Learning Electric Circuits Using the STEM Approach to Improve Scientific Thinking Skills and Practice

Rudi Haryadi, Heni Pujiastuti


This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of using the STEM approach in learning direct electric circuits to achieve high school students' scientific and practical thinking skills. This research is a quasi-experimental method. This study used two class groups, namely the experimental class and the control class, with the experimental class being the class group that received the STEM learning treatment. In contrast, the control class was the class group that only received the immediate learning model treatment. The research design uses a non-equivalent control group design. The research was carried out in the even semester of 2021-2022 and the place of this research was one of the schools in Serang City, Banten province. The sample consisted of two classes; one class was given the learning treatment with the STEM approach, which served as the experimental class, and the other class received no therapy and functioned as the control class. Each course has 40 students, including 20 male and 20 female students. The average age of students is 17 years. The instrument used in this study was in the form of 10 essay questions. This question covered electric current circuit material with indicators of scientific thinking ability and practice. The instrument used in this study was in the form of 10 essay questions. This question covered electric current circuit material with indicators of scientific thinking ability and practice. The data obtained after the research will be analyzed using N-Gain data analysis. The N-gain result in the experimental class was 0.67, while the control class was 0.46. The N-Gain results of the two types show the same category, namely the good category. However, the N-gain results from the experimental class show a value greater than 21% than the control class. These results prove that learning electric circuits using STEM is more effective than learning directly. The implications of this research are 1) It can foster an understanding of the relationship between the concept of electric circuits with practical skills in assembling electric current circuits, 2) Arouse students' curiosity and activate creative imagination and critical thinking, 3) Help students to understand and experiment with the scientific process.


Electric current circuit, STEM approach, Ability to think scientifically and practice

Full Text:



Barak, M. (2018). Robotics and STEM learning: students’ achievements in assignments according to the P3 Task Taxonomy—practice, problem solving, and projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9385-9

Bell, D., Morrison-Love, D., Wooff, D., & McLain, M. (2018). STEM education in the twenty-first century: learning at work—an exploration of design and technology teacher perceptions and practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(3), 721–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9414-3

Biberman-Shalev, L. (2021). Motivational factors for learning and teaching global education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 106, 103460. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103460

Braaten, M., Granados, E., & Bradford, C. (2022). Making sense through dissonance during preservice teacher preparation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109, 103541. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103541

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches (p. 273).

Domènech-Casal, J. (2019). Which projects design and which difficulties express on Project-Based Learning Secondary Education teachers. Analysis of 87 project proposals. Revista Eureka, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2019.v16.i2.2203

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

Gil-Doménech, D. (2019). Stimulating students’ engagement in mathematics courses in non-STEM academic programmes: A game-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1330159

Gilbert, P. J. K. (2013). Models and Modeling in Science Education. In Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (Vol. 53, Issue 9).

Gülen, S. (2018). Determination the effect of STEM integrated argumentation based science learning approach in solving daily life problems. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 10(4), 266–285. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v10i4.4087

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809

Haryadi, R., & Pujiastuti, H. (2020). Use of bungee jumping with stem approach to improve science process skills. Journal of Physics: Conf. Series. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1480/1/012073

Haryadi, R., & Pujiastuti, H. (2022). Enhancing Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Higher-Order Thinking Skills Through STEM-PjBL Model. International Journal of STEM Education for Sustainability, 2(2), 156–171.

Haryadi, R., Situmorang, R., & Khaerudin, K. (2021). Enhancing Students’ High-Order Thinking Skills through STEM-Blended Learning on Kepler’s Law During Covid-19 Outbreak. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pembelajaran IPA, 7(2), 168–192.

Holmlund, T. D., Lesseig, K., & Slavit, D. (2018). Making sense of “STEM education” in K-12 contexts. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0127-2

Hong, H. (2019). Integrated STEM Learning in an Idea-centered Knowledge-building Environment. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0409-y

Hubber, P., & Tytler, R. (2017). Enacting a Representation Construction Approach to Teaching and Learning Astronomy. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5_7

Ibáñez, M. (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review. Computers and Education, 123, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.002

Jong, T. de. (2019). Moving towards engaged learning in STEM domains; there is no simple answer, but clearly a road ahead. In Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (Vol. 35, Issue 2, pp. 153–167). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12337

Julià, C. (2019). Impact of implementing a long-term STEM-based active learning course on students’ motivation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9441-8

Kim, M. S. (2019). Understanding STEM teacher learning in an informal setting: a case study of a novice STEM teacher. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-019-0103-6

Kranzfelder, P. (2019). Instructional practices in reformed undergraduate STEM learning environments: a study of instructor and student behaviors in biology courses. International Journal of Science Education, 41(14), 1944–1961. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1649503

Kurup, P. M., Li, X., Powell, G., & Brown, M. (2019). Building future primary teachers’ capacity in STEM: based on a platform of beliefs, understandings and intentions. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0164-5

LaForce, M., Noble, E., King, H., Century, J., Blackwell, C., Holt, S., Ibrahim, A., & Loo, S. (2016). The eight essential elements of inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0054-z

Landrum, R. E., Viskupic, K., Shadle, S. E., & Bullock, D. (2017). Assessing the STEM landscape: the current instructional climate survey and the evidence-based instructional practices adoption scale. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0092-1

McFadden, J. R., & Roehrig, G. H. (2017). Exploring teacher design team endeavors while creating an elementary-focused STEM-integrated curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0084-1

Pollock, E. R., Young, M. D., Lubans, D. R., Coffey, J. E., Hansen, V., & Morgan, P. J. (2021). Understanding the impact of a teacher education course on attitudes towards gender equity in physical activity and sport: An exploratory mixed methods evaluation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 103421. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103421

Pujiastuti, H., & Haryadi, R. (2023). Higher-Order Thinking Skills Profile of Islamic Boarding School Students on Geometry through the STEM–based Video Approach. International Journal of STEM Education for Sustainability, 3(1), 156–174.

Rainey, K., Dancy, M., Mickelson, R., Stearns, E., & Moller, S. (2019). A descriptive study of race and gender differences in how instructional style and perceived professor care influence decisions to major in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0159-2

Reinholz, D. L., & Apkarian, N. (2018). Four frames for systemic change in STEM departments. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0103-x

Saptarani, D. (2019). Biology teachers and high school students perceptions about STEM learning. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1157, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/4/042007

Scalise, K. (2018). Measuring learning gains and examining implications for student success in STEM. Higher Education Pedagogies, 3(1), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2018.1425096

Sharma, U., Sokal, L., Wang, M., & Loreman, T. (2021). Measuring the use of inclusive practices among pre-service educators: A multi-national study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107, 103506. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103506

Sládek, P., Milé, T., & Benárová, R. (2011). How to increase students ’ interest in science and technology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 168–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.02.024

Struyf, A. (2019). Students’ engagement in different STEM learning environments: integrated STEM education as promising practice? International Journal of Science Education, 41(10), 1387–1407. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1607983

Sudarmin, S. (2019). Implementing the model of project-based learning : integrated with ETHNO-STEM to develop students’ entrepreneurial characters. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1317, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012145

Tomkin, J. (2019). Evidence that communities of practice are associated with active learning in large STEM lectures. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0154-z

Wu, X., Deshler, J., & Fuller, E. (2018). The effects of different versions of a gateway STEM course on student attitudes and beliefs. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0141-4

Yoon, S. Y., & Strobel, J. (2017). Trends in Texas high school student enrollment in mathematics, science, and CTE-STEM courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0063-6

DOI: https://doi.org/10.53889/ijses.v3i2.223

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 191 times
PDF - 154 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2023 Rudi Haryadi, Heni Pujiastuti

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 Creative Commons License

International Journal of STEM Education for Sustainability is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License