Journal of Physics: Conference Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- The effectiveness of the Project-Based
The Effect of Project-Based Learning in STEM on Learning (PjBL) model in students’
mathematical ability: A systematic
Students’ Scientific Reasoning literature review
Y Yunita, D Juandi, Y S Kusumah et al.

- Project Based Learning (PjBL) Learning

To cite this article: S Koes-H and N D Putri 2021 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1835 012006 Model in Science Learning: Literature
Review
I J Nurhidayah, F C Wibowo and I M Astra

- The effectiveness of implementing project-

based learning (PjBL) model in STEM
View the article online for updates and enhancements. education: A literature review
N Diana, Yohannes and Y Sukma

This content was downloaded from IP address 131.226.113.58 on 31/01/2024 at 11:33

2nd International Annual Meeting on STEM education (I AM STEM) 2019 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1835 (2021) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012006

The Effect of Project-Based Learning in STEM on Students’

Scientific Reasoning

S Koes-H1*, N D Putri1
1
Department of Physics, State University of Malang, Indonesia

Corresponding author’s e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. Scientific reasoning is the ability to face competition in the 21st century, so students
must have this ability. Project-based learning (PjBL) will train students to improve their
scientific reasoning. This study aims to analyze the influence of PjBL in STEM on students'
scientific reasoning on fluid. This research was the quantitative method with the
pretest/posttest control group design. The subjects of this study were 66 high school students
of grade XI. Instruments for collecting data collection was the written test with a reliability
coefficient of 0.87. The results of the study indicate that the scientific reasoning of students
who are leaning through PjBL in STEM is higher than that of students who learn through
regular learning. In designing the project, students also train to reason scientifically by
considering the size of the products that are made to produce a product that can work
well. However, the STEM integrated PjBL is still not optimal in improving aspects of
probabilistic reasoning and controlling variables.

1. Introduction
Project-based learning (PjBL) is learning to answer the challenges of this century. PjBL engages
students in real-world assignments, thus enabling them to acquire knowledge and skills to improve
life [1]. PjBL involves the transformation and construction of new knowledge based
on students' experiences in learning [2]. PjBL has been widely accepted as an effective approach
for students in contextual and authentic learning environments. PjBL engages students in project
design so that they can build and improve their scientific reasoning skills [ 3] [4]. Therefore the PJBL
is learning under the demands of this century.
The latest educational development reinforces the need for STEM education. STEM Education
facilitates student's scientific and mathematical concepts to solve ill-structured and open
problems [5 ]. The integration of four disciplines, namely: science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics into one unit of study, can produce more effective solutions [6] [7]. Thus, STEM
education trains students to deal with real-world problems to produce effective solutions.
STEM integrated PjBL is useful for developing real-world problem-solving skills. This
learning combines problem-solving abilities, creative thinking skills, and communication skills [5].
Besides, the integration of scientific and engineering practice with the core ideas and crosscutting
concept can improve maximally students' learning content as well as their reasoning
skills [8]. This instruction can improve the quality of life and can increase their interest and

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
2nd International Annual Meeting on STEM education (I AM STEM) 2019 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1835 (2021) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012006

performance in mathematics and science [3]. Thus, students can increase ownership of professional
scientific knowledge so that it is useful for their future careers. Furthermore, the Integration
of PjBL and STEM can improve the effectiveness and generate meaningful learning [9].
In solving real-world problems, students need to have scientific reasoning skills. Scientific
reasoning is related to thought processes in problem-solving, higher-order thinking skills, and decision
making [10], based on relevant information [11]. Students need the ability of scientific reasoning to
understand and solve problems [12], so that problem solving
becomes effective [13]. Moreover, middle and high school years are the fastest growing period
in scientific reasoning skills [8]. The ability of scientific reasoning can help students in making
decisions, interpreting evidence, or solving complex problems [14]. One possible approach is to
include authentic science crosscutting concepts and core ideas of science [8].
Many researchers have reviewed scientific reasoning. Ding et al. measured students' scientific
reasoning in the natural science domain [15]. Osborne et al. assess students' scientific reasoning using
computer-based platforms [16][12]. Germ et al. examines the influence of instructional
frameworks on scientific reasoning and student argumentation in Biology [17]. Zhou et al. assessing
students’ scientific reasoning through controlling of variables [18]. Hong et al. testing the influence of
gender and hypothetic-deductive problem-solving models on students' scientific reasoning skills [19 ] [
20]. In the field of physics education, research on scientific reasoning has been carried out, such as
exploring how physics students make evidence-based reasoning and models for electricity and
thermodynamics [21 ] [ 22] [23]. However, researchers have not done a study of the training of
students’ scientific reasoning on the fluid through the STEM integrated PjBL.
Many researchers have done a study of fluid learning. Loverde et al. developed a module based
on the inquiry of buoyancy for prospective teachers [24]. Profiles make multiple-choice diagnostic
tests and interview guides [25][26]. Tutorial in Fundamental Physics assists students whose difficulties
in identifying the force acting on the fluid and apply Newton's law on the fluid. Developing an
assessment of research-based instructional materials designed to overcome the student’s difficulties in
the pressure [24]. Development of teaching materials based on the 5E model to correct some mistakes
in buoyancy [27]. However, researchers have not assessed the students' scientific reasoning skills in a
fluid as a result of STEM integrated PjBL.
Formal learning can affect how students develop scientific reasoning [8]. Regular learning can
still be improved to develop scientific reasoning. Therefore, this study examines the STEM
integrated PjBL process and its impact on students' scientific reasoning in fluids.

2. Method

2.1. Research design

The research design used was a non-equivalent control group design. The experimental group learned
through STEM integrated PjBL, and the control group learned through regular learning for six weeks.
Then the two groups did pre and post-test of scientific reasoning at the beginning and end of the
treatment.

2.2. Research subject

The subjects of this study were 66 students of class XI of Natural Sciences at SMAN Malang, 33
students as the experimental group, and 33 students as the control group.

2.3. Research instrument

The research instrument was a scientific reasoning test. This scientific reasoning test adopted
similar tests developed by Goszewski et al. (2013). This scientific reasoning test consisted of 8 items
in four aspects: proportional reasoning, controlling variables, probabilistic reasoning, and correlational
reasoning with a reliability coefficient of 0.87.

2
2nd International Annual Meeting on STEM education (I AM STEM) 2019 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1835 (2021) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012006

2.4. Data analysis

The data analysis used the ANCOVA test. This analysis technique was carried out because the
prior scientific reasoning influences scientific reasoning skills so that the prior scientific reasoning
needs to be controlled as covariables. Also, a student's response be analyzed qualitatively.

2.5 Student activities in STEM Integrated PjBL

STEM Integrated PjBL Scientific Reasoning

Phase 1: Start with an essential question

Proportional Reasoning
 Students face the problem that the community needs tools that
function to increase the speed of water flow at a low cost.
 Students watch a video about waterjet free energy Variable Controlling
 Students discuss the design of waterjet free energy (Science and
engineering)

Phase 2: Design a plan for the project

 Students plan the waterjet free energy project collaboratively; make Proportional Reasoning
a design and choose materials to support the completion of the
project Probabilistic reasoning

Correlational
Reasoning
Phase 3: Create a schedule
Probabilistic reasoning
 Students and teachers collaboratively draw up a schedule of
events in completing the project. Schedule project Correlational
implementation for one month and set targets for each meeting. Reasoning

Phase 4: Monitor the students and the progress of the project

 Students start working collaboratively

Phase 5: Create the project

Probabilistic reasoning
 Students design waterjet free energy (engineering) and
determine the tools needed to design projects based on Correlational
knowledge of physics (science) Reasoning

Phase 6: Evaluate

 Students measure the achievement of standards, evaluate the Correlational

progress of the waterjet free energy project, provide feedback Reasoning
on the project.
 Students present and explain the projects they have done Variable Controlling
( science, technology, and engineering )
 Feedback and improvement of the project

3
2nd International Annual Meeting on STEM education (I AM STEM) 2019 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1835 (2021) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012006

3. Result and Discussion

3.1. Description of Scientific Reasoning

The scientific reasoning of the two groups shows a different tendency. The average score of the
scientific reasoning pretest of the experimental group was 16.25 and 11.71 for the control group.
While the average score of scientific reasoning posttest of the experimental group was 77.92 and 45.45
for the control group. These results indicate that from the beginning, the two groups showed that
reasoning skills tended to be different. Table 2 shows in detail the students' scientific reasoning skills.
Table 1. Statistics Descriptive of students' pretest and posttest of scientific reasoning.

PjBL-STEM Regular
Statistics
Pre test Post test Pre test Post test
Number 33 33 33 33
Mean 16.25 77.92 11.71 45.45
St dev 12.99 23.51 10.17 20.57

A comparison of each aspect of students' scientific reasoning for the group implementing STEM
integrated PjBL with the group implementing regular learning is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison of aspects of students' scientific reasoning between the PjBL-

STEM and Regular instruction

Aspek Penalaran Ilmiah Nomor Rata-rata Standar Deviasi

Soal PjBL-STEM Regular PjBL-STEM Regular
Proportional Reasoning 1,2 95.6 63.8 9.94 8.18
Controlling Variable 3,4 79.8 54.5 22.2 19.9
Probabilistic reasoning 5,6 53.9 21.2 15.9 6.08
Correlational Reasoning 7,8 82.3 42.3 21.6 13.3

Table 2 shows that the average score of aspects of students' scientific reasoning in the STEM
integrated PjBL group is higher than that of the regular group. On the aspect of proportional reasoning,
students in the group of STEM integrated PjBL obtain the highest average score, and on the aspect of
probabilistic reasoning, students in the regular group obtain the lowest average score. Tables 1 and 2
indicate that the application of the STEM integrated PjBL model affects students' scientific reasoning.

3.2. Hypothesis Testing

An ANCOVA test for the scientific reasoning difference between the experimental group and the
control group was carried out with controlling the prior scientific reasoning.

Table 3. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: Scientific Reasoning
Type III Sum of
Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 19177,140a 2 9588,570 1793,061 ,000
Intercept 12768,626 1 12768,626 2387,731 ,000
Prior SR 1789,616 1 1789,616 334,658 ,000
Treatment 9711,177 1 9711,177 1815,989 ,000
Error 336,899 63 5,348
Total 270651,563 66
Corrected Total 19514,039 65
a. R Squared = ,983 (Adjusted R Squared = ,982)

Covariance analysis yields F = 1815.989 with p = 0.000. Because p < 0.05, it can be concluded that
the null hypothesis is rejected. The rejection means that the scientific reasoning skills of the

4
2nd International Annual Meeting on STEM education (I AM STEM) 2019 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1835 (2021) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012006

experimental group than that of the control group. After controlled by the prior scientific reasoning
skills, the average score of scientific reasoning skills of the experimental group was 75.281, while the
control group was 48.090.
The result shows that scientific reasoning skills can develop and increase through training and
practice [28]. Student-centered learning through an inquiry process leads to the improvement of
scientific reasoning skills [29] [30] [31].
Analysis of student responses shows that two aspects of probabilistic reasoning and controlling
variables have not been well developed. This result is because students do not consider all the
possibilities to resolve a problem. Students have not systematically considered the functioning of the
product. In the context of the task of deductive reasoning, students often fail to consider alternative
explanations [32]. In controlling variables, students often test all variables, even though they are not
related to problems. Besides, students test the wrong variable or focus on just one variable. Most
students do not have the skills needed to handle multi-variate causality [33]. Students understand the
meaning of the "dependent " and "independent" variable, but they do not know how to identify the
variables in different contexts [34].

3.3. Discussion
STEM integrated PjBL is more successful in influencing students' scientific reasoning than
regular learning. STEM integrated PjBL invites students to learn through inquiry, work collaboratively
to research, and create projects that reflect students' knowledge [35]. Students can work in teams and
acquire skills in synthesizing information, planning, using technology, problem-solving, time
management, communication, and producing products. Project water jet that is done allows the
interrelationships among knowledge, social contexts, environmental, and financial. STEM integrated
PjBL allows the development of scientific reasoning skills [36]. The instruction improves student
achievement, authentic problem solving, and scientific reasoning skills [37]. There is a big difference
between knowing everything through reading versus having experienced it herself [38]. This
difference experience causes STEM integrated PjBL resulting in better
students’ scientific reasoning than regular learning.
STEM integrated PjBL emphasizes the importance of teamwork and communication between
friends when solving complex challenges [38]. Thet STEM integrated PjBL begin activities with the
main questions that help students connect the relevance of the content to be studied with the reasoning
skills and solve the main question successfully [39]. Next, students collaborate in groups to build a
variety of perspectives from the question. This kind of learning can
improve student understanding and higher cognitive skills because it develops knowledge construction
and allows students to do science rather than memorizing facts [40]. Ding research confirms these
results that the content knowledge and reasoning closely related to each other and constitute mutual
evidence of the learning of science [8]. Therefore, this kind of learning develops students’ scientific
reasoning and problem-solving skills [41].
The results also showed that students who carried out scientific reasoning had an excellent
conceptual understanding of fluids. Conceptual knowledge is an understanding of the essential parts
and causal relationships that exist in a system. Being able to reason causally is an essential cognitive
skill for physics understanding [42]. Causal reasoning allows students to predict, infer, and explain the
encountered phenomena [43]. The results of this study are not excessive because it is in line with
Ding's research that content knowledge is closely related to reasoning.
STEM integrated PjBL has succeeded in both developing proportional reasoning aspect and has not
yet succeeded in developing aspects of probabilistic reasoning and controlling variables. Related to
probabilistic reasoning aspects, students do not consider all the possibilities to resolve a given
problem. Whereas related to controlling variables, students have difficulty in choosing the right
variable to be tested and solving problems based on the identification of variables [44]. These results
consistent with previous studies that science instruction in middle and high school contributes to

5
2nd International Annual Meeting on STEM education (I AM STEM) 2019 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1835 (2021) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012006

improving aspects of proportional reasoning, but less in the development of probabilistic reasoning
and control variables.

4. Conclusion
STEM integrated PjBL has succeeded in improving scientific reasoning. This learning trains students
to consider various possible solutions for designing projects. In designing the
project, students also train to reason scientifically by considering the size of the products that are made
to produce a product that can work well. However, the STEM integrated PjBL is still not optimal in
improving aspects of probabilistic reasoning and controlling variables. The suggestion is to include an
"if-and-then-but-therefore" thinking model to improve probabilistic reasoning and record all the
variables involved in the problem to improve the aspect of controlling variables in STEM integrated
PjBL.

Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the 2019 Research Grant of the State University of Malang.

References

[1] Luo, Y., & Wu, W. (2015). Sustainable Design with BIM Facilitation in Project-based Learning.
Procedia Engineering, 118, 819–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.519
[2] Musa, F., Mufti, N., Latiff, R. A., & Amin, M. M. (2012). Project-based learning ( PjBL ):
inculcating soft skills in the 21-century workplace. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
59(2006), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.315
[3] Baker, E., Trygg, B., Otto, P., Tudor, M., & Ferguson, L. (2011). Project-based Learning Model
Relevant Learning for the 21 st Century. 1–70.
[4] Doppelt, Y. (2009). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-9008-y
[5] Shahali, E. H. M., Halim, L., Rasul, M. S., Osman, K., & Zulkifeli, M. A. (2017). STEM learning
through engineering design: Impact on middle secondary students’ interest towards STEM.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(5), 1189–1211.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00667a
[6] Fan, S. C., & Yu, K. C. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in
engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1),
107–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x
[7] Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education.
International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
[8] Ding, L., 2017.Progression Trend of Scientific Reasoning from Elementary School to University: a
Large-Scale Cross-Grade Survey Among Chinese Students. Int J of Sci and Math Educ. DOI
10.1007/s10763-017-9844-0
[9] Tseng, K., Chang, C., Lou, S., & Chen, W. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 87–102.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9160-x
[10] Damawati, N. A. C., & Juanda, E. A. (2016). The Effect of Inquiry-Based Learning on The
Reasoning Ability of Grade Vii Students About Heat Concept. JPFI,12(1), 19–25.
https://doi.org/10.15294/jpfi
[11] Köksal-tuncer, Ö., & Sodian, B. (2018). The development of scientific reasoning : Hypothesis
testing and argumentation from evidence in young children. Cognitive Development, 48(June
2017), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.06.011
[12]. Scherer, R., Meßinger-Koppelt, J., & Tiemann, R. (2014). Developing a computer-based

6
2nd International Annual Meeting on STEM education (I AM STEM) 2019 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1835 (2021) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012006

assessment of complex problem-solving in Chemistry. International Journal of STEM

Education, 1(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-7822-1-2
[13] Moore, J. C., & Rubbo, L. J. (2012). Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in
physics-based courses. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 8(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010106
[14] Russ, R. S., & Odden, T. O. B. (2017). Intertwining evidence- and model-based reasoning in
physics sensemaking: An example from electrostatics. Physical Review Physics Education
Research, 13(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020105
[15] Ding, L., Wei, X., & Mollohan, K. (2014). Does Higher Education Improve Student Scientific
Reasoning Skills ? International Journal of Science and Math Education, 619–634.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9597-y
[16] Osborne, J. (2013). The 21st-century challenge for science education : Assessing scientific
reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.006
[17] Germ, M., Neuhaus, B. J., Dorfner, T., & Christian, F. (2018). Biology instruction using a generic
framework of scientific reasoning and argumentation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75,
232–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.07.003
[18] Zhou, S., Han, J., Koenig, K., Raplinger, A., & Pi, Y. (2016). Assessment of scientific reasoning :
The effects of task context, data, and design on student reasoning in control of variables.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.11.004
[19] Hong, J., Hwang, M., Liao, S., Lin, C., Pan, Y., & Chen, Y. (2014). Scientific reasoning
correlated to altruistic traits in an inquiry learning platform : Autistic vs. realistic reasoning in
science problem-solving practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 26–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.002
[20] 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.245
[21] Dounas-Frazer, D. R., Van De Bogart, K. L., Stetzer, M. R., & Lewandowski, H. J. (2016).
Investigating the role of model-based reasoning while troubleshooting an electric circuit.
Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010137
[22] Russ, R. S., & Odden, T. O. B. (2017). Intertwining evidence- and model-based reasoning in
physics sensemaking: An example from electrostatics. Physical Review Physics Education
Research, 13(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020105
[23]. Scherr, R. E., & Robertson, A. D. (2015). The productivity of "collisions generate heat" for
reconciling an energy model with mechanistic reasoning: A case study. Physical Review Special
Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.010111
[24] Loverude, M. E., Heron, P. R. L., & Kautz, C. H. (2010). Identifying and addressing student
difficulties with hydrostatic pressure. American Journal of Physics, 78(1), 75–85.
https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3192767
[25] Profile, S. E. E. (2005). The problematic issue for students : Does it sink or float ? (July).
[26] Yin, Y., & Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Diagnosing and Dealing with Student Misconceptions:
Floating and Sinking. (January).
[27] Cepni, S. (2012). Effect of Different Teaching Methods and Techniques Embedded in the 5E
Instructional Model on Students ’ Learning about Buoyancy Force. (January 2016).
[28]. Remigio, K. B., Yangco, R. T., & Espinosa, A. A. (2016). Analogy-Enhanced Instruction :
Effects on Reasoning Skills in Science. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(2),
1–9. [35] Bell, S. (2010). Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century : Skills. Taylor & Francis
Group, 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415
[29] Jensen, Jamie Lee, & Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of Collaborative Group Composition and
Inquiry Instruction on Reasoning Gains and Achievement in Undergraduate Biology. 10, 64–73.

7
2nd International Annual Meeting on STEM education (I AM STEM) 2019 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1835 (2021) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012006

https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-07-0089
[30] Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-Based Science Instruction-What Is It
and Does It Matter? Results from a Research Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002 Center for
Elementary Mathematics and Science Education, University of Chicago, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347
[31] Rissing, S. W., & Cogan, J. G. (2009). Can an Inquiry Approach Improve College Student
Learning in a Teaching Laboratory ? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8, 55–61.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08
[32] Heckler, A. F., & Bogdan, A. M. (2018). Reasoning with alternative explanations in physics: The
cognitive accessibility rule. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 010120.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010120
[33] Boudreaux, A., Shaffer, P. S., Heron, P. R. L., Mcdermott, L. C., & Boudreaux, A. (2013).
Student understanding of control of variables : Deciding whether or not a variable influences the
behavior of a system Student understanding of control of variables : Deciding whether or not a
variable influences the behavior of a system. American Journal of Physics, 163–170(2), 76.
https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2805235
[34] Leatham, K. R. (2012). Problems Identifying Independent and Dependent Variables. School
Science and Mathematics, 112 (6), 349–358. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-
8594.2012.00155.x
[35] Bell, S. (2010). Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century : Skills. Taylor & Francis Group,
39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415
[36] Mc, C., Viana, D. M., & Vidal, F. B. (2017). Mechanical engineering, computer science, and art
in interdisciplinary learning projects. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
Education, 46(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306419017715427
[37] Jamali, M., Nurulazam, A., Samsudin, M. A., & Ebrahim, N. A. (2017). Journal of Nusantara
Studies ( JONUS ). 2(January 2019), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol2iss2pp29-43
[38] Ng K. Y. and Chung E. C. Y. 2019. Project-Based Learning and Why it Works: A Student
Perspective. G. Amouzad Mahdiraji et al. (eds.), Engineering Grand Challenges in Scholar
Programs, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3579-2_3
[39] Caron, E. J., & Caron, E. J. (2010). What Leads to the Fall of a Great Empire ? Using Central
Questions to Design Issues-based History Units. (December 2014), 37–41.
https://doi.org/10.3200/TSSS.96.2.51-60
[40] Çakici, Y. (2013). An Investigation of the Effect of Project-Based Learning Approach on
Children ’ s Achievement and Attitude in Science. 3(2), 9–17.
[41] Hernández-ramos, P. (2013). Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Learning: Effects on
Historical Thinking. 28(4), 1–14.
[42] Schlottmann, A. (2001). Perception Versus Knowledge of Cause and Effect in Children : When.
111–115.
[43] Hung, W., & Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Conceptual Understanding of Causal Reasoning in Physics
Conceptual Understanding of Causal. International Journal of Science Education, (November
2014), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560902
[44] Jong, T. De, & Joolingen, W. R. Van. (1998). Scientific Discovery Learning With Computer
Simulations of Conceptual Domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.

8
2nd International Annual Meeting on STEM education (I AM STEM) 2019 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1835 (2021) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012006