or event

5.

Classification: Grouping or ordering objects or events into categories based on properties
or criteria

6.

Prediction: Stating the outcome of a future event based on a pattern of evidence

7.

Variable control: Identifying variables that can affect an experimental outcome; keeping
most of them constant while manipulating only the independent variable

8.

Operational definition: Stating how to measure a variable in an experiment9.

Hypothesis formulation: Stating the expected outcome of an experiment

10. Data interpretation: Organizing data and drawing conclusions from it
11. Experimentation: Being able to experiment, including asking a question, stating ahypothesis, identifying and controlling variables, operationally defining those variables,
designing an experiment, conducting the experiment, and interpreting the results of theexperiment
12. Modeling: Creating a mental or physical model of a process or event
Critical Thinking Skills
There are widely contrasting views about critical thinking skills (CTS). Some highlightthe range of perspectives developed around the aspect of education. In summary, CTS can be
defined as the mental act of reviewing, evaluating, or appraising something (including a picture,
play, piece of information, evidence, or opinion) in an attempt to make judgments or inferences
about that something in a rational, reasoned way (McGroger, 2007). CTS are considered to
involve intellectually engaged, skillful, and responsible thinking. They facilitate good judgmentthat requires the application of assumptions, knowledge, competence, and the ability tochallenge one's thinking.
CTS require self-correction, the ability to monitor the reasonableness of thinking, andreflexivity. One characteristic that uniquely defines critical thinking is the capability of
individuals to step back and reflect on the quality of their thinking (Niu, Behar-Horenstein, &Garvan, 2013). In this study, the researcher adapted the idea of core CTS from Facione (1990),

10

who provided detail descriptors of the associated characteristics. The sub-skills of criticalthinking skills are as follows:
1.

Interpretation: Grasp and express the meaning or noteworthiness of a wide assortment ofcircumstances, information, occasions, judgments, rules, strategies, or criteria

2.

Analysis: Identify the real inferential relationship among statements, questions, anddescriptions to express belief, judgment, experiences, reasons, or opinions

3.

Evaluation: Evaluate the validity of articulations or other representations; analyze thecoherent quality of the existing or expected inferential relationship among explanations,questions, or other forms of representation

4.

Inference: Distinguish and secure components required to draw sensible conclusions; makeassumptions and speculations; consider pertinent data; and rationalize the results based on
judgments, concepts, questions, or other representations

5.

Explanation: Present the results of one's reasoning compellingly and coherently; the subskills in this category are the ability to propose and advocate strategies, and protect one's
causal and conceptual interpretations of occasions or events

6.

Self-regulation: Self-consciously monitor one's cognitive activities, the elements involvedin those activities, and the results deduced by analyzing one's inferential judgments with aview toward questioning

Reasoning Skills
The last type of cognitive skills in this study is reasoning skills (RS). Based on
psychologists’ theory of cognitive development, which is divided into four stages based on age,
Lawson (2000) identified reasoning skills in the last two stages: empirical-inductive thought
and hypothetical-deductive thought. Empirical-inductive thinking (EI) patterns enable a childto accurately order and describe perceptible objects, events, and situations in his or her world.
In this stage, the child starts using language for logical reasoning. Conservation skill is one of
the sub-skills of reasoning skills. Hypothetical-deductive (HD) thinking patterns allow young
persons to go beyond traditional descriptions and create and test hypothetical explanations(Anton E Lawson, 1995). Given below is a list of the descriptions of each sub-skill in RS basedon Lawson (2000).
1.

Conservation law (EI): Ability to apply conservation reasoning to perceptible objects andproperties (e.g., if nothing is added or taken away, the amount, number, length, weight,
etc., remain the same even though the appearance differs)

11

2.

Proportional thinking (HD1): Ability to recognize and interpret relationships between
situations described by observable or theoretical variables

3.

Identification and control of variables (HD2): A process that includes control of thedependent and independent variables that affect the continuity of the situation duringhypothesis testing

4.

Probabilistic reasoning (HD3): A situation focused on the division of the number ofreiterations of a specific procedure that delivers a specific result when rehashed under thesame conditions on countless occasions

5.

Correlational reasoning (HD4): Ability to recognize causes in the phenomenon under study
by comparing the number of confirming and disconfirming cases of hypothesized relations
with the total number of cases

6.

Hypothetical-deductive reasoning (HD5): Characteristics of the reasoning process that help
in developing and organizing possible solutions to a problem in any domain of life

The Relationships among Three Thinking Skills
As mentioned above, psychologists have established the theory of cognitive development.
Piaget (1966) is one of the experts to investigate cognitive development to learn how a childperceives the environment and the world based on his/her observation and interpretation.
According to Piaget's theory, cognitive development can be divided into four stages based onage. This study focuses on the last two stages (concrete reasoning and formal operational
reasoning), which were previously introduced as EI and HD (Lawson, 1995).
Concrete reasoning (EI) begins from age seven or eight and includes aspects such asnaming, describing, and classifying. The epistemology of the concrete reasoning stage thinker
is one of observation: What causes events? To find the answer, observe the events. Formal
operational reasoning (HD) begins in adolescent and older children. In this stage, some children
become increasingly capable of using language to apply the deductive pattern of thinking tohypothetical rather than empirical representations. The epistemology of the formal reasoning
stage thinker is vastly different: What causes events? To find the answer, one must firstmentally create several possible causes, deduce their potential consequences, and then observe
the results of experimental manipulations to support or reject the possibilities (Lawson, 1995).
Concrete reasoning and formal operational reasoning form the basis of RS, and this category ofskills is typically used by researchers to define more complex skills such as SPS and CTS(Ozgelen, 2012).

12

Figure 3 shows a model developed for this study that demonstrates the conceptual
framework of relationships between SPS, CTS, and RS. This model was developed by taking
into consideration the similarity of all sub-skills in SPS, CTS, and RS. This conceptual
framework consists of three circles representing the three main categories of skills. The circle
with the orange outline represents the area for SPS, the circle with the green outline represents
the area for RS, and the one with the blue ouline the area for CTS. The bigger the size of thecircle, the greater is the number of sub-skills included. All these circles are included in the
cognitive domain, represented by the space within the rectangle. In addition, the blue dots
signify the sub-skills of SPS, CTS, and RS. This means that all these skills can be developed or
improved through training or high quality learning.

SCIENCEPROCESSSKILLS(Padilla, 1990)

REASONING
SKILLS (Anton
E. Lawson, 2000)

I

CRITICALTHINKINGSKILLS(Facione, 1990)

III

II

IV

V

COGNITIVE DOMAIN

Figure 3. Conceptual Framework of Relationships among Thinking Skills

Based on the model described above, the relationship between the three thinking skills is
divided into five groups in accordance with Piaget’s theory. The definition and pattern of theskills are listed below.
1.

Group I: Observation; Measurement; Communication; Classification; and Operational
Definition (EI)

2.

Group II: Identification and control of variable (HD2); Prediction skill (HD3); Hypothesis
formulation (HD5); Development of experimental design (HD5); Making of model (HD5);
and Execution of Experiment (HD5)

13

3.

Group III: Interpretation of data (HD1); Inference (HD4); and Analysis (HD4)4.

Group IV: Simple explanation (conservation/EI); Explanation (HD5); and Evaluation
(HD5)

5.

Group V: Self-regulation
The first group consists of five sub-skills, namely observation, measurement,

communication, classification, and operational definition, which are the characteristics of thebasic SPS (Padilla, 1990), but do not include RS or CTS. They become the initial componentof the EI stage.
The second group pictures the relationship between SPS and RS, which covers threeelements: (i) Identification and control of variable (HD2), which helps students recognize theneed to consider all the known variables and design a test that controls all variables; (ii)
Prediction skill (HD3), also called probabilistic thinking in reasoning skills, helps students
recognize a pattern of evidence (Han, 2013); and (iii) Hypothesis formulation, experimental
design/model development, and execution of experiment are covered in hypothetical deductive
reasoning (HD5).
The third group talks about the relationship between SPS, CTS, and RS, which consistsof two aspects: (i) Interpretation of data (HD1), which covers proportional reasoning to help
students recognize and identify the relationships of situations described by observable ortheoretical variables. This skill aims to comprehend, organize, and express the meaning or
significance of a wide variety of experiences, situations, data, events, judgments, conventions,beliefs, rules, and procedures; (ii) Inference (HD4) and Analysis (HD4) enable students torecognize causes or relations in the phenomenon under study by comparing the number ofaffirming and disconfirming cases of hypothesized relations with the total number of cases.
The fourth group pictures the relationships between CTS and RS in explanation skills,
which are divided into two components: simple explanation (EI), and explanation (HD5) andevaluation (HD5). Simple explanation is also called conservation reasoning and helps students
understand concepts and simple propositions related to familiar actions and observable objects,
which can be explained in terms of simple associations, and enables them to follow step-bystep instructions as in a recipe, provided each step is completely specified and associate his or
her viewpoint with that of another in a simple situation. Explanation skill and evaluation skill(HD5) are involved in testing theories or hypotheses.

14

The fifth group is self-regulation that helps students organize a strategy to find asolution. Self-regulation is one of the curricular principles that will promote the developmentof important thinking skills and reasoning patterns needed for freedom of mind (Lawson,
1995). This skill in included in the CTS group, but not in the other two.
In summary, these thinking skills are connected with each other directly and/or indirectly(Lawson, 1995; Ozgelen, 2012). Ozgelen (2012) revealed that the term “formal reasoning
skills” is typically used by researchers to define more complex skills and integrated science
process skills, which is proved through this model.
Further, the variety of labels and similarities in science process skills, critical thinking
skills, and reasoning skills -are confusing to teachers (Bailin, 2002; Lewis & Smith, 1993; Niu
et al., 2013; Zimmerman, 2000). There is no previous study that discusses about the thinking
skills that should be given top priority in STEM education through the relationship among them.
Hence, this study sought to identify the crucial and most highlighted skills among these fivegroups of skills through systematic literature review.
STEM Education
Definition of STEM Education
In the 1990s, the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the US started using the acronym“SMET,” standing for “Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology,” which was thenchanged to STEM in 2001. In the last two decades, the NSF has used STEM to refer to the four
separate and distinct fields. In fall 2007, they realized that the acronym STEM is ambiguous,
so STEM education was rechristened as “Integrative STEM Education.” The notion of
integrative STEM education includes approaches to explore teaching and learning between two
or more STEM disciplines and within a STEM discipline (Sanders, 2009). The specializationsof each subject are explained as follows (Burghardt & Hacker, 2004; Kelley & Knowles, 2016):
1.

Scientific inquiry. Preparing students to think and act like real scientists, ask questions,hypothesize, and conduct investigations using standard science practices. Science
concepts: life sciences, physical sciences, chemical sciences;2.

Technology. As objects, knowledge, activities, and volition. Technology concepts:
technology as tools, technology as ideas, technology as product of science;

3.

Engineering design. As an approach to delivering STEM education creates an ideal entry
point to include engineering practices into existing secondary curriculum. Engineering

15

design concepts: models, designs, problem-solving, communicating ideas, planning,
implementing;4.

Mathematics thinking. Providing the necessary rationale for students to learn mathematics
through valuating design solutions and see the connections between what should be learnedin school with what is required in STEM career skills. Mathematical concepts: numbers,
problem-solving, geometry, measurement, representation of math ideas using objects,
symbols, and words.
Nowadays, STEM education is defined depending on the stakeholder. In general terms,

STEM education refers to the integration of problem-solving learning with the STEM
disciplines (Sari, Alici, & Sen, 2018), and the graduation of students in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics with a future career in these fields. STEM is also connected toeconomic competitiveness in the global market and maintenance of energy and productivity(Boe, Henriksen, Lyons, & Schreiner, 2011). STEM education combines academic concepts
with real-world lessons and connects the school, community, work, and the global enterprisedomains with each other (Akaygun & Aslan-Tukak, 2016; Cevik & Ozgunay, 2018; Tsupros,
Kohler, & Hallinen, 2009).
As explained in the background of this study, the strategic plan of the MoEC in Indonesia
aims to focus on improving students’ skills in science, mathematics, technology, and problemsolving based on industry needs through an interactive learning process. Hence, this study
defined STEM education as a teaching approach in science at the K-12 education level thatseeks to create an interactive learning process by combining science, technology, engineering,and mathematics education with application-oriented techniques and inquiry-based instructionin order to encourage students' creativity and thinking skills. STEM education could makemeaningful learning possible and develop relevant career content standards and skills useful ineveryday life (John et al., 2018; Maarouf, 2019; Pawilen & Yuzon, 2019; Sari, Alici, & Sen,
2018).
Moore et al. (2014) designated a framework for quality STEM education that has six key
elements, which are the inclusion of appropriate math and science content based on the gradelevel, adoption of a student-centered pedagogy, allowance for making mistakes in the learning
process, group collaboration, use of engaging and motivating context, and integration ofengineering design challenges.

16

STEM education provides benefits to students by giving them opportunities to integrateinterdisciplinary research topics in their studies (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014;
Jacobs & Eccles, 2000). In addition, it plays a key role in achieving critical competencies suchas problem-solving skills, social communication skills, technology and engineering skills, andsystem skills (Jang, 2016). STEM education supports students’ explorations, questions, andconversations, and reveals how competent they are in the science, technology, engineering, andmathematics subjects (DeCoito, Steele, & Goodnough, 2016). STEM education is believed tocontribute to the development of 21st century skills (Altan, Ozturk, & Turkoglu, 2018).
STEM education has been around for quite a long time, but it was only in 1957 that
American educators concurred on the estimation that it is important for giving the US an edgein the worldwide economy (White, 2014). STEM education was implemented only recently inIndonesia due to constrained resources. The idea of STEM education in Indonesia has been
gaining ground (Suprapto, 2016).
STEM education has the purpose of (1) furthering students’ understanding of eachdiscipline by building on students’ prior knowledge; (2) broadening students’ understanding of
STEM disciplines through exposure to socially relevant STEM contexts; and (3) making thefour STEM disciplines and related careers more accessible to and intriguing for students (Wang,
Moore, Roehrig, & Park, 2011). STEM education is believed to provide opportunities for more
relevant, less fragmented, and more stimulating experiences for learners (Furner & Kumar,2007), and to eliminate the misconceptions of students about science education (Hasanah,2020). Previous research has confirmed that STEM education has considerable effects on
students’ career choices in the future.
Previous study confirmed that STEM education had considerable effects on the students’choices towards career insterest towards their future. It can make meaningful learning possible,
develop important careers content standards and useful skills in everyday life (John, Siburna,
Wunnava, Anggoro, & Dubosarsky, 2018; Maarouf, 2019; Pawilen & Yuzon, 2019; Sari, Alici,& Sen, 2018). Pawilen & Yuzon (2019) established six important things that need to beconsidered in designing STEM education as a part of effective curriculum:
1.

Interest of the students on the topics and activities

2.

Availability of materials to be used3.

Appropriateness of the topics and activities to the learners

4.

Relevance to learners’ daily lives
17

5.

Connection of the contents and activities to the K-12 curriculum

6.

Integration of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

STEM Education and Inquiry-based Instruction
Thibaut et al. (2018) pointed out that STEM education at the secondary education levelis based on social constructivism theories, which state that learning is socially situated andknowledge is built through interaction with others based on one’s existing ideas andexperiences. They mentioned several categories of STEM educational practices, including
inquiry, which is also supported by Blue (2014). The term “inquiry” has been used tocharacterize good practices in both teaching and learning in STEM education (Rocard et al.,2007). Inquiry-based instruction is defined as a pedagogical approach that combines the
curiosity of students and scientific method to enhance skills development during STEM
learning (Blue, 2014; Warner & Myers, 2012).
In inquiry-based instruction, students engage in hands-on activities that allow them todiscover new concepts and develop new understandings. Thus, experimental learning is
intentionally used to promote knowledge building, and students are encouraged to test existingideas by taking things apart, making predictions, observing, and recording their explanations.
Although inquiry-based instruction originated in science education, where students are usuallyrequired to engage in authentic science practices (e.g., planning and designing experiments andcollecting data), it is not restricted to this domain and also occurs in mathematical or
technological contexts (Satchwell & Loepp, 2002).
As illustrated in Figure 4, scientific inquiry is at the center of STEM education and theprocess must become an integral part of STEM education (Carin, Bass, & Contant, 2005).
Students engage in five activities when teachers implement inquiry-based instruction: question;
investigate; use evidence to describe, explain, and predict; connect evidence to knowledge; andshare findings.

18

Ask aquestion
Communicate, procedures,data, andexplanations

Scientific
Inquiry

Use researchand evidence
to interpretfindings

Plan and
conduct aninvestigation

Use tools andtechniques togather data

Figure 4. Science Education must Expand its Curriculum to Connect with Technology, Engineering,and Math to Develop a Cogent STEM Curriculum

Students must be oriented to the entire gamut of scientific method right from identifying
the problem to experimenting, reporting the results, and evaluating the effectiveness of themethod. Table 2 shows how scientific inquiry allows teachers to address specific elements ofscientific inquiry. When teachers integrate the essential elements of scientific inquiry into
STEM education, students develop a scientific way of thinking (Fang, Lamme, Pringle, &Abell, 2010).
Table 2. Essential Elements of Scientific Inquiry

Elements:

Notes:

Planning
Generate research question

Finalize the thing to be studied

Design studies

Plan the look and function of the study

Identify variables

Name the thing(s) to be investigated(location, environment)

Plan procedures

Outline the step-by-step process of the study

19

Control variables

Control

the

study

variables

under

examination
Plan measures

Decide whether you will collect scores andwhat the time and length of the study shouldbe

Implementing
Begin procedures

Follow your plan

Make observations

Collect data

Reporting
Explain results

Write a report or prepare a presentation

Translate observation into data sources

Develop data collection forms, processes

Find flaws in the research

Critique the study in terms of its limitations

Draw inferences about research questions

Use data and analysis to figure out answers toyour questions

Generate an explanation

Write a report of what you found out, as aresult of your study

Argue an interpretation

Make a case for your way of thinking

Develop a theory

Identify the prevailing principle that emerges

Disseminate findings in multiple studies

Submit research reports on different aspectsof the study

Study research reports for information Read research conducted by others on thepertinent to their study

same or similar topic

Science teachers and researchers have diverse interpretations of effective forms ofinquiry. Previous research has proposed a model consisting of four phases that seek toencompass STEM education. In the first phase (inquiry invitation), the teacher proposes anengineering-based real world problem that serves as a context to teach science-related content.
During the second phase, students perform a guided inquiry, wherein they conduct different
experiments using scientific practices and technology, and interpret data using mathematics.
The third phase consist of an open inquiry, during which students discuss the results obtainedin the guided inquiry and propose new research questions necessary to solve the initial problem.
The fourth and final phase (inquiry resolution) requires the design or implementation of asolution, which could be technological in nature. In this way, students begin to explore
20

engineering design, linking engineering and science. Table 3 shows how STEM disciplines areemphasized during the four phases in the proposed model of inquiry (Toma & Greca, 2018).
The details of the learning process in this study will be elaborated in the next chapter.
Table 3. Inquiry Phases and the Relationship with STEM Disciplines

Coupled Inquiry
INQUIRY INVITATIONSTEM disciplines
SCIENCE-ENGINEERING

Science content is introduced through Real world problem related to an engineeringreal-world problem

challenge

GUIDED INQUIRYSCIENCE

Students perform guided experiment Application of scientific methodologies in order
following teacher instruction

to address the scientific concepts needed to solve
the problem
MATHEMATICS
Data analysis and interpretation
TECHNOLOGY
Handling of devices and instrument for the designof experiments, data gathering and analysis

OPEN INQUIRYSCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING,

Students keep addressing the initial MATHEMATICS
problem through experiments that are Students discuss the result obtained and they
not guided by the teacher

identify better ways to improve their design inorder to solve initial problem

INQUIRY RESOLUTIONENGINEERING

Solving the initial problem

Students design or implement the technologicaldevice that solves the initial problem; using thescientific concepts developed previously and, in
this wat, linking engineering and science
TECHNOLOGY
Students

proposepossibletechnologicalapplications in real world situations of thescientific concepts addressed throughout the21inquiry. Students communicate their result andoffer possible resolutions of the initial problem

STEM Education among the Countries
The Implementation of STEM Education
The implementation of STEM education in an educational system that has a very special
and discipline-based structure requires deep restructuring of the curriculum and lessons (LouisS. Nadelson & Anne L. Seifert, 2017). It requires numerous materials and resources for students(Pawilen & Yuzon, 2019; Stohlmann, Moore, & Roehrig, 2012). STEM education has been
applied to the elementary to higher education field for decades in the USA and recently adaptedby many Asian countries including Indonesia (Fransisca et al., 2019; Hwang & Taylor, 2016;
Koonce, Zhou, Anderson, Hening, & Conley, 2011; Radloff & Guzey, 2016). It has become
more prominent for the researchers, the government and teachers. The believes are theunderstanding of student are not the primary intention in education, how do students haveadequate skills to face their career in the future should be more significant and it is promoted
through implementing STEM education.
Obviously, serious efforts should be arranged to transform traditional learning approaches
to STEM education, especially in faces several difficulties in preparing the readiness of STEM
implementation in the countries (Awad, Salman, & Barak, 2019; Shumow & Schmidt, 2013).
Factors in Implementation of STEM Education
Researcher listed factors in the implementation of STEM education into three broad
categories (intrinsic, extrinsic, and institutional) that is formatted in the table 4 below. Eachdomain was defined as follows; (1) intrinsic factor that is related to personnel of the teacher aswell as student, for example quality of teaching, educator’s personal experience and awareness,
attitudes, beliefs, practice or preparation and resistance; (2) extrinsic factor which is resulted
from inadequate and or inappropriate configuration of infrastructure for teacher such as gender,
racial, time, access, support, resource, training for educator, cultural; (3) institutional factor is
specific to curriculum, policy, technology, as well as organizational sustenance in the education
field (Maguire, 2008; Shadle, Marker, & Earl, 2017).
Table 4. Category of Factor in STEM Education

No.

Domains

22

Intr. Ext. Inst.

Factor1.

Teacher`s education (need for course and workshop to
face

the

real-world

problemsolving*

through

teamwork)
2.

Instructional challenges (Lack of pedagogical skills)*

3.

Insufficient assessment methods and processes*

4.

Poor content preparation, delivery, and method of*assessment, they are not familiar enough with thecontent
5.

Expectations of Content Coverage (much material to
be understood and choose to skip)

6.

Teachers’ effort Does not fit in with standards/state**

testing. They need the effort to implement a very
different structure in an educational system
7.

Outcome expectations*

8.

Lack of knowledge on how to effectively spread the*use of currently available and tested research-based
instructional ideas and strategies
9.

Lack of teachers’ time (too busy with substantial*

teaching loads and research responsibilities, lack oftime for collaborative planning with other instructors& Instructional time)10.

Teachers’ STEM knowledge*

11.

Teachers’ professional mindset*

12.

Lack of hands-on activities for students*

13.

Inappropriate level for students so they found the*

difficulty

23

14.

Little research effort devoted to the study and*improvement of STEM change strategies or models,lack of research collaboration
15.

Departmental Norms (traditional method as the norm*

and no local role models to offer supportive; Loss ofautonomy: force faculty to teach and assess all thesame way, less individual control of content andmethods)
16.

Time structure in the class (limited)

17.

Gender*in*

Poor preparation and shortage in supply of qualified*

andracialimbalances,

especiallyengineering
18.

STEM teachers, Lack of investment in educator’s
professional development
19.

Students are pulled out for support*

20.

Family background and support (Everyone in the*family was discouraging about going to STEM, nofamily members had previously attended college orwork in STEM field)
21.

Social support (Each region has different provided*

education, it makes student discourage to learn if thestudent is too tricky to find STEM education, or Highschools do not offer classes needed for STEM fields
necessary in college, such as calculus, or No
motivation to pursue STEM careers in high school)
22.

Lack of resources (materials and tools, poor condition*of laboratory facilities and instructional media
23.

The current culture is unsupportive

24

*

24.

Class size and room layout (a Large number of*students)
25.

Lack of support from the school system, Not enough*support from administrators
26.

Does not fit in the curriculum*

27.

Insufficient number of specialized classes were*

offered at the high school
28.

Conflicts with institutional rewards/priorities*

29.

Departmental divisions*

30.

The uncertainty of goals (on retention) and vague*

goals of the faculty
31.

Challenges in engagement across faculty rank*

32.

Misalignment with accreditation requirements*

33.

School structure and organization (school schedule*and various goals of schooling must be reorganized)
34.

Pre-service education (various STEM disciplines exist*

in many institutions that delivering pre-service
education)

As listed in Table 4, intrinsic domain emerges with 13 factors which means theimplementation of STEM education in the countries are mostly influenced by this factor
domain. Two main point are found in this domain: teacher point and student point. Teachers’
factors talk about teachers’ knowledge on the content of STEM education, the pedagogicalknowledge, education of the educator, and time management. In a STEM class, teachers are the“most knowledgeable other” or “master thinker” in the classroom context. Their role is to guidestudents in the scaffold use of STEM literacies to develop authentic habits of thinking toward
STEM solutions.
More specifically, teachers are the model for (a) questioning, wondering, and curiosity,(b) brainstorming processes, (c) developing plan, (d) generating a litany of educated guesses
25about a particular situation, and (e) examining theories, ideas, and potential solutions espoused
by others. In essence, the teacher is a very knowledgeable individual and thinker who does not
regurgitate the thoughts and ideas of others (Blue, 2014).
STEM education requires more understanding of each subject compared to ordinary
instruction. It is transformed from conventional teaching, teacher-centred learning, to active
student-centred learning. McDonald (2016) summarize the pedagogical instructions, including
Inquiry; Argumentation and reasoning; Digital learning; Computer programming and robotics;
Integration of some STEM content; Cooperative learning; Student-centered; Hands-on;
Assessment; 21st century skills, have been shown to be effective in promoting student
engagement and achievement in STEM disciplines. STEM education also refers to solving
problems that draw on concepts and procedures from mathematics and science while
incorporating the teamwork and design methodology of engineering and using appropriatetechnology (J. Smith & Karr-Kidwell, 2000).
Since the existence of teachers are vital in this system, it is required for them to put more
efforts and commitment on STEM education in order to maximize the output of this system(Chachashvili-Bolotin, Milner-Bolotin, & Lissitsa, 2016; Coppola, Madariaga, & Schnedeker,
2015; Ejiwale, 2013; Louis S Nadelson & Anne L Seifert, 2017; Shadle et al., 2017; Shernoff
et al., 2017).
An understanding of STEM education should be had by the teachers to established acrossdomains and by engaging a community of practice (Kelley & Knowles, 2016). A capacity tocollaborate, and to think creatively and innovatively of one’s teaching is minimal requirement(Beswick & Fraser, 2019; Eckman, Williams, & Silver-Thorn, 2016). Any coordination of theteaching across science, technology, engineering and math makes some knowledge demand in
relation to the other disciplines in order to have sensible conservations for coordinated planning(Ostler, 2012).
Gurol (2004) & Tasdemir (2003) in Konokman, et al., (2017) confirmed that no matter
how well the new system in education is, it will not achieve its objectives unless teachers as
implementers can fulfil their task efficiently. Teachers are seen not only as the active curriculum
implementers but also as primary elements giving feedback about the current curriculum toimprove it. Teachers are expected to manage the curriculum at least implementation level bymastering principles of teaching, significances, contents, learning-teaching approaches,
educational technologies, and evaluation processes.
26Some studies have been investigating teachers' perception in STEM education for inservice teachers as well as pre-service teachers (Calisici & Sumen, 2018; El-Deghaidy &Mansour, 2015; Erdogan & Ciftci, 2017; Hammack & Ivey, 2016; Pitiporntapin, Chantara,
Srikoom, Nuangchalerm, & Hines, 2018). Erdogan & Ciftci (2017) and Calisici & Sumen(2018) have worked with pre-service teachers perceptions on STEM education through training
and activities in Turkey. The result informed that pre-service teachers show positive attitudes
toward STEM education.
Besides, the pre-service teacher should be supported through the seminar, conference,etc. to have the necessary content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge related to STEM
education and provided with the required resources and materials. On the other hand, ElDeghaidy & Mansour (2015), Hammack & Ivey (2016) have studied in-service teachers
perception in Egypt and the United States of America. The benefit of STEM education has beenemphasized the contribution to creative thinking and creativity. They also recommended a
STEM professional development program in order to strengthen the content, curricular, andpedagogical knowledge to teach STEM effectively.
These studies have been conducted in US, Egypt and Turkey and none of the study havebeen done in Indonesia. They also focused on one experience such as pre-service experience orin-service experience only (Calisici & Sumen, 2018; El-Deghaidy & Mansour, 2015; Erdogan& Ciftci, 2017; Hammack & Ivey, 2016; Pitiporntapin et al., 2018) and without considering
STEM challenges (Calisici & Sumen, 2018; Hammack & Ivey, 2016; Pitiporntapin et al., 2018;
Srikoom, Hanuscin, & Faikhamta, 2017).
Theoretical Frameworks of the Study
This study adapted the STEM education framework from the Global STEM Alliance(GSA) that aimed to identify the best practices in science, technology, engineering, andmathematics. It reflects current education research and draws on innovative and effective
practices employed around the world. This framework, as pictured in Figure 5, has threeessential areas: Essential Skills, Instructional Design, and Implementation (Wee & Ling, 2019).
In this study, these essential areas in the theoretical framework will serve as a guide to
determine the current state of STEM education in Indonesia. The details are explained below.
1. Essential Skills: “Crucial thinking skills”
In this study, the researcher focused only on the essential skills, i.e., the crucial
thinking skills. Essential skills mean the competencies that students must develop to thrive27

in the modern workplace. Several essential skills are included in this framework, such as
critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, creativity, communication, collaboration,
data literacy, and digital literacy and computer science. However, there is no clarity on
which essential skills are “crucial” or should be given “first priority” in STEM education,
especially in Indonesia. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the essential skills througha systematic literature review of crucial thinking skills.
2. Instructional design of STEM education
Instructional design consists of research-based pedagogy, STEM content integration,
real-world application, project- or problem-based learning, scaffolding, assessment,
cultural sensitivity and relevance, and technology integration. However, in this study, theresearcher covered only three elements, which are STEM content integration, real-world
application, and scaffolding. STEM content is presented in an integrated, interdisciplinary
approach, wherein students have multiple opportunities to apply STEM skills andknowledge in the context of STEM activities, problems, and/or practices. STEM content
also needs to be embedded in or related to the real-world scenarios with materials thatprovide clear guidance for teachers on scaffolding STEM education.
3. Evidence of effectivenessEvidence of effectiveness is the last element analyzed in the STEM education
framework. This framework includes six aspects, such as evidence of effectiveness,
accessibility, alignment with local contexts, professional development and learning
support, access to materials and practitioner support, and scalability. However, this study
sought to determine only the effectiveness of STEM education in terms of its impact on
crucial thinking skills in Indonesian science education.

28

Essential Skills :Specifying
crucial skills for
Secondary
students

Evidence of theEffectiveness:
Identifying theimplementationof STEM
education

Curriculum
Development:Indonesian
Skills' Issues &STEM
Education

Instructional
Design:Identifying
STEM content
integration, realworld
application,
scaffolding

Figure 5. Theoretical Framework

Research Objectives
In order to support curriculum development, this study aimed to investigate the current
state of STEM education in Indonesia and to what extent the implementation of STEM
education can solve the current issues faced by the country, especially in physics education at
the upper secondary level.
This study identified three essential areas concerning the current state of STEM educationin Indonesia: essential skills in terms of “crucial thinking skills,” instructional design, and theeffectiveness of STEM education. Therefore, there were three stages in this study. The firststage was related to selected skills in science education based on the current issues in Indonesia.
The skills that should be given precedence, especially in science education, are still unclear.
So, the researcher narrowed down the list of most common skills to include the most crucial
thinking skills through systematic review. The second stage examined the current state of
STEM education in Indonesia based on instructional design factors: STEM content integration,
real-world application, and scaffolding. In this stage, the researcher first conducted a “STEM
professional development program” for science teachers to ensure that they have gotten theinitial knowledge and understood STEM education before examining their views on STEM.
29

The third stage sought to determine the effectiveness of STEM education in influencing
students’ crucial thinking skills in science education. One of the science teachers who
participated in the STEM professional development program was asked to help in the learning
process.
The overall objective of the study was to summarize the current state of STEM educationin Indonesia under three essential areas (1 st stage: essential skills; 2nd stage: instructional design;and 3rd stage: evidence of effectiveness). Therefore, in order to achieve the main goal, threesub-objectives were established, which are indicated in the following list:
RO1: To specify the crucial thinking skills in science education through systematic
literature review;
RO2: To identify the instructional design of STEM education (STEM content integration,
real-world application, and scaffolding) in Indonesia for secondary level;
RO3: To determine the effect of STEM education on the crucial thinking skills forsecondary level.
Research Questions
To achieve the objectives, the author set up the following research questions:
RQ1: What are the most crucial thinking skills for students in science education?
RQ2: To what extent is the instructional design of STEM education (STEM content integration,
real-world application, and scaffolding) in Indonesia based on teachers’ views?
RQ3: How does STEM education influence the crucial thinking skills of students in Indonesia?
Significances of the Study
In general, the contribution of this study is precisely valuable for all stakeholders in
implementing STEM education especially for developing countries including Indonesia. Fromthe government’ view, the study findings provide the pictures on which points in “teacher andstudent” that they have to work on before deciding to fully implement STEM education inIndonesia as well as inform on how STEM education influences the students’ skills based on
the priority goals of MoEC 2015-2019.
Further, from the teachers’ view, they acquire knowledge about STEM education and theimplementation in the class, especially in science classes. From students’ view, they develop a
new experience during the learning process which direct and/or indirectly affects their thinking
skills. In addition, Identifying and addressing potential skills will be a key, not only to boosting30

job creation in the formal sector, but also to support higher productivity, competitiveness andgrowth.
Composition of the Dissertation
The dissertation consisted of seven chapters as pictured in Figure 6. Chapter 1 described
the issues in this study through the background and problem statement. In this chapter, thenational as well as international issues such as “the mean performance of Indonesian scienceeducation still that got lower than the Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) average and more than half of Indonesian students do not possess
adequate skills to compete in the labor market” got attention from researcher and become thebasic problem of this study.
Chapter 1. Introduction

Chapter 2. Literature Review of STEM
Education and Theoretical Framework

Chapter 3. Methodology

Chapter 5. Instructional Design of
STEM education in Indonesia;

Chapter 4. Crucial Thinking Skills;

Chapter 6. The Effectiveness of STEM Education in Indonesia;

Chapter 7. Conclusions and Implications
Figure 6. Composition of the Dissertation

Chapter 2 dealt with the literature reviews in this study, theoretical framework, research
objectives, research questions, the significance of this study, and composition of thedissertation. These literature reviews were conducted in order to provide the theoretical base31

and the nature of this study and to convey what knowledge and ideas have been established on
this study and what the strengths and weaknesses are. These literature reviews were defined by
a guiding concept including the issue of this study and research objective. There were four
literature review starting from skills gained through STEM education, STEM education, and
STEM education among the countries. The second part was the theoretical framework of thisstudy. This study adapted the STEM education framework from The Global STEM Alliancethat aims to identify the best practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It
reflected the current education research and drew on innovative and effective practices
employed around the world. This framework has three essential areas: Essential skills (Crucial
thinking skills), Instructional design of STEM education (STEM content integration, real-world
application, Scaffolding), and Evidence of effectiveness (Implementation of STEM education).
All these three essential areas were utilized to figure out the important information/conditions
that should be known before STEM education is fully implemented in Indonesia. The main
focus of this study was to investigate the current condition of STEM education and how far
STEM implementation can solve the current issues in case of skills’ development in Indonesia,
especially in physics education for upper secondary level. This study has confirmed threeessential areas based the theoretical framework divided into three stages with three subobjectives: RO1: To specify the crucial thinking skills in science education through systematic
literature review; RO2: To identify the instructional design of STEM education (STEM content
integration, real-world application, and scaffolding) in Indonesia for secondary level; RO3: To
determine the effect of STEM education on the crucial thinking skills for secondary level.
Chapter 3 explained overall methodology from three sub-objectives based on thetheoretical framework and the relationships among three stages. The first stage aimed to findout the current crucial skills in science education that can be solved through the implementationof STEM education in Indonesia. In this stage, researcher has conducted a systematic literature
review. This stage consisted of several processes: (a) creating the detail of criteria for inclusionand exclusion empirical studies. In total, there are eight inclusion criteria that have be decided.
(b) conducting literature search in electronic databases based on the inclusion criteria. 288
articles were eligible for full-text screening and at the end, only 78 articles that were ready to
be reviewed (c) finalizing the literature research and reading the detail of each study; (d)identifying the pattern of the studies especially for the author and sample size, country,
institution, measurement, instrument, and finding; (e) synthesizing the pattern in order toanswer the research questions. The second stage purposed to understand the current condition32

of instructional design in Indonesia. In total, 14 teachers were interviewed using six questions
about the processes of teachers on knowing, understanding, and implementing STEM educationin their classes. The qualitative data analysis was used inductive approach and conducting
traditionally with five processes: organizing data, identifying framework, sorting data,
descriptive analysis arrangement, and finishing with the second order analysis. The third stage
aimed to reveal the effectiveness of STEM education in solving the current crucial thinking
skills in Indonesia. The total participants were 63 secondary level students in the grade X thatwere divided into two groups; STEM and traditional group. These two groups were taught by
the same teacher and learned the same within the four times of teaching session. 24 items of
two-tier multiple-choice from LCTSR are utilized to measure students’ reasoning skills. For
further analysis, researcher analyzed with SPSS program using Analysis Covariance and t-test
analysis. The relationship among three stages can be considered through how these stages were
supporting each other’s to reveal three essential areas of STEM implementation Indonesia withconsidering teachers and students condition as the significant element in education. The
findings from the first stage was utilized to identify the implementation of STEM education inIndonesia, the second stage’s findings were utilized to reveal the instructional design of STEM
education in Indonesia from teachers’ perspective, and the last findings were revealed the effectof STEM education in Indonesia through applying the first and the second stage finding andparticipant.
Chapter 4 explained the details of the first stage “essential skills (The crucial thinking
skills)” of the study through methodology and the result a systematic literature review. Thisdata collection aimed to find out the most crucial thinking skills that should be developed in thestudents’ cognition domain, particularly among science process skills, critical thinking skills
and reasoning skills that were included to the list of essential skills in STEM education. Further,
the relationships of these three skills were divided into five groups based on Piaget’s theory:(1) SPS group, (2) combination between SPS and RS, (3) combination among SPS, RS, andCTS, (4) combination between RS and CTS, (5) CTS group. Then, this systematic review
identified, selected, synthesized, and appraised previous studies in skills development that meetprespecified inclusion criteria. Based on the data analysis, the first crucial skills came from SPS
group including defining operational variables skill and measuring. The second is crucial skills
between SPS and RS including Identification & controlling variable, Formulating hypothesis,
Experimental design, Conducting Experiment. The third is crucial skills among SPS, RS, andCTS that consisted of Interpreting data, Inference, and Analysis skills. The fourth crucial skill
33

exists in the group combination between RS and CTS consisted of Simple explanation(conservation reasoning/EI), Explanation, Evaluation. In conclusion, most of the crucial
thinking skills in science education were covered in the first, second, the third, and the fourthgroup and narrowed down to the reasoning skills domain only.
Chapter 5 employed phenomenological research in order to understand teacher's
perceptions related to their understanding and experiences of STEM education in Indonesia
through preconditions “STEM professional development program”. This was related to
Instructional Design: the second essential area in the STEM education framework thatconsisted of three points (STEM content integration, real-world application, and scaffolding).
This stage was conducted purposive sampling from 38 sub-districts in Pangkep to explore thediversity and discover comprehensive data. Researcher has conducted semi-structured
interview for five new teachers and nine experienced teachers with six questions related to how
science teachers’ experiences on knowing, understanding, implementing STEM education in
their classes as well as STEM education challenges. All teachers revealed that STEM education
does not exist in the university level in Indonesia for the last 30 years based on their teachingexperience. Currently, STEM education was adapted by the government and delivered bysupervisors through MGMP meeting. Teachers realized that STEM education is interesting;provides hands-on activities; the most updated learning process. Teachers also confirmed ahuge advantages of STEM Education. Otherwise, government and all facilitators in education,
including teachers, must give more awareness in supporting the capabilities to prepare STEM
implementation in the schools. Some challenges and limitations of STEM education inIndonesia were revealed by the teachers. In conclusion, all these findings revealed teachers’
confirmation about STEM content that should be presented as interdisciplinary approach andembedded in or related to real-world scenarios. However, the education materials in Indonesia
did not include enough guidance for teachers and/or embedded student support to implement
STEM education in the school and other challenges might be appear during the implementation.
Chapter 6 figured out how the implementation of STEM education was affected to the
crucial thinking skill in Indonesian’s science education. This was the last essential area of
STEM education framework. In this stage, the total participants were 63 secondary level
students in the grade X that are divided into two groups; STEM and traditional group.
Researcher used 24 items of two-tier multiple-choice from LCTSR. This test can be utilized toassess students’ scientific reasoning skills in six domains: conservation laws, proportional
reasoning, control variables probabilistic reasoning, correlation reasoning, and Hypothetical34

deductive reasoning. These skills were found also as the most crucial skills in science educationin chapter 4. When comparing the subskills’ mean score between traditional and STEM group,
most of the subskills do not have differences even the result of ANCOVA shows the significant
value in the effect of STEM education on crucial thinking skills. STEM education can support
the crucial thinking skills only for hypothetical-deductive thinking skill. It showed through the
improvement of mean score and a statistically significant difference between pre- and post-testvalue of this skill in the STEM group. A lot of factors revealed as the cause the findings suchas teachers’ understanding on STEM education and also the STEM educational design in thisstudy that mostly focused on the experiment part.
Chapter 7 elaborated the overall conclusions, the implications, the limitations and therecommendations of this study based on the findings in chapter 4, 5, and 6. Stage 1 and stage 2
resulted in the current conditions of STEM education in Indonesia. They were confirmed
through specific crucial thinking skills and teachers’ perception on the instructional design of
STEM education. Although stage 3 failed to support the effectiveness of STEM education tosolve all crucial thinking skills in Indonesia. However, the mean score in STEM group showed
improvement on hypothetical-deductive thinking skills with the significant difference on thescore between pre- and post-test. Preparations need to be made and the challenges need to beaddressed before the official curriculum from the government is fully implemented.

35

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGYThis chapter elaborates the overall methodology of the research, which was split into
three stages based on the three sub-objectives: RO1: To specify the crucial thinking skills inscience education through systematic literature review; RO2: To identify the instructional
design of STEM education (STEM content integration, real-world application, and scaffolding)in Indonesia for secondary level; RO3: To determine the effect of STEM education on the
crucial thinking skills for secondary level.
Overall Research Design
The first, second, and third sub-objectives were realized in the first, second, and third
stages, respectively. As shown in Figure 7, each sub-objective had a different research design.
However, the relationships between the three stages will be explained and the findings will be
integrated in one frame under the conclusions on the current state of STEM education inIndonesia.
The first stage aimed to identify the crucial skills in science education that can beachieved through the implementation of STEM education in Indonesia. In this study, theresearcher conducted a systematic literature review, which involved several steps: (a)establishing the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of empirical studies: a total of eight
inclusion criteria were decided upon; (b) conducting literature search in electronic databases
based on the inclusion criteria: a total of 288 articles were eligible for full-text screening, but
only 78 articles were ready to be reviewed; (c) finalizing the literature search and reading theselected studies; (d) identifying the characteristics of the studies, especially with respect to theauthors, sample size, country, institution, measurement, instrument, and findings; and (e)synthesizing the characteristics to answer the research questions. In the process of analyzing
the data, the researcher finalized the literature search and completed the review of the selected
articles. Further, the researcher conducted data extraction and made an overview with thecharacteristics, including author and sample size, country, institution, design (measurement &instrument), and findings. The approach adopted for data analysis and reporting was a narrative
content analysis based on expert recommendation from Knoll et al. (2018) because the otherstudies analyzed were too heterogeneous in terms of study design or outcome (Popay et al.,2006).

36

The second stage sought to understand the current state of instructional design of STEM
education in Indonesia. In total, 14 teachers were interviewed using six questions related to theprocesses regarding learning, understanding, and implementing STEM education in theirclasses. The qualitative data analysis used a deductive approach that traditionally goes throughfive steps: organizing data, identifying the framework, sorting data, descriptive analysis
arrangement, and completion with second order analysis. The focus areas of this qualitative
study were based on teachers’ experiences, opinions, knowledge, and beliefs. Previous research
has suggested measurement through preconditions such as professional development programs(Calisici & Sumen, 2018; El-Deghaidy & Mansour, 2015; Erdogan & Ciftci, 2017; Hammack& Ivey, 2016).
The third stage aimed to reveal the effectiveness of STEM education in terms of realizing
the current crucial skills in Indonesia. The total participants were 63 secondary level students
in grade X who were divided into two groups: STEM group and traditional group. The STEM
group utilized STEM education with inquiry-based learning, while the traditional group usedconventional instruction with discovery-based learning. A total of six meetings were conducted
for each group, including pre- and post-test. These two groups were taught by the same teacher
and learned the same concepts in the four teaching sessions. Twenty-four items of the two-tiermultiple-choice type from the Lawson Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (LCTSR) were
utilized to measure the students’ reasoning skills. The researcher used the SPSS program foranalysis of covariance and t-test analysis.
This study examined the perspectives of teachers in the second stage and of students inthe third stage. The researcher intended to obtain the teachers’ perceptions on STEM content
integration, real-world application, and scaffolding based on their understanding andexperiences. This study conducted purposive random sampling from 38 sub-districts in
Pangkep Regency, which is at a distance of about 49 km from Makassar, the capital city ofSouth Sulawesi, Indonesia, to ensure diversity and obtain comprehensive data. The
participating teachers were divided into two groups: new teachers (0 to 10 years of teachingexperience) and experienced teachers (more than 10 years of experience). Thus, five newteachers and nine experienced teachers were interviewed. All of the respondents had an
academic degree in science and taught physics at the senior high school level. To ensure
anonymity, the names of all participants have been coded.

37

INPUTANALYSIS
METHODOUTPUT

Research Objective 1
To specify the crucial thinking
skillsResearch Question 2 (2nd Stage)

Research Objective 2
To identify the instructional
design of STEM education inIndonesia for secondary level

63 secondary level students in
Grade X

Research Question 3 (3rd Stage)

Research Objective 3
To identify the effect of STEM
education on the crucial thinking
skills for secondary level.

38

Main Objective
to investigate the current condition of STEM education and how far the implementation of STEM education can solve the current
issues in Indonesia that was covered as crucial thinking skills, especially in secondary science education

Research Question 1 (1st Stage)

14 teachers’ perception on
instructional design of STEM

t-Test analysis and ANCOVA

Quasi experimental design
Deductive approach andtraditional analysis

STEM effect on students’
crucial thinking skills inIndonesian science education

Semi-structured interview

78 research articles of SPS,
CTS, and RS

Inclusion criteria
Literature search
Narrative content analysis(Knoll et al., 2018)

The crucial thinking skills
among SPS, CTS, RS

The current condition of STEM
education in Indonesia in caseof STEM content, real-world
application, and scaffolding

Figure 7. Research Design

The 63 student participants were secondary level students in grade X at a public schoolin Pangkep Regency, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Purposive random sampling was used toobtain a sample with the same background.
The relationship between the three stages can be viewed in terms of how these stages
supported each other to shed light on the three essential areas of STEM education in Indonesia
with an emphasis on the perspectives of teachers and students. The findings from the first stage
were utilized to identify the effectiveness of STEM education in Indonesia, the second stage
findings were utilized to determine the current state of STEM education in Indonesia from theteachers’ perspective, and the last stage findings applied the first and second stage findings toreveal the effect of STEM education in Indonesia. The details of the relationship between thesethree stages are portrayed in Figure 6.

39

CHAPTER 4 CRUCIAL THINKING SKILLS
Methodology of the First Stage

Essential Skills:
Specifying crucial
skills for
Secondary students

Evidence of theEffectiveness:
Identifying theimplemetation of
STEM education

Curriculum
Development:Indonesian Skills'
Issues & STEM
Education

Instructional
Design:Identifying STEM
content integration,
real-world
application,
scaffolding

The first stage aimed to shed light on the first essential area of STEM education based on
the theoretical framework, i.e., the crucial thinking skills that should be realized through STEM
education. In this stage, a systematic literature review was conducted. The review identified,selected, synthesized, and appraised studies that met the pre-specified inclusion criteria for the
purpose of investigating the status of current research based on research objectives (Knoll etal., 2018). This stage consisted of several steps:
1.

Establishing criteria for inclusion and exclusion of empirical studies;2.

Conducting literature search in electronic databases based on the inclusion criteria;

3.

Finalizing the literature search and reading the selected studies;

4.

Identifying the characteristics of the studies; and5.

Synthesizing the characteristics in order to answer the research questions.

Inclusion Criteria
Figure 8 shows the flow of the literature search and the process of exclusion of articles
based on the literature search using keywords, title and abstract, and full-text article assessment.
The last selection was based on the established inclusion and exclusion criteria, which are as
follows:
40

1.

The studies should be empirical research involving qualitative (e.g. observation) and/or
quantitative (e.g. experimental, quasi-experimental, survey research, correlational)
analysis;

2.

The studies should be focused on measures for improving cognitive skills in scienceeducation (SPS, CTS, and RS);3.

The skill dimension for each cognitive skill should be based on the models provided byMichael J. Padilla for SPS, Peter Facione for CTS, and Anton E. Lawson for RS, or at least
clearly explain the sub-skills;

4.

The studies’ results should clearly outline the detailed progress of each sub-skill so as toenable the research questions of this systematic review to be answered;5.

The samples in the studies should be students from the primary level to university level;

6.

The studies should have been published as a journal article or conference proceedings;

7.

The studies should have been published in English or Indonesian;

8.

There was no time restriction for the studies.

Science
Process Skills(n = 393)

CriticalThinking Skills(n = 208)
Records
unclear(n = 305)

Title and Abstract
Screening(n = 88)

Reasoning
Skills(n = 95)
Records
unclear(n = 50)

Title and Abstract
Screening(n = 158)

Records
excluded(n = 56)

Records
unclear(n = 53)
Title and Abstract
Screening(n = 42)

Records
excluded(n = 124)

Records
excluded(n = 30)

Full-text articles
assessed for
eligibility(n = 32)

Full-text articles
assessed for
eligibility(n = 34)

Full-text articles
assessed for
eligibility(n = 12)32 articles reviewed

34 articles reviewed

12 articles reviewed

Figure 8. Flow Chart of Literature Search

41

Literature Search
The literature search was conducted in ERIC (Education Resources Information Center),
Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar using keywords like “Cognitive,” “Process skill,”“Critical thinking skill,” “Reasoning skill,” “Science education,” and “Students” without any
time restriction.
The initial search in the electronic databases yielded 696 potential articles. The researcher
subsequently conducted title and abstract screening and shortlisted 288 articles for full-text
screening, which were eventually narrowed down to 78 articles, including 32 articles for science
process skills, 34 articles for critical thinking skills, and 12 articles for reasoning skills.
Analysis Procedures
As part of the data analysis, the researcher finalized the literature search and read theselected articles. Further, the researcher extracted relevant data and made an overview with thefollowing characteristics:
1.

Author and sample size,

2.

Country,3.

Institution,

4.

Design (measurement & instrument), and5.

Findings.
The approach adopted for data analysis and reporting was a narrative content analysis

based on the expert recommendation from Knoll et al. (2018) because the other studies analyzed
were too heterogeneous in terms of study design or outcome (Popay et al., 2006).
To address the first research question, the findings from the selected studies in thissystematic review were synthesized to fit into patterns. The final findings were divided into two
categories: non-crucial and crucial. The non-crucial sub-skills category covered all sub-skills
that received a high mean score or exhibited the greatest improvement during the intervention
or whose rate or frequency of occurrence among the study participants was high.
The crucial sub-skills category included those sub-skills that had the lowest mean scoreor exhibited the least improvement (decreasing), or which occurred at a low rate or frequency.
Further, based on the model in Figure 4, the researcher analyzed whether the crucial sub-skills
in one of the three thinking skill domains overlapped with the crucial sub-skills in the otherskill domains and how they were related. All data were then organized manually using
Microsoft Excel.

42

Result and Discussion
Previous studies have tried to identify improvements, particularly in science process skills(Akinbobola & Afolabi, 2010; Huppert, Lomask, & Lazarowitz, 2002; Lati, Supasorn, &Promarak, 2012; Ongowo & Indoshi, 2013; Rauf et al., 2013), critical thinking skills (Duran &Dokme, 2016; Shin, 1998; Zhou, Huang, & Tian, 2013), and reasoning skills (Mendoza, Diaz,& Meneses, 2018; Piraksa, Srisawasdi, & Koul, 2014; Remigio, Yangco, & Espinosa, 2014),
and have confirmed the importance of each skill.
However, the questions of whether those skills are related when it comes to thedevelopment of the cognitive domain of students, and to what extent students are provided with
opportunities to develop the skills needed to thrive in the modern workplace remainunanswered. None of the studies conducted so far identify the most crucial skills in scienceeducation.
Crucial Domains in Science Process Skills
In the area of science process skills, 32 studies—four studies at the primary level, 20
studies at the secondary level, and eight studies at the university level—were reviewed, withthe essential characteristics shown in Table 5. In terms of the total sample, 6,248 participants
were involved in these studies. The selected studies mostly came from Turkey and Asian
countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. Twenty-eight studies were conducted
quantitatively with experimental, pre-, true, and quasi-experimental designs.
Table 5. The Characteristics of 32 Included Studies in SPS

Author(Sample Size)

DesignCountry

Institution(Measurement

Findings

Instrument)(Ozturk, Tezel, Turkey

Eskisehir• Experimental

Recording& Acat, 2010)

Osmangazi• Questionnaire

Observation,(n = 828)

University• Gradedata

skill,

7th, Classification, Measure,

Secondary

and

data

explication,schoolFormulating a hypothesis,
Modelling, Decision skill
has been achieved at ahigh level;

43

Inference,
Experimenting,
Changing variable andcontrolling,

Numberandrelations,space

Prediction, and Variable
definition

have

been

achieved at a middle andlow level.
(Zeidan& Palestine

Jayosi, 2015)

Al-Quds• Experimental

Observation

skill,

University• Questionnaire

Predicting,

Measuring,(n = 159)• Grade10th, Datainterpreting,

SecondaryCommunicating,schoolHypothesizing skill gethigh rank;
Classifying

skill,

Controllingvariable,andExperimentation

skill get low rank.
(Yilmaz, 2019)

Turkey(n = 332)

Karamanoglu• Experimental

Observation,

Mehmetbey• Questionnaire

classification,

University• Grade 3rd 4th, communication skills got
Primarya high level;schoolInference,measurement,

andprediction skills got a
low level.
(Kamba, Giwa, Nigeria

KebbiState • Experimental

Observation

skill,

Libata,University of • Questionnairemeasuring,predicting,Wakkala, 2018)

Scienceand data interpreting skill(n = 203)

Technology&

and • Secondary
schoolgot high rank;
Communicatingskills,Classifying, Controlling44

variables

andHypothesising,andExperimentation

skill

got a low rank.
(Duruk, Akgun, Turkey

Adiyaman• Survey

Observation

Dogan,

University• Method

and Communicating,&skill,

Gulsuyu, 2017)

document

Classifying, Interpreting(n = 307)

analysis

data, Experimenting, and• Grade 5th, 6th, Modelling skill was the
7th,

8th, most represented skill;Primary

Inferring,

Measuring,schoolPredicting, Controllingvariables,

Defining

Operationally,
Formulating Hypothesis
skills were the least.
(Tekerci& Turkey-

kandir, 2017)(n = 40)

Observation,• Quasiexperimental

Comparison,• Questionnaire

Classification,• Preschool and Measurement,
NurseryCommunication,

classes

Inference, Predicting skill
wereastatisticallysignificant difference.
(Ting & Siew, Malaysia

Universiti

2014)

Malaysia

Experimental(n = 119)

Sabah• Questionnaire• Quasi-• GradePrimaryschoolObservingskill,

Communicating,andClassifying skill has the

5th greatest improvement;
Inferringskill,
Predicting,andControllingvariables

skill

the

have

increment.

45

least

(Sahhyar& Indonesia

State

Observing• Quasi-

Febriani, 2017)

University of(n = 62)

Medan

Experimental

skills,Questioning, Interpreting,Classifying,• Observation

Predicting,Communicating,sheet

11th, Planning,

Applying

Secondaryconcept,

Generalizing

schoolskill

the• Gradehadhighestpercentage of average;
Inferring

skill

and

Makinghypothesis

skills had the lowest
percentage of average.
(Gultepe& Turkey

Kilic, 2015)

Dumlupinar

Forming data table skill,• Quasi-

University

experimental(n = 34)• Questionnaire

Graph drawing, Graphinterpretation,

11th, Determining the variables• GradeSecondaryandbuildingupaschoolhypothesis, changing, andcontrolling variables skill
got the significant effectof the treatment;
Designing experiments
skill had no statisticallysignificant difference.

(Harahap,
Nasution,

Indonesia

All• Quasi-

University of

results

inallExperimental

indicatorsofscience• Questionnaire

process

skillsshowed2019)• Biology

significant(n = 94)

programManurung,

&

State
Medan

Facultyamong students;
of except

Mathematics
and46

differencesforaskingquestions skill, planning

Science, anexperiment,and(Aydogdu,

TurkeyUniversity

implementing

levelskills.

concept

Afyon• Experimental

Primary students gained

2017)

Kocatepe• Questionnairethe(n = 1272)

University• Primarypercentage in prediction

schoolhighestskill,

successclassification,observation;Thelowestsuccess

percentage was showing
in communicating skill,measurement,

andinference skill.
(Irwanto,

Indonesia

Saputro,Rohaeti,

Yogyakarta• Quasi-State&

University

Prodjosantoso,

experimental

Students

obtained

highest mean rank in• Questionnaire

Formulating• University

skill,

2019)

level

(n = 43)

thehypothesis

Investigating,Inferring,Interpretingskill;
The

lowestinCommunicatingskill,

Measuring,Experimenting,Identifying

andControllingvariables,

and Observing skill.
(BeaumontWalters
Soyibo, 2010)

Jamaica&-• Experimental

The subjects' mean score• Questionnaire

was low and10th, unsatisfactory; theirperformance inSecondary• Grade(n = 305)

schooldecreasing order
was: interpreting data,
recording data,
generalizing,47

formulating hypotheses,
and identifying
variables.
(Turpin & Cage, Louisiana Louisiana

Identifying experimental• Quasi-

2004)

Department

Experimental(n = 531)

of Education• Questionnaire• Gradequestion,

Designing

investigation, Graph data

7th, skill was a statisticallySecondarysignificant difference inschoolcomparing both groups;
Formulating hypothesis
skill was no statisticallysignificant difference incomparing both groups.

(OganBekiroglu

Turkey&Marmara• TrueUniversity

experimental

Identifying

variables

skill,

Defining

Arslan, 2014)• Questionnaire

operationally,(n = 17)• Pre-service

hypothesis skill was in thephysics

highestteacher

performance;

StatingrankofDesigning

experimentskills

data

and

graph

and

interpretation

skills were in the lowest
rank of performance.
(Wahyuni,Indonesia

Indrawati,
Sudarti,Jember• Pre-

University&

experimental• Observation

Suana, 2017)sheet• GradeObservation

skill,

MeasuringandCommunicatingskill

were in the excellent
7th, category;

Secondary

Formulating

schoolskill,

question

Formulatingproblems, Formulatingconclusions, Classifying
48

and

analyzing

data,

concept,

and

Apply
Makingskillspredictions
were

in

less

category.
(Ates, 2004)

Turkey(n = 103)

Bolu

Abant • Experimental

Defining

operationally,

Izzet Baysal • Questionnaire

Interpreting and graphing

University

data• Junior college

skill

was

a

statisticallysignificant

difference

betweentransitional and concretereasoners;
Identifying&

controllingvariables

skill

and

Stating

hypothesis skills werenotstatisticallysignificant

differences

between both reasoners.
(Saribas& Turkey

Bayram, 2009)

Marmara• Quasi-

University(n = 54)

experimental

Identifying

variables,

Operationallydefining,• Questionnaire

Designing investigations• University

werestatisticallysignificant

differencelevelmeans can be improved
easiercomparingto

Identifying and stating
hypotheses skill as wellasGraphing

andInterpreting data.
(MutluTemiz, 2013)& Turkey

Nigde• Experimental

University

Thevariations

observed

49

to

are
be

(n = 496)

• Questionnaire

statistically meaningful in• Secondary

terms

schoolvariableof

responding
identification,

controlled

variable

identification,
formulating a hypothesis,
variablemodification,and control skill;
Otherwise,

identifying

manipulated

variableskills and interpretingdataskillswasnotstatistically meaningful.
(Osman& Malaysia

The National • Quasi-

A significant difference

Vebrianto,

University ofexperimental

between

2013)

Malaysia• Questionnaire

classifying• Secondary

predicting, and inference;schoolHowever, there are no(n = 96)groupsinskill,

significant differences inobservingandcommunication skills.
(Jeenthonget Thailand

al., 2013)

Mahidol

Collect data skill, and• Quasi-

University

experimental(n = 73)• Questionnaire• GradeDesign experiment skill
got

the

highermean

11th, scores;

Secondary

Identifying

variables

schoolskill and Pose questionand hypothesis skill got
the lowest mean score.

(Siahaan,Indonesia

Indonesia• Pre-

Suryani,

University ofKaniawati,

Education

Suhendi,experimental• Questionnaire

Only predicting skill wasin the high criteria;
Observingsummarizing,&

50skill,

Samsudin,• Grade7th, communication,

and

2017)

Secondaryclassifying skills was in(n = 23)schoolmoderate criteria.

(Delen& Turkey

Michigan• Experimental

From three grade, theKesercioglu,

State• Questionnaire

result2012)

University• Grade 6th seventh Predicting(n = 290)

8th,

shows

that
skill,

Formulating a hypothesis,
and Classifying skill were
the highest represented
skills;Observingskill,

Interpreting

data,

Inferring,

Defining

Operationally,

andExperimenting

skillswerelowesttherepresented skills.
(Ongowo
Indoshi, 2013)& Kenya

Maseno• Observation

Observing skill, Inferring,

University• School

Communicating,(n = 10)records• Secondary
schoolInterpreting

data,

Experimenting skill was
the

rated

highestfrequency;
Measuringskill,Classifying, Predicting,Controllingvariables,

Defining Operationally,
Formulating hypothesis
skills, and Formulating
model skills were rated
the lowest.

51

(Latietal., Thailand

Ubon• Experimental

Only

2012)

Ratchathani• Questionnaire

controlling variables skill(n = 63)

University• Grade11th, wasIdentifying
identified

Secondary“excellent”;

schoolDefiningskill,

andas

operationally

Formulatingahypothesis,
Experimenting,andInterpreting data andDrawing

conclusion

skills were identified as"good and fair."(Akinbobola & Nigeria

University of • Observation

Observingskill,

Afolabi, 2010)

Uyo

Calculating,

Recording,• School(n = 10)

Communicating,records

Manipulating skill was• Secondary

rated highest;

school

Measuringskill,

Comparing,Contrasting,

Drawing,experimenting&

Investigating,
Graphing, Interpreting,
Deducing,

andFormulating

model

skills were rated lowest.
(Rauf
2013)
(n = 24)

etal., Malaysia

Universiti• Experimental

Observingskill,

Malaya• Questionnaire

Communicating,and• Grade8th, Experimenting skill was

Secondary

the highest frequency andschoolpercentage that inculcate
in the lesson;

52Classification

skill,

Measurement and use ofthenumber,inference,

MakingMakingaprediction, Interpretingdata,

Defining

operationally,
Controllingvariables,

and Forming hypothesis
skills were the lowest
frequency

andpercentage.
(Huppert et al., Israel

University of • Experimental

Measurement skill and

2002)

Haifa Tivon

Graph(n = 181)• Questionnaire• Gradecommunication

10th, skill were a statisticallySecondarysignificant difference inschooltwo cognitive stages;
Classification

skill,

Interpreting

data,

Prediction,

Evaluating

hypothesis, Controllingvariables,
usefulSelectingdata,

Designingandanexperiment skill were
not significant in two or
all cognitive stages.
(Laksono,Suyanta,
Rizky, 2018)

Indonesia&

Yogyakarta• Observation

Indicator percentage ofState• Observation

Observing skill, Planning

University

sheet(n = 61)experiment, Classifying,
Organizing data in thetable,

andIdentifying

variable skill was higher53• Grade

10th, thanInferenceandCommunicating skill.

Secondaryschool(Maison,Indonesia

Darmaji,
Kurniawan,

Jambi• Correlational

Overall basic science

research

process skills of physical

University&• Observation

Indrawati, 2019)students

ofJambi University are stillsheet(n = 130)

education

considered not good.

• University
level(Prihatnawati,
Amin,

Indonesia&

Muhdhar, 2017)State• Quasi-

University of
Malang(n = 138)

experimental• Questionnaire• GradeObserving

skill

and

Conducting

experimentskills got the highest

8th, average;

meanwhile,

SecondaryPreparing

hypothesis

schoolskills, Collecting dataskills, and Formulatingconclusion skills got thelowest average.

(Molefe, Stears, South

University of • Quantitative&

Hobden, Africa

2016)

Observingskill,

KwaZulu-

research with Interpreting

data skill,

Natal

a

qualitative Classifying

skill,(n = 75)

component

Formulating a hypothesis,• Questionnaire

Interpreting• University

Experimenting skills arelevelchosenasimportant

data,

and

the

most

by

the

participant;54

Inferringskill,

Measuringskill,

Communicating,andPredicting

skillsarechosen

the

least

as

importantinscienceprocess skills.
The findings of the studies are summarized in Figure 9. It can be seen that observation
skills, communication skills, measurement skills, classification skills, prediction skills, andmodel making skills are included in the non-crucial category. On the other hand, six sub-skills
emerged as crucial thinking skills. Inference skills ranked the highest, with 70.6% of the 17
studies identifying this skill as a crucial domain in science process skills (Aydogdu, 2017; Delen& Kesercioglu, 2012; Molefe et al., 2016; Ozturk et al., 2010; Ting & Siew, 2014; Yilmaz,2019).
It was found that in 65.0% of 20 studies, variable identification and control skills got low
mean scores and low percentages of correct answers, making them a crucial category (Ates,
2004; Beaumont-Walters & Soyibo, 2010; Huppert et al., 2002; Jeenthong et al., 2013; Mutlu& Temiz, 2013; Ongowo & Indoshi, 2013; Yilmaz, 2019; Zeidan & Jayosi, 2015). For
operational definition skill, 60.0% of 10 studies revealed a low mean score (Delen &Kesercioglu, 2012; Duruk et al., 2017; Huppert et al., 2002; Lati et al., 2012; Ongowo &Indoshi, 2013; Rauf et al., 2013), Hypothesis formulation also emerged as a crucial category in
61.9% of 21 studies (Ates, 2004; Jeenthong et al., 2013; Saribas & Bayram, 2009; Turpin &Cage, 2004).
Making Model

50.0

Experimenting

50.0

38.1

Interpreting Data

61.9
60.9

39.1

Form. Hypothesis

38.1

61.9

Def. Opr. Variables

40.0

60.0

Ident. & Cont Variables

35.0

65.0

Predicting

50.0Classifying

50.0

61.9

Communicating

38.1

68.4

Measuring

31.6

50.0

Inference

50.0

29.4

70.6

Observation

77.3
0%

20%

22.7

40%

Subskills Noncrucial

60%

80%

100%

Subskills Crucial

Figure 9. Percentage of each Subskills from 32 Included Studies in SPS

55

Lastly, experimenting skill was a crucial category in 61.9% of 21 studies (Gultepe &Kilic, 2015; Kamba et al., 2018; Ogan-Bekiroglu & Arslan, 2014). The studies concluded thatsufficient physical experiences are needed for improving the science process skills. Duruk etal. (2017) argued that because these skills pose problems in terms of the science curriculum,
the tricky parts of science handle the abilities that are influenced by the common structure of
the science educational modules, which reflect course substance, lesson plans, learning action,and the outcome. Aydogdu (2017) stated that teachers should develop students' inference andmeasurement skills by requiring the active use of these skills in the classroom.
The participants in these studies seemed to have a problem in designing and conducting
experiments. They also found it difficult to pose questions and formulate hypotheses. Various
issues, such as students' prior knowledge, learning style, and learning process, the number ofstudents in the class, and the time limitations, have to be considered for successful
implementation (Jeenthong et al., 2013).
In summary, the crucial skills in SPS are mostly in the integrated domain, with inference
and prediction skills being exceptions. Further, the studies revealed that the curriculum has an
impact on the representation of SPS, and the curriculum change affected the representation of
SPS.
Crucial Domains in Critical Thinking Skills
In this domain, 34 studies, including 15 articles on conference proceedings and 19 journal
articles, which are listed in Table 6, were selected for review. The total sample from the selectedstudies comprised 3,608 participants who came from many levels, including primary,secondary, and university. Four studies were qualitative studies and 30 studies were
quantitative, such as quasi-experiments and true experiments. Most of the selected studies wereconducted in Asian countries, such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, China, andSouth Korea; there were two studies each from the US, Turkey, Iran, and Oman.
Table 6. The Characteristics of 34 Included Studies in CTS

DesignAuthor(Sample Size)(BagheriCountry& IranNowrozi, 2015)

Institution(Measurement

Findings

Instrument)
PayameNoor • Comparative

Evaluation skill and• Questionnaire

Induction skill were

University56

(n = 60)

the

• Vocational

mostaveragesamong students;

university

Deduction,
Explanation,andanalysis skills were in
the lowest average.
(Dilekli, 2017)

Turkey(n = 225)

Aksarary• Experimental

Interpretation,

University• Questionnaire

Evaluation, and Self-• Grade 5th to regulation

skillsemerged as the highest

8thmean score;
Analysis, Inference,andExplanation

skills emerged as thelowest mean score.
(Kumar, 2017)

Oman(n = 214)

Nizwa College • Experimental

Assumption,of Technology• Questionnaire

deductions,• College

arguments skill werestudents

the highest mean score

andafter study;
Interpretations skill
and Inference skill
were the lowest meanscore after study.
(Siriwat
Katwibun,& Thailand

ChiangMai • Experimental

University• Questionnaire

2017)• Grade(n = 47)

Explanation

issues,and Evidence were the11th, highest rated;

SecondaryInfluence of context

schoolandassumptions,Student's

positionand Conclusions andoutcomes were thelowest rated

57

(B. K. B. Putra Indonesia

Sebelas&A.

University

Prayitno, 2018)

Surakarta

B.

Maret • Quasi
ofexperimental• Questionnaire(n = 188)• GradeInterpretation

skill,

Analysis,

andExplanation skill had

11th, thehighestSecondary

percentage;school

Evaluation

skill,

Self-regulation

andConcluding skill had
the lowest percentage.
(Usmeldi,
Amini,

Indonesia&

State University • Experimental

Analysisof Padang• Questionnaire

Induction skill had the• Secondary

highestschoolInference,

Trisna, 2017)

andpercentage;

Evaluation,

andDeduction skill had
the lowest percentage.
(Ramos,Philippines Benguet

State • Experimental

Analysis,• Questionnaire,comparison,

Villamor, 2013)

Observation

inference(n = 393)

sheet

evaluation skills were

• University

in the average level

Dolipas,&University

and below

schoolandaveragelevel.
(Kong, 2014)

Hong

The Hong Kong • Experimental

Hypothesis(n = 107)

Kong

Instituteidentification,of • Questionnaire

Education• Grade11th, Induction,

andSecondary

Deduction skill had

schoolthehighestmean

score;
Evaluation skill andExplanation skill had
the lowest mean score.

58

(Duran& Turkey

Dokme, 2016)

Giresun• Experimental

In this study, the result

University• Questionnaireshows a significant(n = 90)• Grade6th, difference

betweenPrimary school both groups in termsof the Measured
analysisskill,

Evaluation, Inference,
Interpretation,
Explanation, and Selfregulation.
(Zhou et al., China

Normal2013)

University

Analysis• Quasiexperimental(n = 119)• Questionnaire• Grade

skill

was

statistically significant
different

in

both

12th, groups,

butSecondaryEvaluation skill andschoolInference skill were
not.

(Hairida, 2016)

Indonesia

Universityof • Quasi

Analysis

Tanjungpura

experimental

Pontianak• Questionnaire• Grade

skill

and

Explanation skills had
shown

the

highest7th, average score;

SecondaryInterpretation skill,schoolInference,andEvaluation skill had
shown

the

lowestaverage.
(Shin, 1998)(n = 234)

Korea

Ewha Womans • Experimental

Interpretation,

University• Questionnaire

Analysis,• Secondary

Inference skill wereschoolstatistically significant
differencegroups;

59

and

in

both

Evaluation skill andDeduction skill were
not significant in bothgroups.
(Asefi & Imani, Iran

TabrizIslamic • Quasi

2018)

Art University

Inference

skill

and

experimental

Evaluation skill got• Questionnaire

the highest mean score• University

comparing

level

to

Interpretation,
Analysis

andExplanation.
(Stephenson,
Miller,USA&

Sadler-Florida• Quasi

Inferenceskill,

Evaluation,

andInternational

experimental

University• Questionnaire

Explanation skill got• University

the highest mean score

McKnight,
2019)

level

comparingtoInterpretation,(n = 159)

Analysis.
(Ratnadewi& Indonesia

Muhammadiyah • Meta-analysis

The result of the

Yunianti, 2019)

Universityof • Observation

analysis indicated that(n = 4)

Surabaya• University

58.3% of the students

level

got the ProficientLevel achievement,
spreading from thecritical skills ofcommunication,
analysis(interpretation) andsynthesis.

(Ow

&

2017)

Tan, Malaysia

Universityof • Experimental

Malaya• Questionnaire(n = 20)

60

It

was

found

to

perform

wellinClassification,

but

they

in

are

weak

analysing,• Primaryevaluating, applying,

Schoolandmakinginference

duringproblem-solving.
(Saputri,
Sajidan,Indonesia&

SebelasMaret • Descriptive

University

The critical thinking

research

skill test resulted in

Rinanti, 2018)• Questionnaire

the evaluation aspect(n = 294)• Grade12th, score that reached theSecondaryhighestschoolfollowedscore,
bySelf-

regulation skill andAnalysis;On the other hand,Interpretation skill,
InferenceandExplanation skill got
the lowest percentage
of students’ aspects(Malik et al., Indonesia

Indonesia

2018)

University(n = 60)

Education• Quasiofexperimental

Explanation,
Analysis,and• Questionnaire

Evaluation skills were

• University

reported to be in thelevel

moderate
improvement
category,

whileInterpretation,

Self-

regulation,

andInference skills werereported to be in thelowimprovement

category.
(Interpreting,

61

Self-

regulation,

andInference).
(Sarasvati& Indonesia

Indonesia• Experimental

It can be concluded

Sriyati, 2018)

Universityof • Questionnairethat junior high school(n = 40)

Education• Grade8th, students are still in a

Secondaryposition that theirschoolcriticalthinkingskills are in enoughcategory.
(Setiawan,

Indonesia

Indonesia

Malik, Suhandi,

University& Permatasari,

Education• Quasiofexperimental

Critical thinking skills
aspect classified into

• Questionnaire

two

2017)

• University

namely(n = 60)

level

categories,
mediumcategory for Explain,
Self-regulation

andAnalyselow

andcategory

forInterpret, Inference,and Evaluate.
(Hunaidah,

Indonesia

Wasis, Prahani,

State University • Experimental

Positiveof Surabaya• Questionnaire

indicate an increase in• University

collaborative critical& Mahdiannur,
2018)

level

(n = 56)

results

thinkingskillsphysics

education

students,

which

is

shown

that

all

indicatorsofofcollaborative criticalthinking skills are inhigh category.
(Irwanto,

Indonesia

Saputro,Rohaeti,State University • Quasi

Inferenceof Yogyakarta

Analysis skills got the&experimental

lowest
62

mean

and
score

Prodjosantoso,• Questionnaire

comparing to the other2018)• University

sub skills in critical(n = 48)

level(Yulianti,
Fauziah,Indonesia&

thinking skills.

State University • Experimental

Theof Malangscores• Questionnaire

Hidayat, 2018)averagearein11th, Interpreting,

Self-

Secondary

regulation,andschoolExplanation skill;• Grade(n = 25)

highInferenceandAnalysis skill got thelowest average score.
(L. Smith et al., USA

Wingate2019)

University(n = 88)

The sub-scores where• Quasiexperimental

the students scored

Schoolof • Questionnaire

highest on the test

Pharmacy• University

were explanation andlevel

analysis. Meanwhile,
Interpretation,
InferenceandEvaluation were thelowest in the test
result.
(Hussein, Ow, Malaysia

University

Cheong,Malaya&of • Quasi

Explanation skill

experimental

Thong, 2019)• Questionnaire(n = 127)• Gradeemerged as thehighest mean score,

5th, and evaluation skill

Primary school emerged as the lowest
mean score.
(Ramandha,
Andayani,Indonesia&

Universityof • Quasi

Mataramexperimental

Hadisaputra,• Questionnaire

2018)Interpretation,
Analysis, andEvaluation skill show
the significance of the(n = 75)63• Grade

10th, criteria for critical

Secondarythinking skills;

schoolInference andExplanation skill
have lower critically.

(Amalia,
Hartono,Indonesia&

Sriwijaya• Descriptive

University

research

Indaryanti,

The highest averagevalue• Trigonometric2019)• Gradeintheindicatorsofinterpretationquestions( n = 30)is10th, has

an

which

excellent

Secondary

category. The lowest

schoolaverage value is in theindicator of inference
which has the poor
category.

(Fernandi,
Firman,Indonesia

Indonesia&

University

Rusyati, 2018)

Educationof• Descriptive

Analysis skill had theresearchhighest mean score• Questionnaire(n = 110)• Gradecomparing to

9th, Interpreting andSecondary

Inference skill.

school(Saprudin,

Indonesia

Indonesia

Liliasari,

University

Prihatmanto, &Education• Surveyof

Setiawan,
2018)

researchhigh category,• Questionnaire

meanwhile• University

Evaluation andlevel

Explanation are in(n = 46)(Cahyana,
Fitriani, Rianti,&

Analysis skill is in thethe low category.
Indonesia

State University • QualitativeThisof Jakarta

research

category shows that

• Questionnaire

all students are able toFauziyah,

2018)

meet
thinking

64

noncrucial

thecriticalability• Grade

10th, indicatorbeing

Secondarystudiedbyschoolresearcher.

the(Yerimadesi et Indonesia

State University • Quasi-

All critical thinkingal., 2018)of Padang

indicators (Analysis,

experimental(n = 67)• Questionnaire• Grade(Pamungkas,
Aminah,Indonesia&

Sebelas11th, Explanation skills)

Secondaryare in the "VeryschoolGood" category.

Maret • Descriptive

University

The result shows thattheresearch

Nurosyid,• Questionnaire

2019)• Grade(n = 99)

Inference, andpercentage

achievementof

11th, students'

criticalSecondarythinkingskillsinschoolsolving the static fluid
problem for indicators
assessment,ofinference,andstrategy is still low,
and the indicator ofclarification is quite
high.
(Shirazi& IranShiraz• Experimental

The result showed that

Heidari, 2019)

Universityof • Questionnaire

Assessment,(n = 499)

Medical• University

Analysis,

Sciences

level

and

Inference skills did
notsignificantly

increase during thetime.
(Basri,
Purwanto,

Indonesia

State University • DescriptiveTheof Malang

thinking

research

65

six

critical
sub-skills

As’ari,&

identified, only the• Interview

Sisworo, 2019)

8th, interpretation• Grade(n = 24)

sub-Secondaryskill was in the fairschoolcategory, while theremaining five subskills

ofstudents'

critical thinking werein a low category. The
evaluation,

self-

regulation,andinferencesub-skills

were the sub-skills
with

the

lowestpercentage. It can beconcluded that many
students

were

less

capableinthosecritical thinking subskills.
Six CTS sub-skills were included in this systematic review: Data interpretation,
Analysis, Inference, Evaluation, Explanation, and Self-regulation. After conducting data
extraction, it was found that three sub-skills were identified as being crucial in scienceeducation, with the percentage shown in Figure 10.
Self-regulation

54.5

45.5

Explanation

52.4

47.6

Evaluation

39.3

Inference

60.7

25.9

77.8

Analysis60.0Interpreting data

40.0

45.0
0%

10%

20%

55.0
30%

40%

Subskills Noncrucial

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Subskills Crucial

Figure 10. Percentage of each Subskills from 34 Included Studies in CTS

66

Interpreting data (55.0% of 20 studies) was found to be one of the three crucial skills(Asefi & Imani, 2018; Kumar, 2017; Malik et al., 2018; Saputri et al., 2018; Stephenson et al.,2019). The second skill was inference, with 77.8% of 27 studies revealing a low mean score(Dilekli, 2017; Fernandi et al., 2018; Irwanto et al., 2018; Ow & Tan, 2017; Ramos et al., 2013;
Shirazi & Heidari, 2019; L. Smith et al., 2019; Yulianti et al., 2018). The last was evaluation
skill, with 60.7% of 28 studies confirming the low average score (Hussein et al., 2019; Kong,
2014; Ow & Tan, 2017; Ramos et al., 2013; Shirazi & Heidari, 2019; L. Smith et al., 2019;
Zhou et al., 2013). Most of these studies compared the average score of each sub-skill throughdifferent methods, such as inquiry-based learning, formal logic course, peer-led team learning,problem-based learning, and knowledge learning in the digital classroom.
Crucial Domains in Reasoning Skills
The reasoning skills category consists of six sub-skills: Conservation law, proportional
reasoning, control of variable, probabilistic reasoning, correlational reasoning, and hypotheticaldeductive reasoning. These skills were measured in 12 studies (three conference proceedings
and nine journal articles) with a total sample of 31,028, which can be seen in Table 7.
Table 7. The Characteristics of 12 Included Studies in RS

DesignAuthor(Sample Size)

Country

Institution(Measurement

Findings

Instrument)(Remigioet Philippines Ateneode • Quasi-al., 2014)

Manilaexperimental(n = 93)

University• Questionnaire• GradeConservation of weightandvolume,andProbabilistic reasoning

10th, skill got the highest

Secondarymean score;level

Proportional
reasoning, Control ofvariable,andCorrelational
reasoning skill got thelowest mean score.

67

(Muslim,
Suhandi,Indonesia&

Nugraha,Indonesia
University• Research and Onlyof

Education

DesignHypotheticaldeductive reasoning got• Questionnairethehighest2017)• Secondary

score;(n = 104)

schoolaverage

Conservation, Control
ofvariable,

Probabilistic
reasoning,

andCorrelational
reasoning

got

the

lowest average score.
(Mendozaet Columbia

Manuela• Quasi-In PBL, Proportionalal., 2018)

Beltranexperimental(n = 35)

University• Questionnaireof• University

Probabilistic reasoning

level

variable skill, Control
variable,

skill

had

and
shown

improvement of correct
answer percentage;
Conservation

skill,

Correlational
reasoning,andHypotheticaldeductive
hadreasoning

decreasedcorrectofanswerpercentage.
(Mendozaet Columbia

Manuela• Quasi-

In

CL,

seven

skillshadal., 2018)

Beltranexperimental(n = 35)

University• Questionnairedecreased of correct• University

answer percentage.

level

68

reasoningall(Piraksa et al., Thailand

Khon

2014)

University

Kaen • Experimental• Questionnaire(n = 400)

Conservation mass andvolumeskill

and11th, Correlational reasoning• GradeSecondaryskill showed the highest

schoolmean score;
Proportional
reasoningskills,Control of variables,
Probabilistic
reasoning,andHypotheticaldeductive

reasoningskill show the lowest
mean score.
(Yuksel, 2019) Turkey

Gazi University(n = 31)• Experimental

Proportional reasoning,• Questionnaire

Control of variables,• University

and

level

Probabilistic

reasoning skill got thehighest means score;
Conservation

laws,

Correlational
reasoning,andHypotheticaldeductive

reasoning

got the lowest meanscore.
(Stammen,
Malone,USA&

The Ohio State • Experimental

Conservation Mass andUniversity• Questionnairevolume,• University

reasoning, and Control

levelof variables skill got the

Irving, 2018a)(n = 32)

Probabilistic

highestpercentage score;

69

mean

Proportional
reasoningskills,Correlational
reasoning,andHypotheticaldeductive

reasoning

got the lowest mean
percentage score.
(Ross& Canada

Ontario Institute • Experimental

The

impactoftheCousins,for Studies in • Questionnaire

program was mediated

2006)

Edu

• Grade 9th to by teacher commitment(n = 12)10th,

to improving students'

Secondarycorrelational reasoning

Schoolskills and by teacher
efficacy. The program
was less successful indeveloping

students'

abilityconcludetocorrelational data.
(Jensen,Neeley, Hatch,

USA

Brigham Young • Experimental

Conservation of mass

University• Questionnaireand• University

reasoning skill got thelevelhighest score of the&
Piorczynski,

probabilistic

2017)

total mean score;(n = 30,000)

Proportional
reasoning, Control ofvariable,
Correlational
reasoning,andHypotheticaldeductive

reasoning

got the lowest score of
the total mean score.

70

(Wulandari & Indonesia

Universityof • Experimental

Proportional reasoning

Shofiyah,

Muhammadiyah • Questionnaire

and Control of variables

2018)

Sidoarjo

got the highest student’s• University(n = 18)

mastery;level

Conservation

laws,

Probabilistic
reasoning,

andCorrelational
reasoning

got

loweststudent’s

themastery.
(Susilawati & Indonesia

State University • Pre-

Hypothetical deductive

Anam, 2017)of Semarang

reasoning

experimental(n = 208)• Questionnaire

got

the

highest mean score with

11th, high increment;• GradeSecondary

Correlational

schoolreasoningandProbabilistic
reasoning skill got thelowest mean score.
(Rosdiana,
Siahaan,Rahman,Indonesia&

Indonesia• Observation

Universityof • Questionnaire

Education

Combinatorial
reasoning,2019)

9th, Correlational
reasoning,
Secondaryand(n = 60)

schoolControllingvariables• Gradegot a high percentage ofcorrect answer;
Conservation
reasoning,
Proportional
reasoning,andProbabilistic
reasoning

71

got

the

lowest percentage ofthe correct answer.

Hypothetical deductive reasoning

33.3

Correlational reasoning

66.7

25.0

Probabilistic reasoning

75.0
41.7

Control of variable

58.3

50.0

50.0

Proportional reasoning

33.3

66.7

Conserv. of volume

33.3

66.7

Conserv. of weight

40.0

60.0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Subskills Noncrucial

Subskills Crucial

Figure 11. Percentage of each Subskills from 12 Included Studies in RS

As portrayed in Figure 11, all sub-skills in reasoning were in the crucial category basedon the studies analyzed. None of the skills accounted for more than 50% in the non-crucial
category. Conservation of weight and volume skills were identified as crucial in 60.0% of 10
studies and 66.7% of 9 studies, respectively. Proportional reasoning was viewed as crucial in
66.7% of 9 studies, control of variable in 50.0% of 10 studies, probabilistic reasoning in 58.3%
of 12 studies, correlational reasoning in 75% of 12 studies, and hypothetical deductive
reasoning in 66.7% of 9 studies (Jensen et al., 2017; Piraksa et al., 2014; Remigio et al., 2014;
Ross & Cousins, 2006; Susilawati & Anam, 2017; Wulandari & Shofiyah, 2018; Yuksel, 2019).
In total, eight studies revealed the range of mean scores in order to identify the categoryof sub-skills with and without intervention. Six of the eight studies used learning methods suchas inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, 5E learning model, and analogy-enhanced
instruction. Mendoza et al. (2018), Muslim et al. (2017), and Rosdiana et al. (2019) showed thepercentage of correct answers. Stammen et al. (2018a) called for more studies to extrapolate
the findings of RS in science education.

72

The Relationships among Three Thinking Skills

SCIENCEPROCESSSKILLS(Padilla, 1990)

I

REASONING
SKILLS (Anton
E. Lawson, 2000)

CRITICALTHINKINGSKILLS(Facione, 1990)

III

II

IV

V

COGNITIVE DOMAIN

Figure 12. Conceptual Framework of Relationships among Thinking Skills

The systematic literature search yielded information on the relationships between thethinking skills in science education, which are depicted in Figure 12, an adaptation of Figure 3.
This figure shows the location of the crucial thinking skills, with the blue dots indicating the
sub-skills included in the non-crucial category and the red dots indicating sub-skills includedin the crucial category. It was found that the crucial thinking skills exist in groups I, II, III, and
IV. As explained by the researcher in the literature review, Group I consists of sub-skills fromSPS. The results of the systematic review showed that only measurement and operational
definition are crucial skills, while the other sub-skills are included in the non-crucial category.
Further, Group II pictures the relationships between SPS and RS. The findings showed that
identification and control of variables (HD2), prediction (HD3), hypothesis formulation (HD5),
experimental design/ model making (HD5), and experiment execution (HD5) are crucial skills.
These skills also covered most of the sub-skills of RS and are called integrated science processskills.
Meanwhile, Group III pictures the relationships between SPS, RS, and CTS comprising
all the crucial skills, including interpretation of data (HD1), inference (HD4), and analysis skills(HD4). Lastly, Group IV pictures the relationships between RS and CTS comprising simple
explanation (conservation reasoning/EI), explanation (HD5), and evaluation (HD5).

73

SCIENCE
PROCESSSKILLS(Padilla, 1990)

I

REASONING
SKILLS (Anton
E. Lawson, 2000)

CRITICALTHINKINGSKILLS(Facione, 1990)

III

II

IV

V

COGNITIVE DOMAIN

Figure 13. The most Crucial Area of Thinking Skills

In conclusion, most of the crucial thinking skills existed in the reasoning skills group thatcovered mostly integrated science process skills and the three sub-skills of critical thinking
skills, which are represented by the green-shaded area in Figure 13.

74

CHAPTER 5 INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN OF STEM EDUCATION IN
INDONESIAThe capacity to collaborate and think creatively and innovatively while teaching is aminimal requirement in STEM education (Beswick & Fraser, 2019; Eckman et al., 2016).
Teachers’ understanding of STEM education should be established across domains throughpractice (Kelley & Knowles, 2016). Gurol (2004) and Tasdemir (2003) in Konokman, et al.,(2017) confirmed that no matter how good a new educational system is, it will not achieve its
objectives unless teachers as implementers fulfill their tasks efficiently.
Teachers are seen not only as the active curriculum implementers, but also as primary
players in terms of providing feedback on the current curriculum and recommendations toimprove it. Teachers are expected to implement the curriculum by mastering the principles ofteaching, significance, contents, learning-teaching approaches, educational technologies, andevaluation processes. Thus, in this study, teachers are assumed to contribute to the curriculum
development process in terms of STEM content integration, real-world application, andscaffolding of STEM education in Indonesia based on their practical experience, knowledge ofthe curriculum, and feedback about the implemented curriculum.
Methodology of the Second Stage

Essential Skills:
Specifying crucial
skills for
Secondary students

Evidence of theEffectiveness:
Identifying theimplementation of
STEM education

Curriculum
Development:Indonesian Skills'
Issues & STEM
Education

75

Instructional
Design:Identifying STEM
content integration,
real-world
application,
scaffoldingThe second stage aimed to shed light on the second essential area, i.e. instructional design,
based on the theoretical framework involving three significant elements: STEM content
integration, real-world application, and scaffolding. Before the data collection process, a STEM
professional development (PD) program was conducted to introduce STEM education to allparticipants in this study. The details are explained below as the precondition of data collection.
Data Sources
The focus of this qualitative study was on teachers’ experiences, opinions, knowledge,
and beliefs. Previous studies have suggested measuring these aspects through preconditions
such as professional development programs (Calisici & Sumen, 2018; El-Deghaidy & Mansour,
2015; Erdogan & Ciftci, 2017; Hammack & Ivey, 2016).
Therefore, a STEM professional development program complemented this study andaimed to provide initial information on building a successful, sustainable, and integrative
STEM education program and teachers’ role in achieving this objective. The four-day training
program was conducted with the support of the MGMP Fisika-Physics Teachers Association.
The STEM professional development program emphasized three things. First, it stressed
teachers' understanding of the concept of integration and how to teach S-T-E-M. Second,teachers needed to have a background in one or more disciplines, content and process
knowledge, and an understanding of the interdisciplinary approach developed from the fourmain subjects. Lastly, the STEM professional development program aimed to be different frompreparation programs for science, technology, or mathematics teachers because it represents
the integration of disciplines (Pimthong & Williams, 2018). There were four sessions:introduction session, simple experiments session, advanced experiments session, and interview
session. The content of the program covered the concepts of Science, Technology, Engineering,and Mathematics and STEM implementation.
Following the STEM professional development program, a semi-structured interview was
conducted to collect data for this study. This activity involved having a natural conservation
with participants, with the researcher asking questions, listening to their answers, taking notes
for each participant to script valuable information, and recording the conservation to determine
the impact of the development program. In this study, the researcher asked six questions:1.

Have you ever heard of STEM education before the professional development program?

2.

How was your pre-service teacher training like? Was STEM education part of the training?
76

3.

How do you think STEM education compares with conventional instruction?

4.

Which subject is the most difficult in STEM education?

5.

What do you think about the impact of STEM education on students’ achievements(knowledge and skills)?

6.

What do you think are the challenges that STEM education could face in physics class?
The first and second questions aimed to determine the extent of STEM content integrationin Indonesia, the third question sought to discover the real-world application, and the fourth,fifth, and sixth questions aimed to learn about the scaffolding of STEM education in Indonesia
as shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Essential Areas and List of the Questions during Interview

Essential Area
STEM CONTENT INTEGRATION

Questions
1. Have you ever heard of STEM education
before the professional development
program?
2. How was your pre-service teacher
training like? Was STEM education partof the training?

REAL-WORLD APPLICATION

3. How do you think STEM educationcompares with traditional instruction?

SCAFFOLDING

4. Which subject (science, technology,
engineering, or math) is the most difficult
in STEM education?
5. What do you think about the impact of
STEM

educationonstudents’achievements (knowledge and skills)?
6. What are the challenges that you think
STEM education could face in scienceclass?

77

ParticipantsThis study employed phenomenological research to understand teachers’ perceptions andperspectives related to particular experiences and other situations (Leedy & Ormrod, 2015). In
this case, the researcher intended to gain teachers’ perceptions on STEM content integration,
real-world application, and scaffolding based on their understanding and experiences. This
study conducted purposive sampling from 38 sub-districts in Pangkep Regency, which is at a
distance of about 49 km from Makassar, the capital city of South Sulawesi, Indonesia, to ensure
diversity and obtain comprehensive data. The participants were divided into two groups: newteachers (0 to 10 years of teaching experience) and experienced teachers (more than 10 yearsof experience). Thus, five new teachers and nine experienced teachers were interviewed. All
participants had an academic degree in science and taught physics at the senior high schoollevel. To ensure anonymity, the names of all participants have been coded.
Data Analysis
The qualitative data analysis utilized an inductive and traditional approach that involved
several steps (The details are attached in the Appendix).
1.

The first step was organizing the data, which involved four aspects. First, the participants’
answers to each question were tabulated and the data was transcribed with a word
processor. The researcher then utilized Microsoft Word to translate, clean, and label thedata.
Question

2.

Sample

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

The second step was identifying the framework, or the coding plan, which was guided by
the research question.

3.

The third was sorting the data into the framework by coding data and modifying theframework.

4.

The fourth was using the framework for descriptive analysis by arranging the responses in
categories; in this study, the researcher divided the responses into two categories based onteachers’ years of teaching experience.

5.

The last step was completing the second order analysis to identify patterns in the data that
can help answer the research questions.

78

Result
The results cover the three areas of STEM content integration, real-world application, andscaffolding.
STEM Content Integration
STEM content is imparted through an integrated, interdisciplinary teaching approach inwhich students have multiple opportunities to apply STEM skills and knowledge in the context
of STEM activities, problems, and/or practices. This study examined the alignment of STEM
content with relevant instructional frameworks from teachers’ perspectives.
To the first question, “Have you ever heard of STEM education before the professional
development program?” the responses were similar in both categories of teachers as can beseen in Table 9.
Table 9. Science Teachers’ Knowledge Joining the PD Program

Participant (N: 14)

CategoryExpNew

I came to know about STEM education only after attending
this PD program4

2

I have previously heard about STEM education, and this is thesecond time or more

5

3

Nearly half of the participants did not know about STEM education before the PD
program, while the rest had learnt about STEM education in the past two years fromvarious sources. Currently, STEM education has been adopted by the government anddelivered by supervisors at meetings of local subject-based teacher communities called
Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran (MGMP).
“Recently, our supervisors have been encouraging us to learn more about STEM
education. They plan to talk about STEM education in each meeting and are
conducting a one-day seminar to raise awareness about STEM education, and theseminar will be conducted tomorrow.”
The second question was about teachers’ experiences during their pre-service training.

79

Table 10. Teachers’ Experiences during Pre-service Training

Participant (N: 14)

CategoryExp

New

I never heard about STEM education during my pre-service
training and have never conducted STEM education

60

I never heard about STEM education during my pre-service
training, but have conducted STEM education

3

5

According to Table 10, eight teachers admitted that they conduct STEM education
although they were not aware of the concept of STEM education. Interdisciplinary teachingdepended on teachers’ interest and motivation and mostly involved a combination of two or
three subjects, and was not as fully integrated as STEM. This is due to lack of guidance or
direction from the community and government.
All teachers revealed based on their experience that explanations about STEM education
have not existed at the university level in Indonesia for the last 30 years. Moreover, they tended
to conduct interdisciplinary teaching by combining two or three STEM subjects, and not all ofthem as required in fully integrated STEM education. This finding also showed that newteachers pay more attention to and have greater interest in STEM education than experienced
teachers based on the frequency of the implementation.
“I tend to conduct STEM education in my classes, but I did not know that it wascalled STEM education. It is not fully integrated STEM, because I rarely combine
four disciplines; sometimes I only combine two or three disciplines, and try to build
the connection between the learning process and students' daily life experiences.
“For example, in one learning process, I guided the students to build a rocket which
involves science (fluid, force), technology (the final result of the rocket), engineering(the process of designing the rocket), and math (the size of the rocket).”Real-world Application
Content is embedded in scenarios related to problems or challenges that students arelikely to encounter outside of school at some time in their lives. In STEM education, the80relationship between instructional content and real-world application is made explicit tostudents. Therefore, this aspect was determined through teachers’ perceptions.
The third question asked teachers how they compare STEM education with traditional
instruction. It emerged that there was no difference between experienced and new teachers’
perceptions. All 14 teachers agreed that STEM education is more challenging compared to
traditional instruction. The teachers mentioned three characteristics, i.e., STEM education is themost updated learning process and related to real-world challenges and activities, STEM
education is interesting, and STEM education provides hands-on activities. They believed that
STEM education could give students a better chance to explore real-life challenges and helpalign their interests in class with their activities outside.
“Today’s students are different from those 10 years ago. Students are more active
and dynamic, and thus are not satisfied by traditional learning. STEM education
provides opportunities to pursue activities that match students’ interests, helps them
apply their knowledge to real-world activities, and prepares them for workplacedemands. In addition, even though STEM education is appropriate to the physics
learning process, all facilitators in education have to realize the need for effort."
Scaffolding in STEM Education
Materials in STEM education provide clear guidance and support to move students
progressively toward deeper understanding and greater independence in the learning process.
This study examined the state of scaffolding in STEM education in Indonesia based on theteachers’ perspectives.
The fourth question revealed the toughest of the four disciplines in STEM education.
Based on the interview results, which are shown in Table 11, engineering emerged as the mostchallenging discipline to be implemented, followed by mathematics, technology, and science.
Most teachers believed that the complexity of engineering makes it difficult to be implemented
at the primary and secondary level.
Table 11. The Most Challenging Field among STEM Disciplines

Participant (N: 14)
Category

Exp

Engineering

New
4

81

3

Mathematics

3

1

Technology

2

1

In their responses to the fifth question, teachers confirmed the huge advantages of STEM
education in terms of improving students' quality of knowledge and skills. The government andother facilitators in education, including teachers, must focus on supporting the capabilities toimplement STEM education. Interestingly, one of the new teachers noted that school goals andthe national examination goals are not in line with the goals of STEM education. These
conditions have driven teachers to improvise the learning process.
“In my school, most of the teachers, including me, find it difficult to change fromtraditional instruction to STEM education. It is not because STEM education cannot
help us improve students' capabilities, but due to the fact that our school goals andour national examination targets do not correspond with the STEM system. STEM
education emphasizes the learning process, so students can gain a deep
understanding of the concepts and problems, and develop an interest in science,technology, engineering, and mathematics. On the other hand, school goals
underscore theoretical knowledge, not practical application. Hence, there is a gap
between the expected learning process and the expected achievements of students.
It leaves teachers with no choice, except finding a way to maximize students’answering capabilities in the national examination."“In developing countries such as Indonesia, STEM education will be more
appropriate in urban than rural areas. It is similar to what we have done in therevised curriculum; it needs step by step implementation for long-term benefits."
Teachers pointed out some challenges and limitations, which are listed below.
1.

Time constraints in and after class;2.

Lack of awareness among teachers about the effective teaching method;3.

Lack of technological support;

4.

Content of the national curriculum; and5.

Main goal of the national examination in Indonesia.
These are not all wholly new, but they are particularly significant for the implementationof STEM education in developing countries especially Indonesia. Time constraints were one of82the most common challenges cited by both experienced and new teachers. Time was limited for
not only classes, but also preparation. Teachers only had three 45-minute sessions for grade X
and four 45-minute sessions for grade XI and XII in one week. Teachers felt that this time will
not be enough for implementation.
“We have to complete a lot of work, excluding teaching arrangements. STEM
education requires a lot of understanding and preparation, so many teachers choose
traditional instruction.”
The implementation of the new curriculum depends on teachers' attention. Some teachers
believed that implementing a new system was useless. This was the case especially when there
is a lack of supporting facilities, for instance, technology.
The other challenges were related to the content of the national curriculum and the goalsof the national exam. In Indonesia, there is no specific curriculum that manages STEM
education. Recently, some teachers have started utilizing STEM. However, implementation was
limited in terms of teachers' creativity in integrating one discipline with the other disciplines,
and STEM integration was inadequate as most of the teachers only combined two or three
disciplines. Furthermore, teachers also pointed out that the national exam focused exclusively
on knowledge, not skills. The government needs to take into account these challenges before
implementing STEM education nationwide.
Discussion and Conclusions
The second stage aimed to shed light on the second essential area of STEM education,i.e., the instructional design of STEM education in Indonesia, based on teachers’ perceptions.
It covered three significant aspects: STEM content integration, real-world application, andscaffolding in STEM education.
The first finding was that STEM education has not existed at the university level for thelast 30 years, and some of teachers came to know about STEM education only after attending
the professional development program. However, this is not surprising given that the term
STEM education has been gaining recognition in the country only in the past two years.
Currently, the government has adopted STEM, which is delivered by supervisors through
MGMP meetings.
In addition, teachers have conducted STEM education without being aware that they are
actually following STEM. Yet, implementation is still limited and depends on teachers’ interest

83and motivation due to lack of guidance or direction. The teachers acknowledged the hugeadvantages of STEM education in improving students' quality of knowledge and skills and alsomentioned three significant characteristics, i.e. “STEM is interesting”; “STEM provides handson activities” and; “STEM is the most updated learning process.” They believed that STEM
education could give students a better chance to explore real-life challenges and help align theirinterests in class with their activities outside.
Theoretically, STEM education has been around for decades, and no one realized its
importance until 1957 when teachers in the US broadly agreed on the value of STEM educationin ensuring America's edge in the global economy (White, 2014). STEM education has existed
since a long time, but it has only been recently promoted in Indonesia with limited information
sources. One previous study supported this study’s finding that the concept of STEM educationin Indonesia has become popular in recent years, especially at the higher education level. It isconsistently developing in the education sector, supported by researchers and academicians(Suprapto, 2016).
The second finding was that STEM education is more appropriate for present day students
given the relationship between the instructional design of STEM education and real-world
application. Nowadays, students are expecting real-world connections to what they are learning,which they potentially get through STEM education, or else they may completely disengage(El-Deghaidy & Mansour, 2015; Havice et al., 2018). The emergence of STEM in the public
K-12 education system has provided opportunities for students at all levels to master skills
necessary for 21 st-century learning using a variety of activity-based learning models. STEM
education provides students an accelerated path to gaining in-depth knowledge (Meyrick,2011). It also involves inquiry-based, problem-based, and project-based learning. It allows
students to explore real-world problems simultaneously while developing cross-curriculum
skills, such as reasoning skills, creativity, collaboration, problem-solving, and research skills.
It is useful for selecting careers in science. These issues are part of the priority plan for theIndonesian curriculum in the Ministry of Education and Culture’s 2015-2019 strategic plan
(MoEC, 2015).
Nowadays, students are expecting real-world connections to what they are learning, orelse they may completely disengage (El-Deghaidy & Mansour, 2015; Havice et al., 2018) thatthey potentially find through STEM education.

84

The last finding was that engineering is the most challenging discipline among the STEM
subjects, followed by mathematics, technology, and science. Science was possibly viewed as
the easiest subject because this study interviewed physics teachers who handle science almost
every day in their life. Teachers were unfamiliar with the work of engineers and have little
experience in teaching engineering design (Hammack & Ivey, 2016; K. L. Smith, Rayfield, &McKim, 2015). All educators need to realize that engineering is the situated context and theplatform for STEM education.
According to previous research, engineering was seen as the most challenging field
because of 1) the lack of a widely accepted vision; 2) lack of formal engineering education
programs; 3) lack of informal support for engineering education; 4) rough treatment of key
engineering ideas; 5) gender gaps; and 6) technical difficulties.
The current engineering education curriculum has been designed without the strategic
vision of what should be covered in K-12 engineering. Indeed, the “qualifications” forengineering educators at the K-12 level have not even been described, and most teachers do nothave engineering degrees. It is generally true that engineering school graduates are trained towork as professionals in the industry and are not equipped or certified to teach in K-12 schools.
Usually, there is an intergenerational gap in education, specifically in engineering education(Ayyash & Black, 2014). This issue needs to be addressed for effective implementation of
STEM education at the secondary education level around the world.
In addition, teachers also pointed to some challenges, including time constraints, lack ofteacher awareness, and lack of technological support, which were also mentioned in previous
research (Kanadh, 2019; Siew, Amir, & Chong, 2015). These issues were identified as the mostcommon challenges to STEM education (Shernoff et al., 2017). In addition, teachers also noted
the mismatch between Indonesian curriculum and STEM education. Balancing the national
examination goals with STEM education goals depends on teachers’ familiarity with STEM
education. Previous studies have suggested that teachers be given training and easily-accessible
and recycled materials on STEM, and also be required to participate in group activities and do
projects related to STEM education outside of school hours (Hattie & Yates, 2013; Higgins,
Xiao, & Katsipataki, 2012; Kanadh, 2019; Siew et al., 2015).
The last challenge was the gap between the Indonesian curriculum and STEM education.
There were two points that teachers mentioned. The first was the content for integrated STEM
and the second was the national examination target. The learning process in STEM education85

should emphasize not only knowledge but also skills, especially 21st-century expertise toenable students to benefit in the future workplace (Burrows & Slater, 2015). The national
examination target in Indonesia places more emphasis on knowledge, which may force teachers
to avoid skills development in the learning process.
Previous research has clarified two approaches to incorporate STEM education into thecurriculum: correlated curriculum and broad fields’ curriculum. McNeil (1990) in Herschbach(2011) said the correlated curriculum pattern tends to be more popular because in this option,
each subject retains its identity and may be offered as a separate course. With the broad fields’
curriculum, a cluster of related but different subjects is organized into a single area of study(Herschbach, 2011).
In the Indonesian case, the correlated curriculum could be used to implement STEM
education, which requires well-planned coordination between the different stand-alone
subjects. Thus, to address these challenges, teachers will have to be more prepared, including
by analyzing the contents and making connections between the subjects. More preparations arealso needed from other participants in the education sector, including government andadministrators, who should support teachers by providing facilities to create a wellimplemented STEM education system in Indonesia.
This study has important implications for the implementation of STEM education indeveloping countries, including Indonesia, even though further research is needed. The
researcher recommends document observation as an additional data source in future research
to confirm the findings of this study. In addition, it is important to create effective STEM
professional development programs in both pre-service and in-service training for Indonesianteachers to help them build an understanding of STEM education. Lastly, students’ reaction to
STEM education also needs to be determined to complement the findings of this study.

86

CHAPTER 6 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM EDUCATION IN
INDONESIA
Methodology of the Third Stage

Essential Skills:
Specifying crucial
skills for
Secondary students

Evidence of theEffectiveness:
Identifying theimplementation of
STEM education

Curriculum
Development:Indonesian Skills'
Issues & STEM
Education

Instructional
Design:Identifying STEM
content integration,
real-world
application,
scaffolding

The third stage utilized the findings from the first and second stages to determine theeffect of STEM education on the crucial thinking skills or “reasoning skills” in Indonesia, which
was the third essential area in the STEM framework. The choice of reasoning skills was
supported by Indonesia’s 2013 curriculum reform, which required science teachers to integrate
thinking skills, including reasoning skills with content learning objectives, as part of theirgeneral teaching and learning activities (MoEC, 2016). This stage utilized a quasi-experimental
design involving an experimental group and a traditional group.
Teaching Intervention
The details of the competencies in physics education in Indonesia are shown in Table 12.
The competencies range from developing curiosity to formulating problems, analyzing
concepts, and modifying or designing simple projects. Each competency is linked to the scopeof the content decided by the Ministry of Education.

87

Table 12. The Scope of the Competency

Competency Level
Senior high school

Competency••

The Scope of Content

Developing

curiosity,

honesty,

responsibility,

logical,critical,

•

of
and

analytical, and creative throughmeasurementoflearning physics

physical quantities

Formulating problems related to•Kinematics

physical phenomena, formulate•

Dynamics

hypotheses, designing and carrying•

Hooke'smeasurements,

recordingandgraphs,conclude,andreportlawofstaticsandelasticity
•

Fluid

dynamics

presenting results in tables and•Temperature,heat,

results verbally and in writing

symptoms of global

Analyzing the concepts, principles,warmingand laws of mechanics, fluids,

effects, and solution)

thermodynamics,

waves,(causes,and•Wave equation

optics and applying metacognition

•

Light

in explaining natural phenomena
and solving the problems of life•

naturephysicsout experiments, taking meticulous

•

The

and

opticaldevices•

Sound waves

Modifying or designing simple
projects related to the applicationof the concepts of mechanics,
fluids, thermodynamics, waves, or
opticsIn this stage, the scope of the content covered only “fluid statics and dynamics,” which
was delivered through six meetings, including one pre- and one post-test session and four
meetings each for the STEM group and traditional group as shown in Figure 14.

88

1st meeting

1st meeting

Pre-test

Pre-test

2nd meeting

2nd meeting

Orientation and Conceptualization

Introduction

3rd meeting

3rd meeting

1st investigation

Literacy (Stimulate)

4th meeting

4th meeting

2nd investigation

Data collection

5th meeting

5th meeting

3rd investigation

Data collection, Closing

6th meeting

6th meeting

Post-test

Post-testb.

a. STEM group

Traditional group

Figure 14. Meeting Details

Further, all participants were divided into two groups: the STEM group and the traditionalgroup. The STEM group received STEM education with inquiry as the center of authentic
STEM education to expand the science learning process by connecting it with technology,
engineering, and mathematics (Blue, 2014; Warner & Myers, 2012).
STEM education allows teachers to address specific elements of inquiry (Blue, 2014).
Thus, the researcher provided the basic competency and list of indicators as can be seen in
Table 13 and created the STEM education practices for each meeting, which are shown in Table
14. STEM education differs from traditional science instruction in that it focuses on inquirybased instruction, emphasizes the natural connection between science, technology, engineering,and mathematics, and uses application-oriented approaches involving experiments that not only
have a positive impact on the crucial thinking skills of students, but also create and increase
students’ interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields and careers.
There were four general inquiry phases including inquiry invitation, guided inquiry, open
89

inquiry, and inquiry resolution. The first phase involved simply taking up a technologicalexample in science teaching, with the selected example related to the daily life experiences ofstudents. In the second and third phases, students conducted full experiments on the
topic/example related to their daily life experience, which the teacher had mentioned in the firstphase. The fourth and final phase was related to how the students completed their experiments
and discussed the results. Students in the STEM group were divided into several small groups,
with each group consisting of 5-6 students, while the teacher served as a facilitator to help thestudents in problem-solving during the learning process.
LESSON PLAN
Subject: Physics

Class/Semester: XI/ITopic: Fluid Statics

Time: 4 meetings x 4 learning hours @45 Minutes each
Table 13. Basic Competency and Indicators
Basic Competency

Implementation of fluid statics laws in daily life

Indicator•

Identifying how to implement fluid static laws
in daily life

Planning and doing experiment to utilize the•Concluding the concept of hydrostatic pressure•

Planning an experiment that utilizes thenature of fluid statics

nature of fluid statics•

Conducting the experiment•

Creating report for the experiment results•

Presenting the results of implementation of
fluid statics’ laws

90

Table 14. STEM Education Process using Inquiry-based Instruction

Meeting

Teacher Activities

Content
INQUIRY• Teacher conduct

Student Activities•

INVITATION

orientation, greeting,the teacher forchecking student’s

attendance

attendance•Students listen to

Introducing thethe teacher’sscience content

explanations andthrough:searchingcontinually

Definition of theinformation on the

deforms (flow under anconcept of fluid,

book and web

applied shear stress, orhydraulic system,

about the topic.

external forcehydrostatic• Teacher introduce thetopic
1. Fluid is a substancethat

2. Hydraulic system is a
descriptive term for asystemoperatedpressure, Pascal
lawor

moved by a fluid
1stStudents respond

3. Pressure is a physicalforce exerted on an
object
4. Hydrostatic pressure is
the pressure thatisexerted by a fluid atequilibrium at a given
point within the fluid,
due to the force ofgravity
5. Pascal

Law:

The

pressure applied to any
part of the enclosed
liquidwillbetransmitted equally in91

all directions throughthe liquid•

The relationshipbetween the topic
and the real-life
application(The application of
hydraulic system, forexampleinaconstruction machine)(Building process areneeded, such as; thebody, the arms, theforearmandthegripperoftheconstruction machine)•

Raisinginquiryquestionandbrainstormingonfunctionofhydrauliclawtheory.

•Students

thinking, discussing,andbrainstorming

solutions

“to

make

construction“What is the function ofmachines work”

hydraulic law theory?”

“Yes”

92

start

the

“Have you ever seen the“Near my home, on

construction machines

TV, and so on”

before?”“Where do you usually“The

construction

see the construction

machines were usedmachines?”

to move a big/heavy
staff like stone, soil,“How do they work oniron and so on.

the construction
process?”“The body of themachinewill

getcloser to the stuff, thearm and the forearm“How do they work?”

will go up and down,
and the gripper willhold/take the stuff”“The machine uses
thehydrostaticpressure to move thebody of construction“How do you thinkmachine”

about the relationshipbetween the body of
construction machines•

In this phase, theand the hydrauliclearning process justsystem?

started, some of thestudents“HOW?”

enthusiasm

showedandsome of the students
also
ignorance.

93

seemedGUIDED INQUIRY
1st Investigation••

Teacher help the students •Collecting

on identifying resources;

resources utilized aout references to

examining all

book, article, andbuild the hydraulicinformation sources

YouTube.

robot.

Teacher help the students •on carrying out the plan

Planning ofon building a “hydraulichydraulic robot

system”
1. There are several partof

construction

machines: the body,building a(SCIENCE:
Systematic
observation)

the arm, the forearmand the gripper
2nd

2. Thebodybottom

is

the

part

that

moves left and right
3. The arm is the firstarm that moves left,right, up, and down
4. The forearm is thesecondarm

thatmoves up and down
only
5. Thegripperisaholder to take/movethe stuff
6. The whole body willneedsomething

tomove such as piston,tube and fluid

94

•

•

Students try to findStudents
facts

identify

about

the

“hydraulic system”
1. The body
2. The arm
3. The forearm
4. The gripper•Teacher help students on

Calculating the size

listing the equipmentof each part in

the equipment and1. Cardboard for wholeconstruction

the processes

parts,

machine’s body (thebased on their“What size of thebody, the arm, theknowledge andcardboard do you

forearm, theunderstanding.

need?”

gripper) with

1. The students

2. Syringes as a piston,“How long the•teacher’s guidanceconsider the(MATH)

required

diameter of theenergy/force

syringe and how

and also themany syringes thatpressure,

you need?”

2. The need to

3. Long tube

ensure that the“the tube should fit

body ofsnugly into thehydraulic robot

opening of theis strongsyringe)”enough,4. Toothpicks/sticks,•

Students consider

3. The size of the“are you sure thepiston is big

toothpicks will strong

enough to haveenough?”a fluid that can

5. superglue, andsupport the

6. waterbody’s moving

Teacher help the students• Designing
Students make theon listing the actions tohydraulic robot

create the “Hydraulic(The step of thesteps for

Robot”

experiment)

experiment(ENGG, TECH)“Hydraulic Robot”“What kind of design thatyou want to use?”•

1. Finding or
creating a

95

“What do you really need toperfect design

do after deciding thefor hydraulicdesign?”robot“Maybe after this, you can

2. Cutting thestart sizing up the body of

cardboard

hydraulic robot? Isn’t it?”based on thedesign“Remember, before cutting

3. Size up the

everything, make sure you

initial body ofjust finish measuring”

machine before
makingpermanent
4. Decide whichpart of themachine need
the piston andtube, how many
piston and tube
that students
need for thewhole body
5. Measure thelength of the
tube

•

•

Teacher ask the student to
prepare the equipment for
the next meeting

Students

startshowing

theirawarenessandinterest, especiallyin selecting theirequipment. In one

96

condition,

twostudents

havedifferent

selectedequipment with theother students in
one group during
their discussion.
OPEN INQUIRY
2nd Investigation•

Teachersupervisethe•Creating• Students

start

students in conducting the“hydraulicexperimentexperimentrobot” without

hydraulic robot)

hydraulic(buildrobot),

reconstructing

the(buildandteacher’s• Students in a grouptheguidance

try to finish cutting“Hydraulic Robot”.

thecardboard,measure and cutting“Try to specify every part,the tube, hook the

so

get

tube and the syringestart

as a piston

you

will

confusedtonotconstructing”
3rd• Students

start

to

build the main bodyat first, and try to fix
it• Students check themain body can moveto the left and righteasily based on thedesign97

• Students try to fill the“are you sure this kind ofpiston and the tube

arm can be strong enoughwith fluid/water

to be with the syringes?”• Students build thearm, the forearm, andthe gripper•

Teacher

continue• Students discuss theobserving

students’result obtained andactivities

they identify better
ways

to

improvetheirdesignofhydraulic robot(How to fix the tube
to

the

arm

and

forearm,

whichlocationisappropriate to fix thetube in the arm andforearm,howtomake each part isstrongenoughtohave the tube withfluid while they are
moving and so on)• Some groups change
whole

body

from

cardboardtoplywood,somegroupsalso

justdouble the cardboard
to make it strong
enough98• Some groups founddifficulties to fix thearm, the forearm, andthegripper,

especially when they
have to connect theseparts with the longtube and piston• Students

discussed

their result obtained
and they identified
ways

to

improve

their design• Students show thepositivereactionssuch

enthusiasm,

awareness, spirit tofinishtheirexperiments, to findoutaperfect

hydraulic robot.
INQUIRYRESOLUTION
3rd Investigation•
4th

Teacher supervises the

Evaluatingthe• Students understand

students on finishing thehydraulicrobot

that the body had toexperiment andcreated by thepresenting the result ofstudents•

be strong enough.
• Students come up

experimentwith the idea of“Feel free to change theusing plywood andcardboard”

the syringes as a99

piston and looked
into how they
manage the waterfilled without air
cavity“Good job”

• Students success todesign the hydraulicrobot with initialproblem throughengineering design
with creating andevaluating theirwork• Students propose
possibletechnologicalapplications andcommunicate theirresult“Any group wants to start
presentation?”“Okay group 1 can start”“Please show to me andyour friends how does

• Students present andyour hydraulic robot

show how theirworks”

hydraulic robot canwork properly.

“can you use the gripper• Students show

to take one stuff?”satisfaction for theirexperiment result.

“It works/it does not

Even though somework”

groups still have100lacking in some partsof their hydraulicrobot, but they felt
awesome and happy
for their work.
• Through this work, I
could see also thestudents’ interest in
doing experiment
which is related totheir daily life
experience, so
during and after
creating hydraulicrobot, they found out
how the construction
machines work fromscientific view.

The details of the traditional group are shown in Table 15. This group received traditional
instruction that involved reading, listening, and discussion. The students also learned
individually before and after the lectures from the teacher in the class.
These two groups were taught by the same teacher and learnt the same concepts in thesame number of teaching sessions. This teacher had already participated in a STEM
professional development program and had also conducted STEM education.
Table 15. Traditional Instruction Process using Discovery Learning

Meeting

Teacher Activities• Teacher

1st

conducts

orientation
Greeting,

Content• Introducing
topic

checking

student’s attendanceStudent Activities
the •“fluid,hydraulic system,hydrostatic

101

Students respond theteacher for attendancepressure, Pascal• Teacher try introductory
part through questions

law”

throughseveral questions“water”“What is fluid?”“oil”“Have you ever heard“What is hydraulicabout hydraulic system?”system?”“What“I do not know”

ishydraulicsystem?”“when I push something,“What is pressure?”

it means I give pressure”
“What

is

“mmmmmm, it is thehydrostaticpressure?”pressure in fluid”“How can you say it?”“Kind of pressures are“okay, then please find out

different depend on thewhere you can find the use

object, for hydrostatic, itofis for fluid”

hydrostaticpressurearound you”•

In this meeting, thelearning process juststarted, some of thestudents showed
enthusiasm and someof the students also
seemed ignorance.

102

•

In order to get students’ • Literacy for the •Students

attention,theteacherscience content inmodule and listen todelivered the module

the module and

the

that

of

book

to

get

explanation

thedefinition

andfluid,

hydraulicexample of the question,

equationssystem,hydrostatic

consistexplanation,

•

read

teacher’s
about

and the question thatpressure, Pascal law.

students should answer(Some of the students

after reading session.

were listening, but

Teacher also read thesome of the students

definition of the concept

kept

of static fluid loudly anddiscussing

ask some of the students

friends)

reading loudly
1. Fluidisasubstancethat

continually

2nd

deforms(flow

under an appliedshear

stress,orexternal force
2. Pressure is
physicalexerted

a
force

on

an

objectp=FA

p: pressure (N/m2)
F: force (N)A: area (m2)
3. Hydrostaticpressure is
the pressure thatis103

playingandwith

exerted by a fluid atequilibrium at a given
point within the fluid,
due to the force ofgravityph = rgh
ph:hydrostaticpressure(N/m2)
: density (kg/m3)
g: acceleration of gravity(m/s2)
h: liquid depth (m)4. Pascal Law
The pressure applied to any
part of the enclosed liquid
will be transmitted equallyin all directions through theliquidp1 = p2
F1
F= 2
A1 A 2•Teachershow

theexample of static fluid
law

in

daily

life:

(Hydraulic machines•

construction machines,

Students observed thepictures. (Some of the

104

•

ship, hydraulic brake-

students

submarine).

familiar with pictures)

Teacher

tells

do

not

the

students to read themodule again and learn
about the example ofthe questions.
•

In this meeting, theteacherdifficulties

still

had

to

get

students’ attention andfocus.
•

Teacherask

thestudents to find theanswer of the questions
3rdin module“A container containing
glycerin

receivesa•Training the•Students

read

the

student inmodule and answer

answering thethe questions in thequestion andworksheet.

remember theequationhydrostatic pressure = 8370

105

Pa.

If

the

densityofglycerin = 1260 km/m3 andthe acceleration of gravity
g = 9.8 m/s2, then the heightof the glycerin surface fromthe bottom of the container
is…….”
a. 0.5 mb. 0.57 m
c. 0.68 m
d. 1.04 me. 1.14 m“A vessel 30 cm high was
filled with water to thebrim. if known air pressure= 105 Pa, water density =
1000

kg/m3

and

acceleration due to gravity= 9.8 m/s2, then the totalpressure received at thebottom of the container
is……”
a. 0.4 x 105 Pa
b. 1.134 x 105 Pa
c. 1.04 x 105 Pa
d. 1.0294 x 105 Pa
e. 1.75 x 104 Pa• Students

show

enthusiasm with thequestions.

Some

of

them think the question
was so easy, because106they already have theequation.

However,

students who do not
focus in the learning
process or try to avoid
task were still existed
in this meeting.
•

Teacherchecksthe• Giving feedback

students’ workandthrough ensuring

giving feedback

Collaboration• Students discuss about

the correct

their answer.

answer of theCommunication

students• Students present theiranswer from their workin the worksheet• Students

makeconclusion,correct

their wrong answer intheir worksheet

4th• Until the last meeting,
not

all

students

contributed

to

the

learning process. The
students

who

have

correct answer seemedsatisfy, and the students
who still do not havecorrect answer seemed
disappointed.
Participants, Instrument and Analysis Method
In the third stage, the participants were 63 secondary level students in grade X from one
public school in Pangkep Regency, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Purposive random sampling
was used to obtain a sample with the same background.

107

In this study, the researcher utilized 24 items of two-tier multiple-choice from theLawson’s Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (LCTSR), with an example shown in Figure
15. This example covered the proportional skill related to student activities, such as the use of
syringes with water inside, in the learning process.
According to Lawson (2000), the purpose of the LCTSR is to (1) measure concrete- andformal-operational reasoning skills; (2) enable the classification of secondary school andcollege-age students in a short period of time; (3) facilitate scoring; (4) use a format involving
physical materials and requiring reading and writing as much as possible; and (5) include alarge enough number and variety of problems to assure a high degree of reliability.
Many instruments have been employed to measure students' reasoning skills, but the
majority like the Scientific Reasoning Test Version 9 and Test of Scientific Literacy Skills tend
to target broad scientific literacy such as the nature of science and ethics in socio-cultural
settings (Gormally, Brickman, & Lutz, 2012; Sundre & Thelk, 2010).

108

5. To the right are drawings of a wide and a narrow cylinder. The cylinders
have equally spaced marks on them. Water is poured into the wide
cylinder up to the 4th mark (see A). This water rises to the 6th mark whenpoured into the narrow cylinder (see B).

Both cylinders are emptied (not shown), and water is poured into the wide
cylinder up to the 6th mark. How high would this water rise if it were poured
into the empty narrow cylinder?
a. to about 8
b. to about 9
c. to about 10
d. to about 12
e. none of these answers is correct
6. because
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

The answer cannot be determined with the information given.
It went up 2 more before, so it will go up 2 more again.
It goes up 3 in the narrow for every 2 in the wide.
The second cylinder is narrower.
One must actually pour the water and observe to find out

Figure 15. Example of LCTSR Two-tier Item Questions in Probabilistic Reasoning Skill

On the other hand, LCTSR has been utilized for nearly three decades and represents a
task-based assessment to collect quantitative data on students’ reasoning skills and skill
development from middle school to college level (Ding, Wei, & Lui, 2016; Lawson, 2000;
Stammen, Malone, & Irving, 2018b). LCTSR questions can be used to assess students’scientific reasoning skills in six domains, as explained in Table 16 (Lawson, 1978).
Table 16. Subskills of Reasoning Skills

Scheme Tested

Question Pair

109

Task Details

Varying the shapes of two
identical balls of clay placed onConservation laws

1, 2; 3, 4

opposite ends of a balance.
Examining the displacement
volumes of two cylinders ofdifferent densities.
Pouring water between wide

Proportional reasoning

5, 6; 7, 8

andnarrowcylindersandpredicting levels.
Designing experiments to test
the influence of the length ofControl of variables

9, 10; 11, 12; 13,
14

string on the period of apendulum; Using fruit flies intubes to examine the influenceof red/ blue light and gravity on
flies’ responses.
Predicting

Probabilistic reasoning

15, 16; 17, 18

chancesforwithdrawing certain coloured
wooden blocks from a sack.
Predicting whether a correlation

Correlational reasoning

19, 20exists between the size of themice and the colour or their tails
through presented data
Designing

experiments

todetermine why the water rushed
up into the glass after the lit
Hypothetical-deductive
reasoning

21, 22, 23, 24

candle went out; Designing
experiments to determine why
red blood cells become smaller
after adding a few drops ofsaltwater.

110

The items have increasing levels of difficulty. For the evaluation of the test, items 1 to 22
were counted as two-tier questions, and the score assignment assumed that explaining is morelaborious than knowing and providing a correct explanation with an incorrect answer implies
guessing (see Table 17). Meanwhile, items 23 and 24 were counted as general multiple-choicequestions with 11 scoring methods. For further analysis, the researcher used the SPSS program
to conduct Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) and t-test.
Table 17. Two-tier Multiple-choice Test Scoring Method

Response pattern and score assignment
“00"

“01"

“10"

“11"

0

0

1

2

ResultIn this study, 56 of the 63 students from both groups completed the pre- and post-test of
LCTSR. Table 18 shows that the mean score of the control group decreased significantly (from4.4074 to 2.7931), while the mean score of the STEM group increased slightly (from 3.3871 to
4.4483). This data also showed that the mean score between pre-test traditional group and posttest STEM group do not have much difference.
Table 18. Descriptive Statistics in Both Groups

Pre-test
Post-test

Std. Error

Group

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Traditional

27

4.40742.30817.44421STEM

31

3.38711.80143.32355

Traditional

27

2.79311.80038.33432STEM

29

4.44831.45372.26995Mean

Before conducting ANCOVA, a couple of assumptions were checked to ensure that thecovariate fixes the requirement. The first assumption was that the difference between the groups
in the pre-test was not statistically significant. The significance of .064 (Table 19) meant that
there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the pre-test. Thus, thefirst assumption was confirmed.

111

Table 19. Pre-test Analysis

Dependent Variable: Pretest
Type III Sum
of Squares
15.023a

Sourcedf
Mean SquareF
Corrected
115.0233.567
ModelIntercept
876.7471
876.747 208.153
Group
15.023
1
15.0233.567
Error
235.873
56
4.212
Total
1116.000
58
Corrected Total
250.897
57
a. R Squared = .060 (Adjusted R Squared = .043)

Sig.
.064
.000
.064

The second assumption was related to the homogeneity of regression with the control
Group*Pre-test. The Group*Pre-test significance of .405 (Table 20) meant it was not
significant, thus meeting the homogeneity of regression condition and paving the way forrunning ANCOVA.
Table 20. Homogeneity of Regression

Dependent Variable: Pre-test
Type III Sum of
Squares
44.552a

Sourcedf
Mean Square
Corrected
314.851
Model
Intercept
120.9731
120.973
Group
3.331
1
3.331
Pre-test
2.557
1
2.557
Group * Pre1.958
1
1.958
test
Error
144.573
52
2.780
Total
925.000
56
Corrected Total
189.125
55
a. R Squared = .236 (Adjusted R Squared = .191)

F
5.342

Sig.
.003

43.512
1.198
.920
.704

.000
.279
.342
.405

According to the data presented in Table 21, the difference in the post-test value of thereasoning skills between the traditional group and STEM group was statistically significant(Sig. = .000 < .05).

112

Table 21. Analysis Covariance Result

Dependent Variable: Posttest
Type III Sum
Sourceof Squares

Corrected

Partial Eta
df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Squared42.594a2

21.297

7.703

.001

.225

Intercept

123.7761

123.776

44.770.000.458Pretest

1.827

1

1.827

.661

.420

.012

Group

42.585

142.58515.403

.000

.225

Error

146.531

53

2.765

Total

925.000

56

Corrected Total

189.12555

Modela. R Squared = .225 (Adjusted R Squared = .196)
To further analyse the effect of the STEM education on each sub-skill, paired sample ttest was performed. The traditional group’s results, which are presented in Table 22, showed adecline of 36% in the values for reasoning skills, meaning students had less knowledge about
the skills than before. The unusual finding of a negative impact was due to a participant error
during post-test in the traditional group.
Conservation of weight and volume skills (sig = .631), proportional reasoning skills (sig
= .161), and correlation skills (sig = .070) showed no significant difference. Moreover, an
improvement in mean scores and statistically significant differences were found only inprobabilistic reasoning skill.
Table 22. Paired Sample t-Test of Traditional Group

Pre-

Post-

test

test

Conservation laws

.7037

Proportional reasoning

Reasoning skills

t

Sig.

.6296

.485

.631

.0370

.0000

1.441

.161

Control of variable

.4074

.1111

3.024

.006

Probabilistic reasoning

.0556

.3519

-3.049.005

Correlation

.4074

.1481

1.892

.070

113

Hypothetical-deductive

.3951

.0988

3.889

.001

Table 23 presents the t-test results of the students in the STEM group. The mean score offour sub-skills improved (Conservation weight and volume [from .6897 to .7586], proportional
reasoning [from .0690 to .1034], control of variable [from .1494 to .1725], and hypotheticaldeductive reasoning [from .0690 to .3678]). However, the pre-test and post-test differenceswere not significant for any of these skills, except hypothetical-deductive reasoning skills,
which showed a statistically significant difference (sig = .000) and also the highest
improvement in the mean score.
Table 23. Paired Sample t-Test of STEM Group

Pre-

Post-

test

test

t

Sig.

Conservation laws

.6897

.7586 -.472.641

Proportional reasoning.0690.1034 -528

.602

Control of variable.1494.1725 -.465.646

Probabilistic reasoning.3621.3448 .157

.876

Correlation.5862.4138 1.095.283

Hypothetical-deductive.0690.3678 -6.666 .000

Reasoning skills

Discussion and Conclusions
This stage aimed to identify the effect of STEM education on the crucial thinking skills
or “reasoning skills” of students in Indonesia using LCTSR assessment that covered the six
sub-skills of reasoning skills, including conservation of mass and volume, proportional
thinking, control of variables, probabilistic thinking, correlational thinking, and hypotheticaldeductive reasoning. In this study, STEM education was defined as an application-oriented
approach to teaching science in K-12 education that is built upon the natural connection
between science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Previous research has elucidated the relationship between STEM education and many
aspects of science, including knowledge and skills, especially the improvement of 21st-century
skills, thus providing evidence of the positive impact of STEM education in different countries.

114

Kanadli (2019) and Sari et al. (2017) reported that STEM education primarily contributes tothe development of life skills in the skills dimension. It also contributes to the development of
psychomotor, problem-solving, science process, critical thinking, engineering and design,inquiry, and 21st-century skills of students. They found the high effect size and frequency gains
in the meta-summary study.
In fact, when comparing the subskills’ mean score between traditional and STEM group,
most of the subskills do not have differences even the result of ANCOVA shows the significant
value in the effect of STEM education on the crucial thinking skills. However, the data showeda statistically significant difference between pre- and post-test value of hypothetical-deductive
thinking skill in STEM group. It is supported by the previous research in revealing the positive
impacts of STEM education on hypothetical-deductive thinking skill.
Further, the final result in this stage also showed unusual finding where the traditionalgroup dropped considerably after the intervention due to the error during post-test in the
traditional group. This can be caused by the teacher announcement during the test that the result
would not influence students’ grade in the school. This information actually becomes thecommon information for participants in each study to fulfil the research ethics. However, it
unexpectedly caused the negative impact to students’ interests and the research finding.
The current study highlights that STEM education can contribute to strengthening
hypothetical-deductive thinking skill that was crucial in Indonesian’ science education and apart of 21st-century skills. During the learning process, students was conducting experiment indesigning hydraulic robote that was adapted from real-world application. Through STEM
education in this study, the students can catch and imagine during their experiment in case of
the relationship between the science concept of hydraulic and their daily life experience of
hydraulic robote that they tend to observe around them such as construction machine,
dishwashers, barber chairs or dentist chair. This learning process also supports the students’awareness to such interest and informed how the students will utilize their knowledge and skillsin the future after learning such science concept eventhough some of the students still havedifficulties to focus on the learning process.
On the other hand, traditional group was not conducting experiment. The learning process
is only through explanation and reading process then answering questions where almost all
students found difficulties in contributing to the learning process. In addition, students who
have correct answer seemed satisfy, and the students who do not have correct answer seemed
disappointed in the end of the learning process.

115

STEM education gave experience to students learn how the concept of hydraulic system
in science could be developed through engineering design to develop industrial applications fordaily life, and gave them the experience of sharing their design ideas, hypotheses, and solutions.
These STEM education processes were part of the data collection aspect of this study. However,a lot more needs to be done to improve all the sub-skills of reasoning skills.
This positive learning process was supported by the previous studies that revealed theembedded elements in STEM education such as hand-on activity, mind-on activity, andcommunication of findings that could have enhanced the students’ skills in science. Students
used specific examples during the experiment from the real-world activities to reason theanswers. This implied that STEM education is instrumental in understanding science concept(Angwal, Saat, & Sathasivam, 2019; Hiong & Osman, 2015; Sari, Alici, & Sen, 2017).
The researcher believed that strengthening crucial thinking skills or reasoning skills
through STEM education is not as simple as conducting classes under STEM education. Basedon previous research, it is clear that six elements should serve as a guide toward implementing
STEM education in class. First, the integration of the four disciplines—science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics—should motivate students to make learning personally
meaningful. Second, STEM education should encourage students to explore technology to see
how it can be used in engineering ideas and designs to solve real-world problems. The third
element specifies that STEM should allow students to learn from their failures and engage inredesigning to acquire engineering thinking skills. The fourth element is that STEM education
should be a part of the standard science and mathematics curriculum. The fifth and sixth
elements require STEM education to adopt a student-centered approach and emphasize
teamwork and communication skills (Moore, Glancy, Tank, Kersten, & Smith, 2014). Theseelements make up a new strategy to challenge students and encourage the shift toward reasoning
skills through collaborative learning (Marusic & Slisko, 2012).
However, the researcher said that future research should observe the effects of STEM
education on reasoning skills over a long period of time. Students need time to adjust to the
new system and process information.
The context for the learning process is also crucial in order to achieve the goal. To thisend, teachers should have sufficient knowledge and skills about STEM education and reasoning
skills, thus they are able to utilize mathematics and science concepts to define and solve realworld problems, as well as recognize the challenges correlated to create the advance solution.

116

In STEM education, teachers are the “most knowledgeable other” or “master thinker” inthe classroom. Their role is to guide learners in the use of STEM literature to develop authentic
thinking skills to come up with solutions. More specifically, teachers are the role models forstudents when it comes to questioning and being curious; brainstorming ideas; developing
plans; generating a litany of educated guesses about a particular situation; and examining
theories, ideas, and potential solutions espoused by others (Blue, 2014). Teachers and education
support staff should make every effort to support the learning process as students expand their
way of thinking to embrace new practices.

117

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Conclusions
This study examined three essential areas of STEM education in Indonesia: corecompetencies or “crucial thinking skills,” instructional design, and effectiveness of STEM.
These three essential areas were addressed in the following research questions:
RQ1: What are the most crucial thinking skills for students in science education?
RQ2: To what extent is the instructional design of STEM education (STEM content integration,
real-world application, and scaffolding) in Indonesia based on teachers’ views?
RQ3: How does STEM education influence the crucial thinking skills of students in Indonesia?
First, this study focused on the crucial thinking skills. It was found through systematic
literature review that students are successful in developing some skills. However, some crucial
skills were identified. Most of the crucial thinking skills of students exist in the reasoning skills
domain, which also covered integrated science process skills and three critical thinking skills,
while the remaining skills were present at a good level.
The issue of skills development raises important questions regarding the crucial skills in
the cognition stage among the common skills in science education: Science Process Skills,
Critical Thinking Skills, and Reasoning Skills. SPS focus on the whole learning process
covering basic and integrated SPS. This systematic review found that the crucial sub-skills in
SPS are inference, measurement, variable identification and control, operational definition, andexplanation, which mostly come under the integrated domain.
CTS focus on the evaluation of the learning process with crucial sub-skills, including datainterpretation, inference, and evaluation. Meanwhile, all subskills in RS are essential elementsin the learning process and were found to be in the crucial domain. In this domain, students
give explanations or reasons based on logical thinking with respect to their hypotheses,
statements, data, opinions, theory, experimental design, conclusion, etc. (Lawson, 1995).
Moreover, after identifying their relationships, the researcher revealed the most crucial
sub-skills within these three cognitive skills: (i) most of the sub-skills in the integrated science
process skill domain (Pedaste et al.); (ii) data interpretation skill (HD1), analysis skill (HD4)
and inference skill (HD4); and (iii) explanation skill (EI/HD5) and evaluation skill (HD5).
Based on these findings, it can be concluded that crucial cognitive skills in science education118

are located mostly in the reasoning skills domain, which also cover some sub-skills of SPS andCTS.
Second, the instructional design of STEM education was analyzed based on teachers’
perceptions and categorized into three parts: STEM content integration, real-world applicationof STEM education, and scaffolding of STEM education. The first finding was that STEM
education has not existed at the university level for the last 30 years according to the teachers,some of whom did not even know about STEM education before attending the professional
development program. This is not surprising given that STEM education has been gaining
ground only in the last two years. It has been adopted by the government and is delivered bysupervisors through MGMP meetings. In addition, teachers have conducted STEM educationeven though they were not aware of the idea of STEM education. Yet, implementation is still
limited as it largely depends on teachers’ interest and motivations because of lack of guidanceor direction. Moreover, they have integrated only two or three subjects, not all four.
The teachers who participated in the study confirmed the huge advantages of STEM
education in terms of improving students' quality of knowledge and skills, and also mentioned
three significant elements of STEM education, i.e. “STEM education is interesting”; “STEM
education provides hands-on activities” and; “STEM education is the most updated learning
process.” They believe that STEM education could give students a better chance to explore
real-life issues and also match their interests in and outside the class.
The teachers said that STEM education is more suited to the characteristics of present day
students, especially high school students. The emergence of STEM education in the public K12 education system provides opportunities for students at all levels to master 21 st century skills
and knowledge by using a variety of activity-based learning models. It also involves inquirybased, problem-based, and project-based learning that allows students to explore real-world
problems simultaneously while developing cross-curriculum skills such as reasoning skills,
thinking skills, creativity, collaboration, problem-solving, and research skills, which could be
useful in selecting careers in science.
The last finding that emerged was that engineering is the most challenging subject in
STEM education, followed by mathematics, technology, and science. Science was probably
viewed as the easiest subject because this study interviewed physics teachers who handle
science almost every day in their life. All educators need to realize that engineering is thesituated context and platform in STEM education.
119

In addition, the teachers cited some challenges in implementing STEM education,
including time constraints, lack of teacher awareness, and lack of technological support.
Teachers also mentioned the mismatch between Indonesian curriculum and STEM education.
This was narrowed down to the relationship between national examination goals and STEM
education goals, wherein students’ achievements relied on teachers’ success in implementation.
The last challenge cited is the gap between the Indonesian curriculum and STEM
education. The teachers noted two things: the content for integrated STEM education and thenational examination target. The national examination target in Indonesia places more emphasison knowledge than skills, which raises the odds of teachers avoiding skills development in thelearning process.
Thirdly, STEM education can support the crucial thinking skills only for hypotheticaldeductive thinking skill. It showed through the improvement of mean score and a statisticallysignificant difference between pre- and post-test value of this skill in the STEM group.
In conclusion, stage 1 and stage 2 resulted in the current conditions of STEM educationin Indonesia. They were confirmed through specific crucial thinking skills and teachers’
perception on the instructional design of STEM education. Although stage 3 failed to support
the effectiveness of STEM education to solve all crucial thinking skills in Indonesia. However,
the mean score in STEM group showed improvement on hypothetical-deductive thinking skills
with the significant difference on the score between pre- and post-test. Preparations need to bemade and the challenges need to be addressed before the official curriculum from thegovernment is fully implemented.
Implications
The study’s findings have some implications. First, a STEM professional development
program for science teachers was conducted as part of the study to promote and improveteachers’ understanding of STEM education, and teachers may use this fundamental knowledge
to support the implementation of STEM education in Indonesia.
Second, the study was conducted in phases based on the STEM education framework thatconsists of three essential areas: Essential skills or “crucial thinking skills”; instructional designof STEM education; and the effectiveness of STEM education. The first stage of this study
identified some crucial thinking skills in 21st century science, which can help the government120

and teachers formulate strategies to overcome the challenges faced by students in realizing theseskills through the exact learning method.
The second stage of this study on the instructional design of STEM education revealed
the perceptions of teachers on how STEM education can be implemented in Indonesia and how
prepared the country’s educational system is to implement STEM.
The effectiveness of STEM education was analyzed in the third stage of this study. The
findings revealed the positive effects of STEM education effects only hypothetical-deductive
thinking skills as a part of the crucial thinking skills in Indonesia. The Indonesian government
needs to consider this information before STEM education is fully implemented.
Limitations and Recommendations
The research findings on the three essential areas in the STEM education framework
showed that teachers have positive views regarding the implementation of STEM education inIndonesia and that STEM education has significant positive effects on students’ crucial thinking
skills. However, there are challenges to STEM implementation, as the study foundimprovement in only one sub-skill in the crucial thinking skills. This was possibly due to thenovelty of the approach for both teachers and students, the short time period from
implementation to measurement, the small number of participants, and the post-test error.
In the lesson plan, the researcher tried to utilize all sub-skills in reasoning skills(conservation, proportional, control of variable, probabilistic, correlational, and hypotheticaldeductive reasoning). However, some of the sub-skills were found to be dominant during thelearning process, including proportional, control of variable, probabilistic, and hypotheticaldeductive reasoning skills. Conservation and correlational skills were limited. Additional timeis needed to elaborate the learning process in order to measure all sub-skills within reasoning
skills.
Further, this study also yielded an unusual finding in that the skill level dropped
considerably in the traditional group after the intervention due to an error during post-test in
the traditional group. The teacher announced that this test would not influence their score in theschool, which was information that had to be provided to participants to fulfil research ethics.
However, it negatively affected students’ interests and consequently the research finding
Further research is recommended to determine how teachers’ understanding and students’
results can be maximized through the implementation of STEM education. It is highly121

recommended that teachers develop their understanding of STEM education and explore how
and to what extent it can be implemented in class. More STEM professional development or
training programs are needed to create and raise teachers’ awareness of STEM education. It isalso recommended that future research involve students from not only public schools, but alsoprivate schools, and cover diverse topics in physics. In addition, the details of such researchshould be reported and conducted strictly to avoid any participant error during measurement.

122

REFERENCES

Akaygun, S., & Aslan-Tukak, F. (2016). STEM Images Revealing STEM Conceptions ofPreservice Chemistry and Mathematics Teachers. International Journal of Education in
Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 56-71. doi:10.18404/ijemst.44833
Akinbobola, A. O., & Afolabi, F. (2010). Analysis of Science Process Skills in West African
Senior Secondary School Certificate Physics Practical Examinations in Nigeria.
American-Eurosian Journal of Scientific Research, 5(4), 234-240.
Altan, E. B., Ozturk, N., & Turkoglu, A. Y. (2018). Socio-Scientific Issues as a Context for
STEM Education: A Case Study Research with Pre-Service Science Teachers.
European Journal of Educational Reseach, 7(4), 805-812. doi:10.12973/eu-jer.7.4.805
Amalia, Q., Hartono, Y., & Indaryanti, I. (2019). Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Modeling
Based Learning. Paper presented at the The 3rd Sriwijaya University Learning and
Education International Conference, Palembang.
Angwal, Y. A., Saat, R. M., & Sathasivam, R. V. (2019). Preparation and Validation of an
Integrated STEM educational Material for Genetic Instruction Among Year 11 Science
Students. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(2), 41-56.
Asefi, M., & Imani, E. (2018). Effects of Active Strategic Teaching Model (ASTM) in Creativeand Critical Thinking Skills of Architecture Students. International Journal ofArchitectural Research, 12(2), 209-222. doi:10.2668/archnet-ijar.v12i2.1340
Ates, S. (2004). The Effects of Inquiry-based Instruction on the Development of Integrated
Science Process Skills in Trainee Primary School Teachers with Different PiagetianDevelopmental Levels. Journal of Gazi Education Faculty, 24(3), 275-290.
Awad, N. A., Salman, E., & Barak, M. (2019). Integrating Teachers to Teach an
Interdisciplinary STEM-Focused Program about Sound, Waves and Communication
Systems.

European

Journalof

STEM

Education,

4(1),

1-12.

doi:http://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/5756
Aydogdu, B. (2017). A Study on Basic Process Skills of Turkish Primary School Students.
Eurosian Journal of Educational Research, 67, 51-69. doi:10.14689/ejer.2017.67.4
Ayyash, M., & Black, K. (2014). Preparing Teachers in Engineering for STEM Education. In
STEM Education. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

123

Bagheri, M., & Nowrozi, R. A. (2015). A Comparative Study of the Critical Thinking Skills
among the Students of Accounting and Software in the Female Technical andVocational University in the City of Borojerd. Journal of Education and Practice,6(13), 43-46.
Bahri, S. (2013). The Difficulties and Problems Faced by Indonesian Students While StudyinginAustralian

University.

Visipena

Journal,

4(1),

1-17.

Retrievedfromhttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cff3/73165051359e5c0667ce055d42448e67b356.pdf
Bailin, S. (2002). Critical Thinking and Science Education. Science & Education, 11, 361-375.
Balfakih, N. M. (2010). The Assessment of the UAE’s In-service and Pre-service Elementary
Science Teacher in the Integrated Science Process Skills. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3711-3715. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.577
Bank, T. W. (2019). Program Information Document: Indonesia Skills Development Project.
RetrievedfromIndonesia:

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/594741563369992590/pdf/Concept-StageProgram-Information-Document-PID-Indonesia-Skills-Development-ProjectP166693.pdf
Basri, H., Purwanto, As’ari, A. R., & Sisworo. (2019). Investigating Critical Thinking Skill ofJunior High School in Solving Mathematical Problem. International Journal of
Instruction, 12(3), 745-758. doi:10.29333/iji.2019.12345a
Beaumont-Walters, Y., & Soyibo, K. (2010). An Analysis of High School Students’
Performance on Five Integrated Science Process Skills. Research in Science andTechnological Education, 19(2), 133-145. doi:10.1080/02635140120087687
Beswick, K., & Fraser, S. (2019). Developing Mathematics Teachers’ 21st Century
CompetenceforTeaching

in

STEM

Contexts.

ZDM,

51(6),

955-965.

doi:http://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01084-2
Blue, E. V. (2014). Effective STEM education in K-12 Setting (S. L. Green Ed.). New York:
Nova Science Publisher.
Boe, M. V., Henriksen, E. K., Lyons, T., & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science andtechnology: Young people’s achievement-related choices in late-modern societies.
Studiesin

Science

Education,

https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.549621

124

47(1),

37-72.

Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed Design: A Contemporary Approach to
Design Pedagogy as the Core Process in Technology. The Technology Teacher, 64(1),6-8.
Burrows, A., & Slater, T. (2015). A Proposed Integrated STEM Framework for Contemporary
Teacher Preparation. Teacher Education and Practice, 28(2/3), 318-330.
Bybee, R. W. (2010) What is STEM education? Science, 329(5995), 996-996.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities (Illustrateded.). United States of America: NSTA Press.
Cahyana, U., Fitriani, E., Rianti, R., & Fauziyah, S. (2018). Analysis of Critical Thinking Skills
in Chemistry Learning by Using Mobile Learning for Level X. Paper presented at the
3rd Annual Applied Science and Engineering Conference, Bandung.
Calisici, H., & Sumen, O. O. (2018). Metaphorical Perceptions of Prospective Teachers for
STEM Education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(5), 871-880.
doi:10.13189/ujer.2018.060509
Caprile, M., Palmen, R., Sanz, P., & Dente, G. (2015). Labour Market Situation andComparison of Practices Targeted at Young People in Different Member States.
Encouraging STEM studies, (PE 542.199).
Carin, A. A., Bass, J. E., & Contant, T. L. (2005). Teaching Science as Inquiry (10th ed.): Upper
Saddle River, N. J. : Pearson/Merril/Prentice Hall.
Cevik, M., & Ozgunay, E. (2018). STEM Education Through the Perspectives of Secondary
Schools Teachers and School Administrators in Turkey. Asian Journal of Education
and Training, 4(2), 91-101. doi:10.20448/journal.522.2018.42.91.101
Chachashvili-Bolotin, S., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Lissitsa, S. (2016). Examination of Factors
Predicting Secondary Students` Interest in Tertiary STEM Education. International
Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 366-390. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1143137
Hangpetch, ., & Seechaliao, T. (2019). The Propose of an Intructional Model Based on STEM
Education Approach for Enhancing the Information and Communication Technology
Skills for Elementary Students in Thailand. International Education Studies, 13(1), 6975, doi: 10.5539/ies.v13n1p69
Colvin, S. S. (1921). Intelligence and Its Measurement: A Symposium (IV). Journal of
Educational Psychology, 12(3), 136-139.
Coppola, S. M., Madariaga, L. A., & Schnedeker, M. H. (2015). Assessing Educators`
Experiences with STEM and Perceived Barriers to Teaching Engineering Paper

125

presented at the 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, United States ofAmerica.
Council, N. R. (2011). Successful K-12 education: Identifying effective approaches in science,technology, engineering and mathematics [Press release]
Council, N. R. (2014). STEM learning is everywhere. Summary of a convocation on building
learning system [Press release]
DeCoito, I., Steele, A., & Goodnough, K. (2016). Introduction to the Special Issue on Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education. Canadian Journal of
Science,

Mathematics

andTechnology

Education,

16(2),

109-113.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1166298
Delen, I., & Kesercioglu, T. (2012). How Middle School Students’ Science Process Skills
Affected by Turkey’s National Curriculum Change? Journal of Turkish Science
Education, 9(4), 3-9.
Dilekli, Y. (2017). The Relationship Between Critical Thinking Skills and Learning Styles of
GiftedStudents.

European

Journalof

Education

Studies,3(4),69-96.

doi:10.5281/zenodo.344919
Ding, L., Wei, X., & Lui, X. (2016). Variations in University Students’ Scientific Reasoning
Skills Across Majors, Years, and Types of Institutions. Research in Science Education,
46(5), 613-632. doi:10.1007/s11165-015-9473-y
Duran, M., & Dokme, I. (2016). The Effect of the Inquiry-based Learning Approach on
Student’s Critical-thinking Skills. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &Technology Education, 12(12), 2887-2908. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.02311a
Duruk, U., Akgun, A., Dogan, C., & Gulsuyu, F. (2017). Examining the Learning Outcomes
Included in the Turkish Science Curriculum in Terms of Science Process Skills: A
Document Analysis with Standard-based Assessment. International Journal ofEnvironmental & Science Education, 12(2), 117-142.
Eckman, E. W., Williams, M. A., & Silver-Thorn, M. B. (2016). An Integrated Model for
STEM Teacher Cooperative Educational Experience. Journal of STEM Teacher
Education, 51(1), 71-82. doi:doi.org/10.30707/JSTE51.1.Eckman
Ejiwale, J. A. (2013). Barriers to Successful Implementation of STEM Education Journal of
Education and Learning, 7(2), 63-74. doi:10.11591/edulearn.v7i2.220

126

El-Deghaidy, H., & Mansour, N. (2015). Science Teachers’ Perceptions of STEM Education:
Possibilities and Challenges. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 5154. doi:10.18178/ijlt.1.1.51-54
Erdogan, I., & Ciftci, A. (2017). Investigating the Views of Pre-service Science Teachers on
STEM Education Practices. International Journal of Environmental & Science
Education, 12(5), 1055-1065.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of
Educational Assessment and Instruction. Retrieved from Fullerton:
Faisal, & Martin, S. N. (2019). Science Education in Indonesia: Past, Present, and Future. AsiaPacific Science Education, 5(4), 1-29. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-019-0032-0
Fang, Z., Lamme, L. L., Pringle, R. M., & Abell, S. K. (2010). Teaching Science as Inquiry. In
Languange and Literacy in Inquiry-Based Science Classrooms, Grades 3-8 (pp. 1-17).
Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Fernandi, R. A. U. I., Firman, H., & Rusyati, L. (2018). The Relationship among CriticalThinking Skill Measured by Science Virtual Test, Gender, and Motivation in 9th Grade
Students. Paper presented at the 4th International Seminar of Mathematics, Science, andComputer Science Education, Bandung.
Fransisca, N., Sisdiana, E., Dian, N., & Arie, B. (2019). Adapting STEM education[Mengadaptasi Pembelajaran STEM]. Retrieved from Jakarta:
Fulya, Z., & Yusuf, Z. (2017). Comparison of Science Process Skills with STEM Career
Interest of Middle School Students. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(12),2117-2124. doi:10.13189/ujer.2017.051201
Furner, J. M., & Kumar, D. D. (2007). The Mathematics and Science Integration Argument: A
Stand for Teacher Education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, & Technology
Education, 3(3), 185-189.
Gormally, C., Brickman, P., & Lutz, M. (2012). Developing a Test of Scientific Literacy Skills(TOSLS): Measuring Undergraduates’ Evaluation of Scientific Information andArguments. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11, 364-377.
Gropello, E. d., Kruse, A., & Tandon, P. (2011). Skills for the Labor Market in Indonesia:
Trends in Demand, Gaps, and Supply. Washington, DC: Word Bank.
Gropello, E. d., Kruse, A., Tandon, P., & Martawardaya, B. (2010). Indonesia Skills Report.
Retrieved from127

Gultepe, N., & Kilic, Z. (2015). Effect of Scientific Argumentation on the Development of
Scientific Process Skills in the Context of Teaching Chemistry. International Journalof Environmental & Science Education, 10(1), 111-132. doi:10.12973/ijese.2015.234a
Hairida. (2016). The Effectiveness Using Inquiry-based Natural Science Module with
Authentic Assessment to Improve the Critical Thinking and Inquiry Skills of JuniorHigh School Students. Indonesian Journal of Science Education, 5(2), 209-215.
doi:10.15294/jpii.v5i2.7681
Hammack, R., & Ivey, T. (2016). Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of Engineering andEngineering Design. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 2(2), 126-146.
Han, J. (2013). Scientific Reasoning: Research, Development, and Assessment. (Doctor of
Phyposophy Dissertation). The Ohio State University, Ohio.
Harahap, F., Nasution, N. E. A., & Manurung, B. (2019). The Effect of Blended Learning on
Student’s Learning Achievement and Science Process Skills in Plant Tissue Culture
Course. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 521-538.
Hasanah, U. (2020). The Effectiveness of STEM Education for Overcoming Students’
Misconceptions in High School Physics: Engineering Viewpoint. Science Education
International, 31(1), 5-13.
Hattie, J., & Yates, G. (2013). Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn. New York:
Routledge.
Havice, W., Havice, P., Waugaman, C., & Walker, K. (2018). Evaluating the Effectiveness ofIntegrative STEM Education: Teacher and Administrator Professional Development.
Journal of Technology Education, 29(2), 73-89.
Hendayana, S., Supriatna, A., & Imansyah, H. (2011). Indonesia’s Issues and Challenges on
Quality Improvement of Mathematics and Science Education Paper presented at theAfrica-Asia

University

Dialoguefor

Educational

Development,

Japan.

http://aadcice.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/e/publications/sosho4_1-04.pdf
Herschbach, D. R. (2011). The STEM Initiative: Constraints and Challenges. Journal of STem
Teacher Education, 48(1), 96-122.
Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The Impact of Digital Technology on Learning:A

SummaryfortheEducation

Endowment

Foundation.

Retrievedfromhttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d26b/b59f2536107b57f242b8289b1eb6f51d8765.pdf?_ga=2.91616410.1278884721.1560260780-1494548299.1560260780

128

Hiong, L. C., & Osman, K. (2015). An Interdisciplinary Approach for Biology, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (BTEM) to enhance 21st Century Skills in Malaysia. K12 STEM Education, 1(3), 137-147.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM Integration in K-12 Education:
Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research. Washington, DC National Academies
Press.
Hunaidah, Wasis, E. S., Prahani, B. K., & Mahdiannur, M. A. (2018). Improving Collaborative
Critical Thinking Skills of Physics Education Students through Implementation of
CinQASE Learning Model. Paper presented at the The Mathematics, Informatics,
Science, and Education International Conference, Surabaya.
Huppert, J., Lomask, S. M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer Simulations in the HighSchool: Students’ Coginitive Stages, Science Process Skills and Academic
Achievement in Microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 803821. doi:10.1080/09500690110049150
Hussein, M. H., Ow, S. H., Cheong, L. S., & Thong, M.-K. (2019). A Digital Game-based
Learning Method to Improve Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Elementary Science.
IEEE Access, 7, 96309-96318. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2929089
Hwang, J., & Taylor, J. C. (2016). Stemming on STEM: A STEM Education Framework forStudents with Disabilities. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities,
19(1), 39-49.
Irwanto, Saputro, A. D., Rohaeti, E., & Prodjosantoso, A. K. (2018). Promoting CriticalThinking and Problem Solving Skills of Pre-service Elementary Teachers throughProcess-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning (POGIL). International Journal of
Instruction, 11(4), 777-794. doi:10.12973/iji.2018.11449a
Irwanto, Saputro, A. D., Rohaeti, E., & Prodjosantoso, A. K. (2019). Instruction to Improve
Critical Thinking and Scientific Process Skills among Preservice Elementary Teachers.
Eurosian Journal of Educational Research, 80, 151-170. doi:10.14689/ejer.2019.80.8
Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Parents, Task Values, and Real Life Achievement Related
Choices. San Diego: Academic Press.
Jang, H. (2016). Identifying 21st Century STEM Competencies Using Workplace Data. Journalof Science Education and Technology, 25, 284-301. doi:DOI 10.1007/s10956-0159593-1

129Jeenthong, T., Ruenwongsa, P., & Sriwattanarothai, N. (2013). Promoting Integrated Science
Process Skills through Betta-live Science Laboratory. Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 116, 3292-3296. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.750
Jensen, J. L., Neeley, S., Hatch, J. B., & Piorczynski, T. (2017). Learning Scientific Reasoning
Skills May Be Key to Retention in Science, Technology, Engineering, andMathematics.

JournalofCollege

Student

Retention,

19(2),

126-144.

doi:10.1177/1521025115611616
John, M.-S., Siburna, B., Wunnava, S., Anggoro, F., & Dubosarsky, M. (2018). An Iterative
Participatory Approach to Developing an Early Childhood Problem-based STEM
Curriculum.

European

Journalof

STEM

Education,

1-12.

3(3),

doi:https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/3867
Kamba, A. H., Giwa, A. A., Libata, I. A., & Wakkala, G. T. (2018). The Relationship Between
Science Process Skills and Student Attitude toward Physics in Senior Secondary School
in Aliero Metropolis. African Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 107-113.
doi:10.30918/AERJ.63.18.038
Kanadh, S. (2019). A Meta-Summary of Qualitative Findings about STEM Education.
International

JournalofInstruction,

12(1),

959-976.

Retrievedfromhttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1201183.pdf
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A Conceptual Framework for Integrated STEM
Education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 1-11. doi:10.1186/s40594016-0046-z
Knoll, T., Omar, M. I., Maclennan, S., Hernandez, V., Canfield, S., Yuan, Y., . . . Sylvester, R.
(2018). Key Steps in Conducting Systematic Reviews for Underpinning Clinical
Practice Guidelines: Methodology of the European Association of Urology. European
Urology, 73, 290—300. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.016
Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing Information Literacy and Critical Thinking Skills throughDomain Knowledge Learning in Digital Classroom: An Experience of Practicing
FlippedClassroom

Strategy.

Computers&

Education,78,

160-173.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.009
Koonce, D. A., Zhou, J., Anderson, C. D., Hening, D. A., & Conley, D. V. M. (2011). What is
STEM? . American Society for Engineering Education, 1-9.

130

Kumar, R. R. (2017). Effectiveness of Formal Logic Course on the Reasoning Skills of Students
in Nizwa College of Technology, Oman. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(7), 3035.
Laksono, E. W., Suyanta, & Rizky, I. (2018). Problem-based Learning Implementation to
Develop Critical Thinking and Science Process Skills of Madrasah Aliyah. Paper
presented at the The 5th International Conference on Research, Implementation, &Education of Mathematics and Science, Yogyakarta.
Lati, W., Supasorn, S., & Promarak, V. (2012). Enhancement of Learning Achievement andIntegrated Science Process Skills Using Science Inquiry Learning Activities ofChemical Reaction Rates. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4471-4475.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.279
Lawson, A. E. (1978). The Development and Validation of a Classroom Test of Formal
Reasoning.

Journalof

ResearchinScience

Teaching,

15(1),

11-24.

doi:10.1002/tea.3660150103
Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science Teaching and The Development of Thinking. The United Statesof America: International Thomson Publishing.
Lawson, A. E. (2000). Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning. Arizona, United States: ArizonaState University.
Lee, A. T., Hairston, R. V., Thames, R., Lawrence, T., & Herron, S. S. (2002). Using a
Computer Simulation to Teach Science Process Skills to College Biology andElementary Majors. Bioscene, 28(4), 35-42.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2015). Practical Research (Eleventh Edition ed.). England:
Pearson Education.
Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining Higher Order Thinking. JSTOR, 32(3), 131-137.
Maarouf, S. A. (2019). Supporting Academic Growth of English Language Learners:
Integrating Reading into STEM Curriculum. World Journal of Education, 9(4), 83-96.
doi:10.5430/wje.v9n4p83
Maguire, L. L. (2008). Literature review-Faculty Perticipation in Online Distance Education:
Barrier and Motivators. Millersville.
Maison, Darmaji, Kurniawan, D. A., & Indrawati, P. S. (2019). Science Process Skills andMotivation.

Humanities&

Socialdoi:10.18510/hssr.2019.756

131

Sciences

Reviews,

7(5),48-56.

Malik, A., Setiawan, A., Suhandi, A., Permatasari, A., Samsudin, A., Safitri, D., . . . Hermita,
N. (2018). Using Hot Lab to Increase Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Critical Thinking
Skills Related to the Topic of RLC Circuit. . Paper presented at the 4th International
Seminar of Mathematics, Science and Computer Science Education, Bandung.
Marusic, M., & Slisko, J. (2012). Influence of Three Different Methods of Teaching Physics
on the Gain in Students’ Development of Reasoning. International Journal of Science
Education, 34(2), 301-326. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.582522
McGroger, D. (2007). Developing Thinking Developing Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill
Companies.
Mendoza, B. J. R., Diaz, M. M. O., & Meneses, L. C. (2018). Strengthening of Reasoning
Levels in Higher Education Students Through the Use of Learning Strategies (ProblemBased Learning and Collaborative Learning) Using ICT’s. Electronic Journal of
Research in Educational Psychology, 16(2), 477-502.
Meyrick, K. M. (2011). How STEM Education Improves Student Learning. Meridian K-12
SchoolComputerTechnologies

Journal,14(1),

1-5.

Retrievedfromhttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7cab/b5223aa526d2f85ad4c1e675c089cb581895.pdf
MoEC. (2015). Strategic Plan Ministry of Education and Culture 2015-2019. Jakarta: Ministryof Education and Culture
MoEC. (2016). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 20
Tahun 2016 Tentang Standar Kompetensi Lulusan Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah[Act Ministry of Education and Culture no. 20 of 2016 about competency standard forelementary and secondary education]. Jakarta Retrieved from https://bsnpindonesia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009/06/Permendikbud_Tahun2016_Nomor021_Lampiran.pdf
MoEC, M. o. E. a. C. (2015). Rencana Strategis Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan
2015-2019 [Strategi Plan of Ministry of Education and Culture 2015-2019]. Jakarta,
Indonesia: MOEC
MoEC, M. o. E. a. C. (2019). Capaian Nasional [National Achievement]. Retrieved fromhttps://puspendik.kemdikbud.go.id/hasilun/
MoEC, P. K. d. P. (2017). Rencana Strategis Pusat Kurikulum dan Perbukuan Tahun 20152019 Jakarta, Indonesia: Ministry of Education and Culture132

Molefe, L., Stears, M., & Hobden, S. (2016). Exploring Student Teachers’ Views of Science
Process Skills in Their Initial Teacher Education Programmes. South African Journalof Education, 36(3), 1-12. doi:10.15700/saje.v36n3a1279
MoNE, M. o. t. N. E. (2012). Kurikulum 2013: Bahan Uji Publik [The 2013 Curriculum: Public
Review Draft]. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan
Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., & Smith, K. A. (2014). A Framework
for Quality K-12 Engineering Education: Research and Development. Journal of PreCollege Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 1-13. doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1069
Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H.-H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H.
(2014). Implementation and Integration of Engineering in K-12 STEM Education. In
Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices (pp.
35-60): Purdue University Press.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (2016). TIMSS 2015 Encyclopedia:
Education Policy and Curriculum in Mathematics and Science. Retrieved fromhttp://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/encyclopedia/
Muslim, Suhandi, A., & Nugraha, M. G. (2017). Development of Reasoning Test Instruments
Based in TIMSS Framework for Measuring Reasoning Ability of Senior High SchoolStudent on the Physics Concept. Paper presented at the Mathematics, Science, andComputer Science Education International Seminar, Bandung.
Mutakinati, L., Anwari, I., & Kumano, Y. (2018). Analysis of Students’ Critical Thinking Skillof Middle School Through STEM Education Project-Based Learning. Jurnal
Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(1), 54-65. doi:10.15294/jpii.v7il.10495
Mutlu, M., & Temiz, B. K. (2013). Science Process Skills of Students Having Field Dependentand Field Independent Cognitive Styles. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(11),766-776. doi:10.5897/ERR2012.1104
Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM Defined: Contexts, Challenges, andthe

Future.

The

Journalof

Educational

Research,

110(3),

221-223.

doi:10.1080/00220671.2017.1289775
Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM Defined: Contexts, Challenges, andthe

Future.

The

Journalof

Educational

doi:10.1080/00220671.2017.1289775

133

Research,

110(3),

221-223.

Naimnule, L., & Corebima, A. D. (2018). The Correlation between Metacognitive Skills andCritical Thinking Skills toward Students’ Process Skills in Biology Learning. Journalof Pedagogical Research, 2(2), 122-134.
Niu, L., Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Garvan, C. W. (2013). Do Instructional Interventions
Influence College Students’ Critical Thinking Skills? A Meta-analysis. Educational
Research Review, 9, 114-128. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002
OECD. (2016). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) Result from PISA
2015. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2015-Indonesia.pdf
Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Arslan, A. (2014). Examination of the Effects of Model-based Inquiryon Students’ Outcomes: Scientific Process Skills and Conceptual Knowledge. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 1187-1191. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.202
Ongowo, R. O., & Indoshi, F. C. (2013). Science Process Skill in the Kenya Certificate ofSecondary Education Biology Practical Examinations. Creative Education, 4(11), 713717. doi:10.4236/ce.2013.411101
Osman, K., & Vebrianto, R. (2013). Fostering Science Process Skills and Improving
Achievement through the Use of Multiple Media. Journal of Baltic Science Education,
12(2), 191-204.
Ostler, E. (2012). 21st Century STEM Education: A Tactical Model for Long-Range Success.
International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 2(1), 28-33.
Ow, S. H., & Tan, C. M. (2017). Using a Computer Game to Assess the Critical Thinking Skillsof Preschoolers. Paper presented at the 2017 IEEE Conference on s-Learning, eManagement and e-Services, Malaysia.
Ozgelen, S. (2012). Students’ Science Process Skills within a Cognitive Domain Framework.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(4), 283-292.
doi:10.12973/eurosia.2012.846a
Ozturk, N., Tezel, O., & Acat, M. B. (2010). Science Process Skills Levels of Primary School
Seventh Grade Students in Science and Technology Lesson. Journal of Turkish Science
Education, 7(3), 15-28.
Padilla, M. J. (1990). The Science Process Skills. Research Matter-to the Science Teacher.
Pamungkas, Z. S., Aminah, N. S., & Nurosyid, F. (2019). Analysis of Student Critical Thinking
Skill in Solving Fluid Static Concept Based on Metacognition Level. Paper presented at
the 9th International Conference on Physics and Its Applications, Surakarta, Indonesia.

134Pawilen, G. T., & Yuzon, M. R. A. (2019). Planning a Science, Technology, Engineering, andMathematics (STEM) Curriculum for Young Children: A Collaborative Project for Preservice Teacher Education Students. International Journal of Curriculum andInstruction, 11(2), 130-146.
Pedaste, M., Maeots, M., Siiman, L. A., Jong, T. d., Riesen, S. A. N. v., Kamp, E. T., . . .
Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of Inquiry-based Learning: Definitions and the Inquiry
Cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Pimthong, P., & Williams, J. (2018). Preservice Teachers’ Understanding of STEM Education.
Kasetsart Journal of Social Science, 1-7. doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2018.07.017
Piraksa, C., Srisawasdi, N., & Koul, R. (2014). Effect of Gender on Students’ Scientific
Reasoning Ability; A Case Study in Thailand Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,
116, 486-491. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.245
Pitiporntapin, S., Chantara, P., Srikoom, W., Nuangchalerm, P., & Hines, L. M. (2018).
Enhancing Thai In-service Teachers’ Perceptions of STEM Education with TabletBased Professional Development. Canadian Center of Science and Education, 14(10),13-20. doi:10.5539/ass.v14n10p13
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., . . . Duffy, S. (2006).
Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. Retrieved fromPress, T. N. A. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America
for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC.
Prihantara, R. C. (2015). The Perspective of Curriculum in Indonesia on Environmental
Education. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 4(1), 77-83.
Prihatnawati, Y., Amin, M., & Muhdhar, M. H. I. A. (2017). The Effect of Module
Implementation with STAD Cooperative Learning towards Process Skills in Science andCognitive Achievement of 8th Grade Students. Paper presented at the International
Conference on Learning Innovation, Malang.
Putra, B. K. B., & B. A. Prayitno, M. (2018). The Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry and Instead
Toward Students’ Critical Thinking Skills on Circulatory System Materials. Indonesian
Journal of Science Education, 7(4), 476-482.
Putra, P. D. A. (2017). Educational Game for STEM Education in Indonesia Local Wisdon.
Paper presented at the Japan Society for Science Education Conference, Japan.

135Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. (2016). Investigating Preservice STEM Educator Conceptions of
STEM Education Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 759-774.
doi:10.1007/s10956-016-9633-5
Ramandha, M. E. P., Andayani, Y., & Hadisaputra, S. (2018). An Analysis of Critical Thinking
Skills among Students Studying Chemistry Using Guided Inquiry Models. Paper
presented at the AIP Conference Proceedings, East Java, Indonesia.
Ramos, J. L. S., Dolipas, B. B., & Villamor, B. B. (2013). Higher Order Thinking Skills andAcademic Performance in Physics of College Students: A Regression Analysis.
International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research(4), 48-60.
Ratnadewi, D., & Yunianti, S. (2019). Indonesian Student Teachers’ Critical Thinking Skills in
Text Analysis with CDA Approach. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(3), 424431. doi:10.18510/hssr.2019.7362
Rauf, R. A. A., Rasul, M. S., Mansor, A. N., Othman, Z., & Lyndon, N. (2013). Inculcation of
Science Process Skills in a Science Classroom. Asian Social Science, 9(8), 47-57.
doi:10.5539/ass.v9n8p47
Remigio, K. B., Yangco, R. T., & Espinosa, A. A. (2014). Analogy-Enhanced Instruction;
Effects on Reasoning Skills in Science. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational
Science, 2(2), 1-9.
Reynders, G., Suh, E., Cole, R. S., & Sansom, R. L. (2019). Developing Student Process Skills
in a General Chemistry Laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 96, 2109-2119.
doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00441
Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walber-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007).
Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. Brussels:
Directorate General for Research, Science, Economy and Society.
Rosdiana, R., Siahaan, P., & Rahman, T. (2019). Mapping the Reasoning Skill of the Students
on Pressure Concept. Paper presented at the International Conference on Mathematics
and Science Education, Bandung.
Ross, J. A., & Cousins, J. B. (2006). Enhancing Secondary School Students’ Acquisition of
Correlational Reasoning Skills. Research in Science and Technological Education,
11(2), 191-205. doi:10.1080/0263514930110208
Rosser, A. (2018). Lowy Institute Analysis. Beyond Access: Making Indonesia’s Education
System Work, 1-29.

136

Sahhyar, & Febriani, N. H. (2017). The Effect of Scientific Inquiry Learning Model Based on
Conceptual Change on Physics Cognitive Competence and Science Process Skill (SPS)of Students at Senior High School. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(5), 120-126.
Sanders,M.

(2009).

STEM,

STEM

Education,

STEM

Mania.

Retrievedfromhttps://www.teachmeteamwork.com/files/sanders.istem.ed.ttt.istem.ed.def.pdf
Saprudin, S., Liliasari, S., Prihatmanto, A. S., & Setiawan, A. (2018). Pre-service Physics
Teachers’ Thinking Styles and Its Relationship with Critical Thinking Skills on Learning
Interference and Diffraction. Paper presented at the International Conference onMathematics and Science Education, Bandung.
Saputri, A. C., Sajidan, & Rinanti, Y. (2018). Critical Thinking Skills Profile of Senior HighSchool Students in Biology Learning. Paper presented at the International Conference
on Science Education, Bandung.
Sarasvati, A., & Sriyati, S. (2018). Implementation Analysis of Formative Self and Peer
Assessment towards Critical Thinking Skill in Junior High School. Paper presented at
the International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education, Bandung.
Sari, U., Alici, M., & Sen, O. F. (2017). The Effect of STEM education on Attitude, Career
Perception and Career Interest in a Problem-based Learning Environment and Student
Opinions. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1-21.
Sari, U., Alici, M., & Sen, O. F. (2018). The Effect of STEM education on Attitude, Career
Perception and Career Interest in a Problem-based Learning Environment and Student
Opinions. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1-21.
Saribas, D., & Bayram, H. (2009). Is it Possible to Improve Science Process Skills and Attitudes
towards Chemistry through the Development of Metacognitive Skills Embedded within
a Motivated Chemistry Lab?: A Self-regulated Learning Approach. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 1, 61-72. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.014
Satchwell, R. E., & Loepp, F. L. (2002). Designing and Implementing an Integrated
Mathematics, Science, and Technology Curriculum for the Middle School. Journal ofIndustrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 1-21.
Scientist, O. o. t. C. (2013). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in the National
Interest: A Strategic Approach. Retrieved from https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wpcontent/uploads/STEMstrategy290713FINALweb.pdf:
Setiawan, A., Malik, A., Suhandi, A., & Permatasari, A. (2017). Effect of Higher Order
Thinking Laboratory on the Improvement of Critical and Creative Thinking Skills. Paper

137

presented at the The 2nd International Conference on Innovation in Engineering andVocational Education, Manado.
Shadle, S. E., Marker, A., & Earl, B. (2017). Faculty Drivers and Barriers: Laying The
Groundwork for Undergraduate STEM Education Reform in Academic Departments
International Journal of STEM Education, 8(4), 1-13. doi:10.1186/s40594-017-0062-7
Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing Teacher Education
and Professional Development Needs for the Implementation of integrated approaches
to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 13(4), 1-16.
doi:10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1
Shin, K. R. (1998). Critical Thinking ability and Clinical Decision-making Skills among Senior
Nursing Students in Associate and Baccalaureate Programs in Korea. Journal ofAdvanced Nursing, 27, 414-418.
Shirazi, F., & Heidari, S. (2019). The Relationship Between Critical Thinking Skills andLearning Styles and Academic Achievement of Nursing Students. The Journal of
Nursing Research, 27(4), 1-7.
Shumow, L., & Schmidt, J. A. (2013). Academic Grades and Motivation in High School
Science Classrooms Among Male and Female Students: Associations with Teachers’
Characteristics, Beliefs and Practices. Journal of Education Reseach, 7(1), 53-71.
Siahaan, P., Suryani, A., Kaniawati, I., Suhendi, E., & Samsudin, A. (2017). Improving
Students’ Science Process Skills through Simple Computer Simulations on Linear
Motion Conceptions. Paper presented at the Mathematics, Science, and Computer
Science Education International Seminar, Bandung.
Siew, N. M., Amir, N., & Chong, C. L. (2015). The Perceptions of Pre-service and In-service
Teachers Regarding a Project-Based STEM Approach to Teaching Science.
SpringerPlus, 4(8), 1-20.
Siriwat, R., & Katwibun, D. (2017). Exploring Critical Thinking in Mathematics ProblemBased Learning Classroom. Paper presented at the The 40th Annual Conference of theMathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Melbourne.
Smith, J., & Karr-Kidwell, P. J. (2000). The Interdisciplinary Curriculum: A Literature Review
and a Manual for Administrators and Teachers.
Smith, K. L., Rayfield, J., & McKim, B. R. (2015). Effective Practices in STEM Integration:
Describing Teacher Perceptions and Instructional Method Use. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 56(4), 182-201. doi:10.5032/jae.2015.04183

138Smith, L., Gilette, C., Taylor, S. R., Manolakis, M., Dinkins, M., & Ramey, C. (2019). A
Semester-long Critical Thinking Course in the First Semester of Pharmacy School:
Impact on Critical Thinking Skills. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 11,499-504. doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2019.02.014
Society, T. R. (2014). Vision for science and mathematics education London. Retrieved fromhttps://royalsociety.org/-/media/education/policy/vision/reports/vision-full-report20140625.pdf: royalsociety.org
Srikoom, W., Hanuscin, D. L., & Faikhamta, C. (2017). Perceptions of In-service Teachers
toward Teaching STEM in Thailand. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning andTeaching, 18(2), 1-23.
Stammen, A. N., Malone, K. L., & Irving, K. E. (2018). Effects of Modeling Instruction
Professional Development on Biology Teachers’ Scientific Reasoning Skills. Education
Science, 119(8), 1-19. doi:10.3390/educsci8030119
Stephenson, N. S., Miller, I. R., & Sadler-McKnight, N. P. (2019). Impact of Peer-Led Team
Learning and the Science Writing and Workshop Template on the Critical Thinking
Skills of First-Year Chemistry Students. Journal of Chemical Education, 96, 841-849.
doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00836
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for Teaching Integrated
STEM Education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 2834. doi:http://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653
Sundre, D. L., & Thelk, A. D. (2010). Advancing Assessment of Quantitative and Scientific
Reasoning. Numeracy, 3(2), 619-634. doi:10.5038/1936-4660.3.2.2
Suprapto, N. (2016). Students’ Attitudes towards STEM Education: Voices from Indonesian
Junior High Schools. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(Spesial Issue).
doi:10.12973/tused.10172a
Susilawati, S. M. E., & Anam, K. (2017). Improving Student’s Scientific Reasoning and
Problem-Solving Skills by the 5E Learning Model. Journal of Biology and Biology
Education, 9(3), 506-512. doi:10.15294/biosaintifika.v9i3.12022
Tanembaum, C., Gray, T., Lee, K., Williams, M., & Upton, R. (2016). STEM 2026: A visionforInnovation

in

STEM

Education

Retrieved

https://innovation.ed.gov/files/2016/09/AIR-STEM2026_Report_2016.pdf

139

from

Tekerci, H., & kandir, A. (2017). Effects of the Sense-based Science Education Program on
Scientific Process Skills of Children Aged 60-66 Months. Eurosian Journal of
Educational Research, 68, 239-254. doi:10.14689/ejer.2017.68.13
Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., Loof, H. D., Meester, J. D., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., . . . Depaepe,
F. (2018). Integrated STEM Education: A Systematic Review of Instructional Practices
in Secondary Education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1-12.
doi:http://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525
Ting, K. L., & Siew, N. M. (2014). Effects of Outdoor School Ground Lessons on Students’
Science Process Skills and Scientific Curiosity. Journal of Education and Learning,
3(4), 96-107. doi:10.5539/jel.v3n4p96
Tobias, J., Wales, J., Syamsulhakim, E., & Suharti. (2014). Towards Better Education Quality
Indonesia’s Promising Path. Retrieved from London:Toma, R. B., & Greca, I. M. (2018). The Effect of Integrative STEM education on Elementary
Students’ Attitudes toward Science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &Technology Education, 14(1), 1383-1395. doi:10.29333/ejmste/83676
Tsupros, N., Kohler, R., & Hallinen, J. (2009). STEM Education: a project to identify the
missing components. Pittsburgh: Intermediate Unit 1 and Carnegie Mellon University.
Turpin, T., & Cage, B. N. (2004). The Effects of an Integrated, Activity-based Science
Curriculum on Student Achievement, Science Process Skills, and Science Attitudes.
Electronic Journal of Literacy through Science, 3, 1-17.
UNESCO. (2011). World Data on Education. Retrieved from
Usmeldi, Amini, R., & Trisna, S. (2017). The Development of Research-Based Learning Modelwith Science, Environment, Technology, and Society Approaches to Improve CriticalThinking of Students. Indonesian Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 318-325.
Valentino,C.

(2000).

Developing

Science

Skills.

2018(July).

Retrievedfromhttps://www.eduplace.com/science/profdev/articles/valentino2.html
Wahyuni, S., Indrawati, Sudarti, & Suana, W. (2017). Developing Science Process Skills andProblem-Solving Abilities Based on Outdoor Learning in Junior High School.
Indonesian Journal of Science Education, 6(1), 165-169. doi:10.15294/jpii.v6i1.6849
Wang, H.-H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM Integration: Teacher
Perceptions and Practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research,
1(2), 1-13. doi:10.5703/1288284314636
Warner, A. J., & Myers, B. E. (2012). What is Inquiry-Based Instruction.

140

Warner, A. J., & Myers, B. E. (2012) What is Inquiry-based Instruction. In, (pp. 1-3):
University of Florida.
Wee, T. T., & Ling, T. A. (2019). STEM Education Frameworks for 21st Century Learning.
Paper presented at the Regional STEM Symposium 2019, Bangkok, Thailand.
White, D. W. (2014). What is STEM Education and Why Is It Important? Florida AssociationofTeacher

Educators

Journal1(14),

1-9.

Retrievedfrom

http://www.fate1.org/journals/2014/white.pdf
Wulandari, F. E., & Shofiyah, N. (2018). Problem-based Learning: Effects on Student’s
Scientific Reasoning Skills in Science. Paper presented at the International Conference
on Science education, Surabaya.
Yerimadesi, Y., Bayharti, B., Azizah, A., Lufri, L., Andromeda, A., & Guspatni, G. (2018).
Effectiveness of Acid-base Modules Based on Guided Discovery Learning for
Increasing Critical Thinking Skills and Learning Outcomes of Senior High SchoolStudent. Paper presented at the The 2018 International Conference on Research andLearning of Physics, Padang, Indonesia.
Yilmaz, N. Y. (2019). An Examination of the Relationship Between Primary School Students’
Environmental Awareness and Basic Science Process Skills. Educational Research andReviews, 14(4), 140-151. doi:10.5897/ERR2018.3663
Yuksel, I. (2019). The Effects of Research-Inquiry Based Learning on the Scientific Reasoning
Skills of Prospective Science Teachers. Journal of Education and Training Studies,7(4), 273-278. doi:10.11114/jets.v7i4.4020
Yulianti, L., Fauziah, R., & Hidayat, A. (2018). Student’s Critical Thinking Skills in Authentic
Problem Based Learning. Paper presented at the 4th International Seminar of
Mathematics, Science, and Computer Science Eductaion, Bandung.
Zeidan, A. H., & Jayosi, M. R. (2015). Science Process Skills and Attitudes toward Scienceamong Palestinian Secondary School Students. World Journal of Education, 5(1), 1324. doi:10.5430/wje.v5n1p13
Zhou, Q., Huang, Q., & Tian, H. (2013). Developing Students’ Critical Thinking Skills by Taskbased Learning in Chemistry Experiment Teaching. Creative Education, 4(12A), 4045. doi:10.4236/ce.2013.412A1006
Zimmerman, C. (2000). The Development of Scientific Reasoning Skills. Developmental
Review, 20, 99-149. doi:10.1006/drev.1999.0497

141

APPENDIX

THE DETAIL OF STEM PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Location: Pangkep, South Sulawesi, IndonesiaTime: 25th – 30th January 2019 [8.00-17.00 WITA]

Number of participants: 25 In-service teachers [15 experience and 10 newly]Supervisor: Prof. Tsutaoka Takanori & Dr. Muhammad Arsyad, M.T

Coordinator: Uswatun Hasanah, S.Pd., M.Ed.

TIME

ACTIVITY

Presenter

1st day

Presentation• One of the lecturers in the host

8.00-10.00

The definition of STEM education

institution

10.00-12.00

The importance of STEM education,• Uswatun Hasanah, S.Pd., M.Ed.

12.00-13.00

Lunch

13.00-15.00

The role of technology and engineeringin STEM education,

15.00-15.30

Coffee break

15.30-17.00

Teaching strategy in STEM education

2nd day

Demonstration• Uswatun Hasanah, S.Pd., M.Ed.

8.00-10.00• Nur Rahmah, S.Pd., M.Ed.

10.00-12.00

Lunch

12.00-13.00

Demonstration

13.00-15.00

utilize the teaching material that is• Ainun Najib Al Fatih, S.Pd., M. Ed.
of STEM

education

provided by the presenter (2nd session)
3rd day

Development

8.00-12.00

Teacher will conduct two experiments • Nur Rahmah, S.Pd., M.Ed.

• Uswatun Hasanah, S.Pd., M.Ed.

and will be asked to develop lesson plan • Ainun Najib Al Fatih, S.Pd., M. Ed.
in STEM education
12.00-13.00

Lunch

13.00-15.00

Discussion, group presentation142

4th dayInterview

8.00-12.00

Delivering questionnaire and interview 9 • Nur Rahmah, S.Pd., M.Ed.

• Uswatun Hasanah, S.Pd., M.Ed.

experience teachers and 5 new teachers
12.00-13.00• Ainun Najib Al Fatih, S.Pd., M. Ed.

Lunch

1st DAY CONTENT OF PD PROGRAM
In the 1st day PD program, teacher will listen presentations and videos related to STEM
education. this part for introductory part for STEM to the participant. The instructor will focus
in four points;
1. The definition of STEM education,
2. The importance of STEM education,
3. The role of technology and engineering in STEM education,
4. Teaching strategy in STEM education, example of the STEM learning process
2nd DAY CONTENT OF PD PROGRAM
In this 2nd day PD program, the teachers will watch the demonstration from the instructor
related to the simple experiment of STEM related to the content in Indonesia curriculum.
1st demonstration
Global warning demonstration "DIY Space: Water Balloon Demonstration"
Activity details
Subjects: science; primary topic: earth processes; additional topics: earth and space science,earth science, earth, moon and sun; time required: less than 30 mins
Overview
This demonstration uses a water balloon to show how Earth's oceans are absorbing most of theheat being trapped on our warming world.
Materials
1. Several balloons
2. Lighter (be sure it creates a flame rather than a jet)
3. Bottle of water
4. Bucket
5. Safety goggles
Management

143

Watch the "DIY Space: Water Balloon Demonstration" video tutorial at the top of the page for
instructions on doing the demonstration.
Procedures
1. Blow up the balloon and tie it. Ask someone to hold the balloon while you put on safety
goggles. Explain to students that the air-filled balloon represents Earth's atmosphere andthe flame represents the heat from the sun.
2. Take the balloon and have students stand at least three feet away from you.
3. Hold the bottom of the balloon. Place the lighter's flame onto the balloon, but at a safe
distance from where you are holding the balloon. As soon as the flame touches theballoon, the balloon will pop.
4. Now make a water balloon. When filling the balloon, try to remove any air bubbles as
placing the flame over an air bubble could cause the balloon to pop
prematurely. Explain to students that this balloon represents Earth's oceans.
5. Make sure your safety goggles are still on and hold the balloon over the bucket. Make
sure to hold the balloon at the bottom and place the lighter's flame on the balloon, at asafe distance from where you are holding the balloon.
6. Depending on the size of the balloon, the quality and thickness of the rubber, and thepresence of any air bubbles, the water-filled balloon should last more than one minutewith the flame on it. Be sure to follow any safety instructions on the lighter with regard
to how long the lighter may be held lit without cooling off.
7. Eventually it the balloon may pop, so position the bucket to catch the water.
8. Explain to students that this demonstration illustrates how Earth's oceans are absorbing
a great deal of the heat generated by climate change. In fact, Earth's oceans are absorbing
about 80 to 90 percent of the heat from global warming. Since water can withstand a lot
more heat than the atmosphere, the temperature of the oceans isn't changing that much
2nd demonstration
Thermal Expansion Model
Activity Details
Subjects: Science; Primary Topic: Physical Sciences; Additional Topics: Earth And Space,
Science, Earth Processes; Time Required: 30 Mins - 1 Hour;
Overview
An important part of understanding sea-level rise is understanding thermal expansion of water.
Thermal expansion accounts for about half of the measured global sea-level rise. Students will144

build a model using everyday items to demonstrate that water expands when heat energy isadded.
Materials
Per group of 2-3 students:
1. 1 disposable plastic water bottle, with a flip-top lid, if available. Small bottles madewith thicker, sturdier plastic are preferred.
2. 1 clear plastic straw
3. Food coloring
4. Ruler
5. Cutting tool
6. Dark felt-tip pen
7. Thermometer (optional, see Management section)
8. Several low-temperature hot-glue guns, putty or other malleable sealant
9. Paper or cloth towels
10. Safety goggles
11. Heat sources (such as incandescent bulbs, heat lamps, heat pads or the Sun)Management

1. Safety! this activity involves the use of sharp cutting instruments and heating elements.
To avoid cuts and burns, ensure the safe use of these tools by expressing and modelingappropriate use.
2. A hole will need to be cut into the lid of the water bottle for the straw to fit through.
Flip-top lids have a hole, but still require some cutting to open them enough for the
straw. The plastic stems inside the flip-top lid can be trimmed out with a sharp blade. A
hole can be bored into regular lids with the tip of scissors, a sharp blade or a drill.
Depending on student age, skill level and available tools, you may choose to cut the145holes in advance, in class, or have students cut holes on their own during the lesson. Be
sure to follow all safety guidelines to protect hands, hair and eyes if using a power drill.
3. Bottles made with thicker, sturdier plastic are preferred. Thin plastic water bottles tend
to flex more than thicker, more rigid bottles, and that flexing can alter the water level
throughout observations in ways unrelated to thermal expansion.
4. Water will spill in the construction of these models. Prepare desks or work surfaces
appropriately and have towels on hand for cleanup.
5. If thermometers are to be used, there are suggested options:
6. Apply an adhesive thermometer strip to the side of the bottle, placed on a side facing
away from the heat source
7. Make a small hole in the bottle or cap where a thermometer or heat probe can be inserted
into the bottle and the hole sealed. The thermometer should not interfere with theposition of the straw as described at the end of Step 3.
8. Different heat sources apply heat to the water with different intensities and larger
quantities of water can absorb greater amounts of heat, meaning the time it takes to
notice a change in temperature and water height may vary. Consider making and testing
one of these models in advance to get an idea of how long it may take. This will help
you to determine how long students should wait in between measurements. Record how
long it takes for water to rise 0.5 to 1.0 cm and use that time as an approximate intervalfor Step 7.
Procedures
1. Discuss climate change and sea-level rise with students. Ask students to identify causesof sea-level rise. If students identify melting ice as a cause of sea-level rise, ask themwhich type of ice, land ice or sea ice, contributes more to sea-level rise. Consider
demonstrating the contribution to sea-level rise by land ice and sea ice using the What’s
Causing Sea-Level Rise? Land Ice Vs. Sea Ice lesson in conjunction with this activity.
If students do not mention thermal expansion, explain that in addition to ice melt, there
is another phenomenon that contributes to sea-level rise. The following activity will
demonstrate that phenomenon.
2. Depending on students’ age and ability, have them cut a straw-size hole in the cap of
their water bottle. If done while the cap is still attached to the bottle, students will havemore area to grab and can keep their fingers farther from the cutting device.

146

3.

Cut a hole in the lid of thewater bottle where the straw will beinserted.
4.

Have students insert the

straw into the hole. The straw
should extend down approximately
2-3 inches into the bottle when thecap is on. (During this step,
students can keep the bottle and cap separate.) Using hot glue, putty or another sealant,
close any gaps around the straw. Students should avoid skin contact with the glue andbe sure to keep the threads of the cap free of glue, putty or sealant. The bottle won’t
close properly if the threads are not clean. As the glue dries, students should be sure thestraw is as close to perpendicular to the top of the lid as possible.
5.

Insert and hot glue the straw to thelid of the water bottle.
6.

Have students add several drops offood coloring to the water bottle, fill thebottle with water completely to the rim,then top with the straw and cap
assembly and tighten. There may besome overflow when the cap is attached. This is ok. The water in the straw should beabove the cap, but low enough thatwhen it rises, measurements can bemade that indicate how much the waterhas risen.
7.

Add food coloring to the bottle andfill it completely with water.
8.
assembly to the water bottle.

147

Tightly attach the straw and cap

9.

Students need to mark the straw toindicate the base, or zero, level of thewater. For each measurement, theyshould align the zero mark on the ruler
to this mark. Because moving andsqueezing the bottle can change its
shape, internal volume and water level,
once the line is marked, avoid moving
or handling the bottle while the water iswarming. Using water bottles withthicker plastic will help minimize thechanges to the water level that canoccur when the bottle is moved.

10. Mark the starting water level,"zero mark," on the straw.
11. Have students direct a heat source at the bottle or place the bottle in direct sunlight.
Because some heat sources apply heat less intensely to the water, the time it takes to
notice a change in temperature and water height may vary. Consider making and testing
one of these models in advance to get an idea of how long it may take.
12. Direct a heat source at the bottle orplace it in direct sunlight.
13. At consistent intervals, students
should measure and record the waterlevel compared with the zero markdrawn on the straw, in millimeters, andmake note of what’s happening. If using
thermometers, students should also record the temperature at these intervals. See
Management for determining intervals.

14814. At consistent intervals, measure
the water level compared with the zeromark.
15. Have students graph the heightmeasurement

on

paper

spreadsheet

software.

or

using

If

using

thermometers, students should graphthose data as well.
16. Use one of the thermometer cap assemblies described in "Management" to measurewater temperature in addition to thewater level.
17. Ask students to describe what theyobserved in the straw and what they
notice on their graph. Students should
notice the water level is rising as heat is
added to the water. Explain to students
that this phenomenon, mentioned in
Step 1, is known as thermal expansion.
Discussion
1. Ask students to observe the data and discuss the following questions:2. What happened to the water level as heat energy was added? Answer: The water levelrose as the temperature increased.
3. Explain why the water level in the straw changed over time. What caused this?
Answer: Water increases in volume when heated. The added energy that came in theform of heat caused the water molecules to move around more. As they moved andbounced off of each other, they took up more space, thereby increasing in volume. As
the temperature of the water in the bottle increased, the volume of water in the bottle
increased (expanded), which caused the water level in the straw to rise. This process iscalled thermal expansion.
Assessment
Ask students to identify causes of sea-level rise with sufficient detail to demonstrateunderstanding:1491. Melting ice is contributing to the rise of sea level. As land ice melts, it runs into theocean and increases the amount of water in ocean basins. Sea-ice melt does notcontribute to sea-level rise, as the melted ice fills the space previously occupied by thefrozen sea ice.
2. The ocean’s heat capacity allows it to absorb a lot of energy in the form of heat as land
and air temperatures rise. When water is warmed, it expands and takes up more space,a phenomenon known as thermal expansion. Thermal expansion increases the volume
that ocean water takes up, leading to sea-level rise.
3rd DAY CONTENT OF PD PROGRAM
In this 3rd day, teacher will be asked to conduct STEM experiment and develop the lesson planfor STEM class based on the experiment and what they have learnt from the previous days.
Experiment: Using Light to Study Planets
Activity Details
Subjects: Science, engineering, technology, mathematics ; Primary Topic: Physical Sciences,
light and optics; Time Required: longer than 2 hours;
Overview
In this activity, students will build a spectrometer using basic materials to observe the lightemitted and absorbed by several sources. This will be used as a model for how NASA uses
spectroscopy to determine the nature of elements found on Earth and other planets. For higher
grades, this activity can also be used to discuss advanced spectroscopic topics, such as how
NASA research is advancing spectroscopic techniques to teach us more about plant life on
Earth.
Materials
1. Half of a compact disc
2. Empty cereal box
3. Duct tape (or any completely opaque tape)
4. 4 to 6 light sources (ceiling lights, computer monitors, candles, the sun, etc.)
5. Colored pencils or markers
6. Web camera
7. Laptop computer
8. Theremino spectrometer V2.5
9. Student Worksheet

150

Management
Provide one set of the materials listed above per group.
Safety Note: Break the CDs in half for students. This can be done safely by placing the discbetween a book and the edge of a table and breaking the CD along the straight line to ensure aclean break. Wear gardening gloves for additional safety. Put theProcedures
1. Have student groups define and differentiate between continuous, absorption andemission spectra using the attached student worksheet and figures before beginning
construction of their spectrometer.
2. Put the web camera in the box at a 60-degree angle. Use tape to secure the web camerain the cereal box edge. From the top corner of the cereal box, cut a line the same as theradius of the web camera. Put the CD in front of the lens of the web camera. The CD
serves as our diffraction grating. a device that splits colored light into its individual
wavelengths, much like a prism. And the web camera will catch the wave and will show
through the spectrometer software. So, you can observe the different wavelength forevery single light using the software in the laptop computer.

3.

Completed spectrometer with lightsource.
4.

Cut out a small square on the topof the cereal box originating from where
you cut the CD slits. This will serve as a
viewing window.
5.

On the opposite end of thediffraction grating, about an inch or sodown the from the top, cut a small slit fromleft to right. This can be done length-wise or width-wise on the box. Emphasize to thestudents that the cut should be as clean and narrow as possible as it will determine thequality of the spectra observed.
6. Use tape to mend the slit as needed, leaving only 1 to 2 millimeters of open space forlight to enter the slit. If the slit is too narrow, the spectra will appear dim. If the slit is
too broad, the spectra will appear blurry.

151

7. Be sure the cereal box is sealed so that the only way light can enter is from the slit or
the viewing window.
8.

Step

9:

Light

source and view through thespectrometer.
9.
Point the slit toward thelight sources to be explored– the closer the better. For
sunlight,

you

can

try

reflecting the light off of awhite sheet of paper and changing the distance of the paper from your device. Be certain
not to point your device directly at the sun or put your eyes at risk! There is enoughlight on a sunny day for the device to work indirectly.
10. Have students fill out their worksheet, drawing in their absorption spectra and predictedemission spectra. Encourage students to capture line resolution by indicating whether
the lines are broad or thin, blurry or clear.
Discussion
With this simple spectrometer, you can see a few interesting light sources, but it would be niceto see the spectra of many things that aren't easily found in your neighborhood. Students candiscuss also what impact our atmosphere has on the colors we observe.
Experiment: Building rockets at school
Activity Details
Subjects: Science, technology, engineering, mathematics; Primary Topic: Newton’s Law,
Gravity; Time Required: 2 hours;
Overview
In this activity, participants will build a rocket using basic materials to tie together manydifferent concepts in physics-in particular, the equations of motion linking velocity,
acceleration, distance and time, as well as the aerodynamics. It also provides an axciting
introduction to what is is like to be a scientist: designing rocket from theoretical principles,
carrying out an experiment by launching rockets, and finally analyzing the results, drawing
conclusions and identifying points for improvement for the future.
152

Material
1. Two pieces of A4 paper
2. Scissors
3. Sticky tape
4. Putty or plasticine
5. Mini camera
Management
the stability of the rocket depends on where the center of gravity and the center of pressure arein relation to each other. For a stable rocket, the center of gravity should be in front of the centerof pressure at all times. Simply put, the center of pressure is where the sum of all drag forces
acts.
If the center of pressure is in front the center of gravity, a turning moment will occur, causing
the rocket to flip over in mid-flight. This is why ballast is usually applied to the nosecone.
If the relative distance between the center of pressure is too large, either because too much mass
has been applied to the front of the rocket or because the fins are oversized, the rocket will be
more sensitive to wind.
Procedures
The aim when building the rocket is to minimize drag (air resistance). Drag is mostly dependent
on the velocity, but also on the frontal surface area of the rocket and its overall shape-importantconsiderations when designing a rocket.
1. Rocket body;•

Roll one piece of paper into a cylinder to form the body of the rocket.

•

Seal one of the open ends of the cylinder with tape, making the front of therocket. Check that the seal is airtight by blowing into it.

2. Nosecone;•

Frim the other piece of paper, cut out a circle (diameter 7.5 cm), then cut a sectorof approximately 90 degrees from the circle.

•

Twist the remaining piece into a cone.

•

Make hole in the center of the body, put the mini camera inside and keep thebalance and place a small ball of putty inside the tip of the cone before fastening
the cone to the sealed end of the rocket body with tape.

3. Fins;153•

Cut four paper triangles of exactly the same size and fold one of the sides ofeach triangle to form a flap, which will be attached to the rocket.

•

Participant should think about the optimal shape of the fin-some fin profiles willcause the rocket to spin more, others less. Is spin desirable in a rocket?

•

To launch the rocket, there are many types of launcher, but all are essentially astable tube with the same three constituents.

•

A compression chamber in which that air is pressurized, using either acompressor or bicycle pump with a built-in pressure gauge.

•

A launch tube on which the rocket is placed. An adjustable launch tube allows
the angle of elevation of the rocket at take-off to be determined.

•

A mechanism to release the pressure from the compression chamber into thelaunch tube. The sudden release of pressurized air launches the rocket.

•

When launching the rocket, note that the higher air pressure does not necessary
lead to better flight performances. This is because aerodynamic drag on therocket increases with velocity; the rocket’s fins may be distorted, increasing dragand reducing performance.

•

Before deciding the angle at which to launch the rocket, you should think about
how angle of elevation affects the total distance travelled and the rocket’s
apogeeDiscussion
1. After the launch, participants can analyze the rocket’s trajectory to calculate themaximum height (apogee) attained by the rocket and also its initial velocity. To performthe trajectory analysis, some measurements need to be taken before the launch:
2. Length of the rocket body (h, in m)
3. Inner diameter of the launch tube (Di, in m)
4. Pressure within the launcher (P, in pascal) before launch while the valve is closed; thiscan be read off the foot pump or the compressor and converted from psi or bar intopascal. (the pressure is assumed to be constant across the length of the tube)
5. Mass of the rocket (mr, in kg)
6. Angle of elevation (Ɵ, in degrees)
7. And after everything is done. The participants need to make reflection on lesson
implementation and make a group presentation.

154

4th DAY CONTENT OF PD PROGRAMInterview for professional development participants related to their perception about STEM
education.
Research design: Qualitative research, triangulation strategy [past experiences, current

experiences, reflection on the meaning]
Aims: Observing how is the teacher’s perception about the probability of

STEM education implementation in Indonesia especially in rural area
1.

How is your pre-service teacher training like? Does the STEM exist?

2.

Have you ever heard about STEM education before the workshop?

3.

How do you think about STEM education comparing to the conventional instruction?

4.

What value that you can get from STEM education? Which subject is the most difficult?

5.

What do you think about STEM impact to the student’s knowledge and skill?

6.

What challenges that you think might be found in STEM education through physics classespecially in rural area?

155

TRANSCRIBING INTERVIEWInterview for professional development participants related to their perception about STEM
education.
Research design: Qualitative research
Aim: Observing how is the teacher’s perception about the probability of
STEM education implementation in Indonesia especially in rural area
1.

Have you ever heard about STEM education before the professional development
program?

2.

How did your pre-service teacher training like? Did the STEM exist?

3.

How do you think about STEM education comparing to conventional instruction?

4.

Which subject is the most difficult in STEM education?

5.

What do you think about STEM impact on the student's achievement?

6.

What challenges that you think might be found in STEM education through physics class?
SampleQuestion

EX

NW

EX

EX

NW

EX

EX

EX

EX

NW

NW

EX

EX

NW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1.

How
did
your
preservice
teachertraining
like?
Did
the STEM
exist?

No

No

I have
ever
heard
and
experienced,
but thisis thefirst
time
for tocall it
STEM
education

I tendtoconduct
STEM
education inmyclass,
but I
don’t
know
that
those
kinds
of
thingscalledas
STEM
education

I have
ever
heard
and
experienced,
but thisis thefirst
time
for tocall it
STEM
educati
on

No

No

No

I tendtoconduct
STEM
education inmyclass,
but I
don’t
know
that
those
kinds
of
thingscalledas
STEM
educati
on

No

No

No

No

No

2.

Have youever heard
about
STEM
education
beforeprofessionaldevelopme
nt
program?

Neve
r,
this
semi
nar
is the
first
time
I
hear
d
abou
t
STE
M

Neve
r

Never

I haveever
heard
beforeI have
ever
heard
about
STEM
educati
on

Neve
r

Neve
r

Seco
nd
time

First
time

I
have
ever
hear
d
befor
e
from
frien
d

I haveever
heard
before

Seco
nd
time

Secondtime,
fromfriends

Never

156

3.

How
do
you think
about
STEM
educationcomparingtotheconvention
al
instruction
?

4.

Which
subject isthe most
difficult?

educ
ation
STE
M
educ
ation
is
most
comf
ortab
le for
both
teach
er
and
stude
nts.
It
can
build
more
relati
onshi
p for
both
actor
in
the
learn
ing
proc
ess.

It is
inter
estin
g,
Easie
r to
the

Stud
ents
recen
tly
are
diffe
rent
to 10
years
ago’
stude
nts.
Stud
ents
beco
me
more
activ
e and
love
playi
ng
some
thing
.
some
times
they
cann
ot be
contr
olled
using
tradit
ional
learn
ing
meth
od.
STE
M
educ
ation
emer
ges
as a
new
one
with
inter
estin
g
activ
ity. I
belie
ve it
will
help
for
us as
physi
cs
teach
er.

STEM
Education ismorecompletecompare totraditionalmethod.

In ourschool,
we
commo
nly
conductexperimentbutmostlysimpleexperi
ment,
so
STEM
education hasa big
chancetoconductcompare totraditionalmethod.

STEM
educati
on is
very
good
and hasa big
chanceto be
implemented,
meanw
hile wecannotskip
ourschoolgoals.
If wewant tosay theprobability of
STEM
education inthevillage,it stillfinds
difficulty, it ismoreappropriate to
the
urban
area
compare to the
rural
area.

STE
M
educ
ation
is
appr
opria
te
with
physi
cs
learn
ing
proc
ess.
Stud
ents
can
learn
direc
tly
abou
t the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
conte
nt.

Inter
estin
g.
Beca
use
STE
M
educ
ation
gives
a
chall
enge
for
us as
a
teach
er
and
stude
nts
can
easil
y
unde
rstan
d the
conc
ept
of
physi
cs
that
we
try to
expla
in.

Stud
ents
tend
to findiffic
ulty
in
physi
cs,
but
throu
gh
STE
M
educ
ation
,
they
may
feel
easie
r
beca
use it
will
use
dem
onstr
ation
and
expe
rime
nts

STEM
is
interesting,
especia
lly forstudent
s, it
can
build
the
creativi
ty ofstudent
, but
we
must
face
the factofcurriculum
andnationalexamination.

STE
M
educ
ation
is
appr
opria
te
espe
ciall
y for
physi
cs
class.

STEM
educationconsists offour
subject
thatcomplete each
other

It is
totall
y
diffe
rent
to
the
conv
entio
nal
learn
ing,
beca
use
stude
nts
can
direc
tly
impl
emen
t the
conc
ept
to
their
daily
life

It is
totallydifferent totheconventionallearning,because in
STEM
education we
do notneed
specificlaboratories

Student
will dothelearningprocess
directly

It is
inter
estin
g,
Easie
r to
the

STEM
education ismoreinterest
ing forstudent

STEM
education isinterest
ing,
Easierto theVery
good,
Easierto themostdifficul
t;

Inter
estin
g,
Easie
r to
the
most

Inter
estin
g,
Easie
r to
the
most

Inter
estin
g,
Easie
r to
the
most

Interest
ing,
Easierto themostdifficul
t;

Appr
oach
able,
Easie
r to
the
most

Interest
ing,
Easierto themostdifficul
t;

Inter
estin
g,
Easie
r to
the
most

Good,
interest
ing,
Easierto themostdifficulGood,
Easierto themostdifficult;science157

mostdiffic
ult;
Scie
nce,
math
emat
ics,
techn
olog
y,
engi
neeri
ng.

most
diffic
ult;
Scie
nce,
math
emat
ics,
techn
olog
y,
engi
neeri
ng.
Beca
use
as I
myse
lf, I
doub
t
myse
lf
that I
can
impl
emen
t
engi
neeri
ng in
my
class
.

s,
Easierto themostdifficult;
Science,
technology,
engineering,
mathe
matics.

mostdifficult;
Science,
technology,
engineering,
mathe
matics.

Mathematics,it issimpler,
Science,because myclass isphysics,
technology,because
students
alreadyeasilyfind
and usetechnology,
engineering,
because it
needprocess, moretime.

diffic
ult;
Scie
nce,
math
emat
ics,
techn
olog
y,
engi
neeri
ng.

diffic
ult;
Scie
nce,
math
emat
ics,
techn
olog
y,
engi
neeri
ng.

diffic
ult;
Scie
nce,
math
emat
ics,
techn
olog
y,
engi
neeri
ng.

science,technology,
engineering,
mathe
matics.

diffic
ult;
scien
ce,
math
emat
ics,
engi
neeri
ng,
tech
nolo
gy

science,technology,
engineering,
mathe
maticsdiffic
ult;
scien
ce;
math
emat
ics,
engi
neeri
ng,
tech
nolo
gy

t;
science,engineering,
mathe
matics,technology,
technology,
mathe
matics,engineering

5.

What doyou think
about
STEM
impact tothestudent’s
achieveme
nt?

STE
M
educ
ation
will
give
more
for
stude
nt’s
devel
opm
ent
espe
ciall
y
stude
nt’s
skill

Kno
wled
ge
and
skill
of
stude
nts
have
conn
ected
each
other
throu
gh
STE
M
educ
ation
.

Skill

Skill

STE
M
educ
ation
has
relati
onshi
p to
the
kno
wled
ge
and
skill
of
the
stude
nts

STE
M
Educ
ation
will
help
stude
nt to
impr
ove
kno
wled
ge
and
skill
of
the
stude
nt.

STE
M
Educ
ation
will
help
stude
nt to
impr
ove
kno
wled
ge
and
skill
of
the
stude
nt.

Students willimprove theirskill
through
STEM
educati
on

Scie
nce
help
stude
nts to
get
the
kno
wled
ge,
in
case
of
math
emat
ics
engi
neeri
ng
and
techn
olog
y
will
supp
ort
impr
ove
ment
of
stude
nt’s
skill

STEM
education isvery
important forstudents andshouldbe
implemented.
STEM
educati
on willdirectly
help
thestudent
notonly tothetheorybut
also to
the
daily
life
proble
m

The
expe
rime
nt in
STE
M
educ
ation
can
help
to
impr
ove
both,
kno
wled
ge
and
skillsThe
experiment in
STEM
education canhelp toimprove both,knowledge
andskillsWith
experiment,
STEM
education canimprove theskill ofstudents

6.

Whatchallenges that you
think
might be

STE
M
educ
ation
is

Time
limit
ation
, the
natio

Time
manag
ement
is themostTimelimitati
on

Stud
ents
are
lazy
to

STE
M
educ
ation
will

Time
limit
ation
depe
nds

Time
limitati
on and
also
the

STE
M
educ
ation
need

It
reallydepend
s on
the

Teac
hing
mate
rial
can

Teaching
material

Teaching
material

158

found in
STEM
education
throughphysicsclass?

notdifficult as
I
imag
ine,
some
teach
ing
mate
rial
are
easy
to
find,
so it
is
possi
ble
to
cond
uct,
but if
we
talk
abou
t the
all
natio
nal
curri
culu
m,
not
all
conte
nt in
physi
cs
can
be
impl
emen
ted
in
integ
rated
STE
M
educ
ation
.
some
teach
ers
also
have
diffic
ulty
in
case
of
abilit
y,
teach
ers
need
more
effor
t to
help
stude
nt
with

nal
curri
culu
m
does
not
give
enou
gh
time
for
cond
uctin
g
expe
rime
nt, so
some
times
,
stude
nts
need
to
finis
h
their
expe
rime
nt at
hom
e or
in
the
brea
k
time.

challenges
point.
The
secondone isteachingmaterial, but it
depends on
thetopic.

read,
lack
of
techn
olog
y
due
to
kind
of
scho
ol
(boar
ding
scho
ol).
But
in
case
of
STE
M
educ
ation
, it
reall
y
depe
nds
on
teach
ers.
Teac
her
shoul
d be
brav
e to
make
more
effor
t for
their
learn
ing
proc
ess.

159

find
a
chall
enge
in
timin
g

on
the
topic
.

resultofnationalexamination.
Those
reasonwill
maketeacheralwaysskip
STEM
education, sowehave tohave
strongmotivation, allteachershouldrealizethat
import
ant
point
for
students is notonly
theexamination
result,
but
also
those
creativi
ty

supp
ort
from
all ineducationfield,
STE
M
educ
ation
also
need
s
more
prep
arati
on.

teacherstrategy, itwill befull oflimitati
on iftheteacher
is toolazy
andcareless abouttheeffectiveteachingmethod
.

still
limit
the
teach
er as
well
as
stude
nts
for
impl
emen
ting
STE
M
educ
ation

the
best
quali
ty

Sample I (EXPERIENCE TEACHER)
1. Never2. Never, this seminar is the first time I heard about STEM education
3. STEM education is most comfortable for both teacher and students. It can build more
relationship for both actor in the learning process.
4. It is interesting
5. Easier to the most difficult; Science, mathematics, technology, engineering.
6. STEM education will give more for student’s development especially student’s skill
7. STEM education is not difficult as I imagine, some teaching material are easy to find, so it
is possible to conduct, but if we talk about the all national curriculum, not all content inphysics can be implemented in integrated STEM education. some teachers also havedifficulty in case of ability, teachers need more effort to help student with the best quality
Sample II (NEWLY TEACHER)
1. Never2. First time
3. Students recently are different to 10 years ago’ students. Students become more active andlove playing something. sometimes they cannot be controlled using traditional learning
method. STEM education emerges as a new one with interesting activity. I believe it will
help for us as physics teacher.
4. It is interesting
5. Easier to the most difficult; Science, mathematics, technology, engineering. Because as I
myself, I doubt myself that I can implement engineering in my class.
6. Knowledge and skill of students have connected each other through STEM education.
7. Time limitation, the national curriculum does not give enough time for conducting
experiment, so sometimes, students need to finish their experiment at home or in the breaktime.
Sample III (EXPERIENCE TEACHER)
1. I think I have ever heard and experienced, but this is the first time for to call it STEM
education
2. First time
3. STEM Education is more complete compare to traditional method.
4. STEM education is more interesting for students
5. Easier to the most difficult; Science, technology, engineering, mathematics.
6. Skill
7. Time management is the most challenges point. The second one is teaching material, but
it depends on the topic.
Sample IV (EXPERIENCE TEACHER)

160

1. I tend to conduct STEM education in my class, but I don’t know that those kinds of thingscalled as STEM education
2. I have ever heard before
3. In our school, we commonly conduct experiment but mostly simple experiment, so STEM
education has a big chance to conduct compare to traditional method.
4. STEM education is interesting
5. Easier to the most difficult; Science, technology, engineering, mathematics.
6. Skill
7. Time limitation
Sample V (NEWLY TEACHER)
1. I think I have ever heard and experienced, but this is the first time for to call it STEM
education
2. I have ever heard about STEM education
3. STEM education is very good and has a big chance to be implemented, meanwhile wecannot skip our school goals. If we want to say the probability of STEM education in thevillage, it still finds difficulty, it is more appropriate to the urban area compare to the ruralarea.
4. Very good
5. Easier to the most difficult; Mathematics, it is simpler, Science, because my class is
physics, technology, because students already easily find and use technology, engineering,
because it need process, more time.
Sample VI (EXPERIENCE TEACHER)
1. First time
2. First time
3. STEM education is appropriate with physics learning process. Students can learn directly
about the implementation of content.
4. Interesting
5. Easier to the most difficult; Science, mathematics, technology, engineering.
6. STEM education has relationship to the knowledge and skill of the students
7. Students are lazy to read, lack of technology due to kind of school (boarding school). But
in case of STEM education, it really depends on teachers. Teacher should be brave to
make more effort for their learning process.
Sample VII (EXPERIENCE TEACHER),
1. First time
2. First time
3. Interesting. Because STEM education gives a challenge for us as a teacher and students
can easily understand the concept of physics that we try to explain.
4. Interesting
5. Easier to the most difficult; Science, mathematics, technology, engineering.
6. STEM Education will help student to improve knowledge and skill of the student.
7. STEM education will find a challenge in timing
Sample VIII (EXPERIENCE TEACHER),
1. Second time161

2. Second time
3. Students tend to fin difficulty in physics, but through STEM education, they may feeleasier because it will use demonstration and experiments
4. Interesting
5. Easier to the most difficult; Science, mathematics, technology, engineering.
6. STEM Education will help student to improve knowledge and skill of the student.
7. Time limitation, depends on the topic.
Sample IX (EXPERIENCE TEACHER),
1. I tend to conduct STEM education in my class, but I don’t know that those kinds of thingscalled as STEM education
2. First time
3. STEM is interesting, especially for students, it can build the creativity of student, but wemust face the fact of curriculum and national examination.
4. Interesting
5. Easier to the most difficult; science, technology, engineering, mathematics.
6. Students will improve their skill through STEM education
7. Time limitation and also the result of national examination. Those reason will maketeacher always skip STEM education, so we have to have strong motivation, all teacher
should realize that important point for students is not only the examination result, but also
those creativity.
Sample X (NEWLY TEACHER)
1. First time
2. I have ever heard before from friend
3. STEM education is appropriate especially for physics class.
4. Approachable
5. Easier to the most difficult; science, mathematics, engineering, technology
6. Science help students to get the knowledge, in case of mathematics engineering andtechnology will support improvement of student’s skill
7. STEM education need support from all in education field, STEM education also needs
more preparation.
Sample XI (NEWLY TEACHER)
1. First time
2. I have ever heard before
3. STEM education consists of four subject that complete each other
4. Interesting
5. Easier to the most difficult; science, technology, engineering, mathematics
6. STEM education is very important for students and should be implemented. STEM
education will directly help the student not only to the theory but also to the daily life
problem
7. It really depends on the teacher strategy, it will be full of limitation if the teacher is toolazy and careless about the effective teaching method.
Sample XII (EXPERIENCE TEACHER),
1. First time162

2. Second time
3. It is totally different to the conventional learning, because students can directly implement
the concept to their daily life
4. Interesting
5. Easier to the most difficult; science; mathematics, engineering, technology
6. The experiment in STEM education can help to improve both, knowledge and skills
7. Teaching material can still limit the teacher as well as students for implementing STEM
education
Sample XIII (EXPERIENCE TEACHER),
1. First time
2. Second time, from friends
3. It is totally different to the conventional learning, because in STEM education we do notneed specific laboratories
4. Good, interesting
5. Easier to the most difficult; science, engineering, mathematics, technology
6. The experiment in STEM education can help to improve both, knowledge and skills
7. Teaching material
Sample XIV (NEWLY TEACHER)
1. First time
2. First time
3. Student will do the learning process directly
4. Good
5. Easier to the most difficult; science, technology, mathematics, engineering
6. With experiment, STEM education can improve the skill of students
7. Teaching material

163

INTERVIEW SUMMARY
Summary
Question

Summary ofExperience

Summary

Newly teacher

teacher
STEM Content Integration
2. How did your Six
pre-serviceofnine Fiveexperience

newly STEM education still does notteachers said that exist in the University level,

teacher training teachers said that they have never especially
like?

Did

STEM exist?

the they have never experiencedinpre-service

teacher training in Indonesia

found such kind STEM education for the last 30 years. Evenof

STEM during their pre- though,teachers

tendtoeducation

servicetraining, conduct STEM class without

information

but one of them knowing that those classes as

during their pre- said that he/she called STEM education.
servicetraining tent to conduct

and also never STEM education
conduct

STEM in their classes,

class, this is the but he/she does
first time for them not know that it is
to

know

conduct

and called
STEM education.

education.
Three

of

nine

experienceteachers said that
they
conduct

tent

to

STEM

education in theirclasses, but they
do not know that
it is called STEM
education. It may

164

STEM

be not integrated
STEM education,
because we did
not complete four
subjects,
sometimes

only

two

three

and

subjects include,
and we built theconnection
betweenthelearning

andstudents’ daily life
experience.
3. Have you ever Four
heard

of

nine Two of five have STEM Education was spelled

about experience

never heard about out as a new method in

STEM education teachers
beforehave STEM education Indonesian’ Education. Most

the never heard about before,of physics’ teachers just got

professional

STEM education Three of them the information about STEM

development

before, and five of heard

program?

them heard about recently, but only years; friend and supervisor,itrecently,

about

it education from the last two

but from a friend, not but not officially form theonly from a friend, aseminar, government.

supervisor, not a supervisor, etc.

The government started toseminar, etc.

promote STEM education thisyear through the seminar, but
only for a few teachers aroundIndonesia.

Real-world Application
•

How

do

think

you -

-

about

STEM Education is morechallenging

comparing

to

STEM

conventional

education

Experience teacher, as well as

165

instruction.

comparingto

new teacher, believe thatconventional

STEM education can give a

instruction?

chance student to explore,
experience more based on real
life. The teacher said thatrecent students are different
from 10 years ago.
Students become more active
and love playing. Sometimes
they cannot be controlledusing

traditional

learning

method.
STEM education emerges as a
new one with an enjoyable
activity which matches thestudent's habit and also theworkplace need
STEM

educationisappropriate with the physics
learning process, but we haveto realize also that we needeffort,One newly teacher said that
‘we cannot skip our school
goals. If we want to say theprobability

of

STEM

education in the village, we
may find difficulties.
It is more appropriate to theurban area compare to therural area to try it with asimple way like what we did
today on the PD program.

166

Also, we need to take itseriously,

not

just

as

a

temporary curriculum so that
we can work hard for the
preparation as well as theprocess.
Most teachers think that work
too hard will not be suitable
for them because even theywork hard to understand thecurriculum, it will change
sooner,including

implementation

of

in

the

STEM

Education
Scaffolding of STEM Education
4. Which subject is Nice, Interesting.

Interesting.

the most difficult Four engineering, Threein

STEM threeeducation?

STEM education is engaging,not only for the teachers but

engineering, one also for students. From themathematics, two mathematics, one teachers’ view, engineering istechnology

technology

the most challenging domain
to be implemented. Because
as a science teacher in seniorhigh school, engineering still
uncommon for us, we dobelieve that we can implement
it, but we do also believe
among four subject, it requires
more training, energy, time,attention from government
and teachers

5. What do you --Both experience and newly

think

about

teacher believe that STEM

STEM

impactEducation can improve both167

on the student’s

knowledge and skill; it will beachievement?

with

some

challenges,

limitations.
6. What challenges --•that you thinkclass and after class,might be foundinTime limitation in the

•

STEM

Teacher careless about theeffective teaching method,

education•

Limited technology,

through physics•

Contentclass?

ofnational

curriculum that may be
only a few contents for
integrated

STEM

education•

The main goal of anational examination inIndonesia.

168

LAWSON’S CLASSROOM TEST OF SCIENTIFICREASONING
by Anton (Tony) Lawson, Emeritus Professor of Biology, Arizona State University multiple
choice version - 2000
Suggestions for high school science teachers (compiled in June 2013 by Jane Jackson, Dept. ofPhysics, Arizona State University, and intended for users of Modeling Instruction in physics.)
Of fundamental importance:* Keep it confidential! i.e., preserve its integrity.
* Treat it as you treat the FCI: 30 minutes, closed book, no notes; don’t go over it after students
have taken it, etc.
How much of the test to give?
Teachers can submit classroom data for all 24 questions (and be given a comparison withnational norms) at John Deming’s website:
https://sites.google.com/site/wsuinquiryinstruction/home/ctsr-data-entry-form
9-2013: Teachers can record scores, analyze them, and correlate them with the FCI, bydownloading a spreadsheet called assessssv5b.xls at
http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html. Prof. James Vesenka developed it.
Warning: questions #21 - 24 are quite wordy and thus may take considerable time. If you teacha first year course in high school, be warned that students might lose interest and 'blow them
off'.
When to give the test: It's best to give pre- and post-tests for both FCI and Lawson test. The
FCI post-test is more important. The Lawson pre-test can indicate students’ starting level ofreasoning.
Grading the test: It has 24 multiple-choice questions. John Deming scores them in pairs; e.g.
questions 1 and 2 count as one item. Since questions 23 and 24 are independent, each of themcounts as one item. Thus the CTSR has 13 items (i.e., a maximum score of 13).
Submitting your data to ASU: If you’ve had a Modelling Workshop at Arizona State University
or you were in the NSF Modelling Workshop Project (1995-1999), kindly send your student
data to Jane.Jackson@asu.edu, preferably in an Excel spreadsheet (like assessssv5b.xls) witheach student's ID number or initials, pre-test and post-test score. Please include their gender.
169

Also, race/ethnicity, if possible (i.e., note if any student appears to be Hispanic, Black, orAmerican Indian). Don’t send their names - we must preserve anonymity, to meet Federal
requirements.
ANSWER KEY (keep it confidential!)
1. B
2. D
3. A
4. E
5. B
6. C
7. D
8. A
9. E
10. C
11. B
12. A
13. C
14. D
15. C
16. A
17. B
18. E
19. A
20. D
21. A
22. A
23. A
24. B

170

CLASSROOM TEST OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING
Directions to Students:
This is a test of your ability to apply aspects of scientific and mathematical reasoning to analyze
a situation to make a prediction or solve a problem. Make a dark mark on the answer sheet forthe best answer for each item. If you do not fully understand what is being asked in an item,
please ask the test administrator for clarification.
DO NOT OPEN THIS BOOKLET UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO
Revised Edition: August 2000 by Anton E. Lawson, Arizona State University. Based on: Lawson, A.E. 1978.
Development and validation of the classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,15(1): 11-24.

1. Suppose you are given two clay balls of equal size and shape. The two clay balls also
weigh the same. One ball is flattened into a pancake-shaped piece. Which of thesestatements is correct?
a. The pancake-shaped piece weighs more than the ballb. The two pieces still weigh the samec. The ball weighs more than the pancake-shaped piece
2. because
a. the flattened piece covers a larger area.
b. the ball pushes down more on one spot.
c. when something is flattened it loses weight.
d. clay has not been added or taken away.
e. when something is flattened it gains weight.

171

3. To the right are drawings of two cylinders filled to thesame level with water. The cylinders are identical insize and shape.
Also shown at the right are two marbles, one glass andone steel. The marbles are the same size but the steel
one is much heavier than the glass one.
When the glass marble is put into Cylinder 1 it sinks tothe bottom and the water level rises to the 6th mark. If
we put the steel marble into Cylinder 2, the water willrise
a. to the same level as it did in Cylinder 1b. to a higher level than it did in Cylinder 1c. to a lower level than it did in Cylinder 1
4. because
a. the steel marble will sink faster.
b. the marbles are made of different materials.
c. the steel marble is heavier than the glass marble.
d. the glass marble creates less pressure.
e. the marbles are the same size.
5. To the right are drawings of a wide and anarrow cylinder. The cylinders haveequally spaced marks on them. Water ispoured into the wide cylinder up to the 4th
mark (see A). This water rises to the 6th
mark when poured into the narrow cylinder(see B).
Both cylinders are emptied (not shown)and water is poured into the wide cylinder172

up to the 6th mark. How high would this water rise if it were poured into the empty
narrow cylinder?
a. to about 8
b. to about 9
c. to about 10
d. to about 12
e. none of these answers is correct
6. because
a. the answer cannot be determined with the information given.
b. it went up 2 more before, so it will go up 2 more again.
c. it goes up 3 in the narrow for every 2 in the wide.
d. the second cylinder is narrower.
e. one must actually pour the water and observe to find out.
7. Water is now poured into the narrow cylinder (described in Item 5 above) up to the 11th
mark. How high would this water rise if it were poured into the empty wide cylinder?
a. to71/2
b. to9c. to8d. to71/3
e. none of these answers is correct
8. because
a. the ratios must stay the same.
b. one must actually pour the water and observe to find out.
c. the answer cannot be determined with the information given.
d. it was 2 less before so it will be 2 less again.
e. you subtract 2 from the wide for every 3 from the narrow.

1739. At the right are drawings of three strings
hanging from a bar. The three strings havemetal weights attached to their ends. String 1
and String 3 are the same length. String 2 isshorter. A 10 unit weight is attached to the endof String 1. A 10 unit weight is also attachedto the end of String 2. A 5 unit weight is
attached to the end of String 3. The strings (andattached weights) can be swung back and forthand the time it takes to make a swing can betimed.
Suppose you want to find out whether the length of the string has an effect on the time
it takes to swing back and forth. Which strings would you use to find out?
a. only one stringb. all three strings
c. 2and3
d. 1and3
e. 1and2
10. because
a. you must use the longest strings.
b. you must compare strings with both light and heavy weights.
c. only the lengths differ.
d. to make all possible comparisons.
e. the weights differ.
11. Twenty fruit flies are placed in each of four glass tubes. The tubes are sealed.
Tubes I and II are partially covered with black paper; Tubes III and IV are not covered.
The tubes are placed as shown. Then they are exposed to red light for five minutes. The
number of flies in the uncovered part of each tube is shown in the drawing.
This experiment shows that flies respond to (respond means move to or away from):174

a. red light but notgravityb. gravity but not red
lightc. both red light andgravityd. neither red light nor
gravity
12. because
a. most flies are in the upper end of Tube III but spread about evenly in Tube II.
b. most flies did not go to the bottom of Tubes I and III.
c. the flies need light to see and must fly against gravity.
d. the majority of flies are in the upper ends and in the lighted ends of the tubes.
e. some flies are in both ends of each tube.
13. In a second experiment, a different kind of fly and blue light was used. The results areshown in the drawing.

These data show that these flies respond to (respond means move to or away from):a. blue light but not gravity
b. gravity but not blue lightc. both blue light and gravity
d. neither blue light nor gravity

17514. because
a. some flies are in both ends of each tube.
b. the flies need light to see and must fly against gravity.
c. the flies are spread about evenly in Tube IV and in the upper end of Tube III.
d. most flies are in the lighted end of Tube II but do not go down in Tubes I andIII.
e. most flies are in the upper end of Tube I and the lighted end of Tube II.
15. Six square pieces of wood are put into a cloth bag andmixed about. The six pieces are identical in size andshape; however, three pieces are red and three are yellow.
Suppose someone reaches into the bag (without looking)and pulls out one piece. What are the chances that thepiece is red?
a. 1 chance out of 6b. 1 chance out of 3c. 1 chance out of 2
d. 1 chance out of 1e. cannot be determined
16. because
a. 3 out of 6 pieces are red.
b. there is no way to tell which piece will be picked.
c. only 1 piece of the 6 in the bag is picked.
d. all 6 pieces are identical in size and shape.
e. only 1 red piece can be picked out of the 3 red pieces.
17. Three red square pieces of wood, four yellow square pieces, and five blue
square pieces are put into a cloth bag. Four red round pieces, two yellow round pieces,and three blue round pieces are also put into the bag. All the pieces are then mixed
about. Suppose someone reaches into the bag (without looking and without feeling fora particular shape piece) and pulls out one piece.

176

What are the chances that the piece is a red round or blue round piece?
a. cannot be determinedb. 1 chance out of 3c. 1 chance out of 21
d. 15 chances out of 21e. 1 chance out of 2
18. because
a. 1 of the 2 shapes is round.
b. 15 of the 21 pieces are red or blue.
c. there is no way to tell which piece will be picked.
d. only 1 of the 21 pieces is picked out of the bag.
e. 1 of every 3 pieces is a red or blue round piece.
19. Farmer Brown was observing the mice that live in his field. He discovered that allof them were either fat or thin. Also, all of them had either black tails or white tails.
This made him wonder if there might be a link between the size of the mice and the177color of their tails. So, he captured all of the mice in one part of his field and observed
them. Below are the mice that he captured.
Do you think there is a link between the size of the mice and the color of their tails?
a. appears to be a linkb. appears not to be a linkc. cannot make a reasonable guess
20. because
a. there are some of each kind of mouse.
b. there may be a genetic link between mouse size and tail color.
c. there were not enough mice captured.
d. most of the fat mice have black tails while most of the thin mice have white tails.
e. as the mice grew fatter, their tails became darker.
21. The figure below at the left shows a drinking glass and a burning birthday candle
stuck in a small piece of clay standing in a pan of water. When the glass is turned upside
down, put over the candle, and placed in the water, the candle quickly goes out andwater rushes up into the glass (as shown at the right).

This observation raises an interesting question: Why does the water rush up into theglass?
Here is a possible explanation. The flame converts oxygen into carbon dioxide. Because
oxygen does not dissolve rapidly into water but carbon dioxide does, the newly formedcarbon dioxide dissolves rapidly into the water, lowering the air pressure inside theglass.

178

Suppose you have the materials mentioned above plus some matches and some dry ice(dry ice is frozen carbon dioxide). Using some or all of the materials, how could you
test this possible explanation?
a. Saturate the water with carbon dioxide and redo the experiment, noting theamount of water rise.
b. The water rises because oxygen is consumed, so redo the experiment in exactly
the same way to show water rise due to oxygen loss.
c. Conduct a controlled experiment, varying only the number of candles to see ifthat makes a difference.
d. Suction is responsible for the water rise, so put a balloon over the top of an openended cylinder and place the cylinder over the burning candle.
e. Redo the experiment, but make sure it is controlled by holding all independent
variables constant; then measure the amount of water rise.
22. What result of your test (mentioned in #21 above) would show that your explanation isprobably wrong?
a. The water rises the same as it did before.
b. The water rises less than it did before.
c. The balloon expands out.
d. The balloon is sucked in.
23. A student put a drop of blood on a microscope slide and then looked at the blood
under a microscope. As you can see in the diagram below, the magnified red blood cells
look like little round balls. After adding a few drops of salt water to the drop of blood,the student noticed that the cells appeared to become smaller.

179

This observation raises an interesting question: Why do the red blood cells appear
smaller?
Here are two possible explanations: I. Salt ions (Na+ and Cl-) push on the cell
membranes and make the cells appear smaller. II. Water molecules are attracted to thesalt ions so the water molecules move out of the cells and leave the cells smaller.
To test these explanations, the student used some salt water, a very accurate weighing
device, and some water-filled plastic bags, and assumed the plastic behaves just likered- blood-cell membranes. The experiment involved carefully weighing a water-filledbag, placing it in a salt solution for ten minutes and then reweighing the bag.
What result of the experiment would best show that explanation I is probably wrong?
a. the bag loses weightb. the bag weighs the samec. the bag appears smaller
24. What result of the experiment would best show that explanation II is probably wrong?
a. the bag loses weightb. the bag weighs the samec. the bag appears smaller

180