Biosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi, 15(1), 76-84 (2022)

Biosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi

Journal homepage: [Link]

Integrating STEAM with PjBL and PBL on biology education: Improving

students’ cognitive learning results, creative thinking, and digital literacy
Wisye Hehakaya1, Muhammad Nur Matdoan2, Dominggus Rumahlatu2*

1 Biology Education, Postgraduate, Universitas Pattimura, Indonesia

2 Biology Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Pattimura, Indonesia

*Corresponding author: dominggus_amq@[Link]

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Article history STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics)
Received: 12 December 2021 is an innovative interdisciplinary learning approach that can be
Revised: 15 February 2022 integrated with PjBL and PBL learning models. This research
Accepted: 19 February 2022 investigates the effect of STEAM combined with PjBL and PBL
learning models on the cognitive learning results, creative thinking
skills and digital literacy of Class X senior high school students at
Keywords:
SHS 3 Maluku Tengah and SHS 39 Salahutu. This research was
Creative thinking
conducted in the even semester of the 2020/2021 academic year.
Digital literacy
The research instruments included an essay test and digital
Project based learning literacy observation sheets. The research data were analyzed using
Problem based learning inferential statistics (ANCOVA and ANOVA). The research results
STEAM indicate that the integration of STEAM with PjBL and PBL learning
models significantly affects students’ cognitive learning results
and creative thinking (p<0.05). However, the integration of STEAM
and PjBL and PBL learning models does not significantly affect
students’ digital literacy (p>0.05). The integration of STEAM with
PjBL and PBL learning models provides innovation in
implementing the two learning models, which improves the
learning steps and the learning process. The integration of STEAM
with the PjBL learning model can be used to enhance cognitive
learning outcomes and creative thinking skills for other biological
concepts in senior high school level learning.
© 2022 Universitas Negeri Jakarta. This is an open-access article under the CC-BY license
([Link]

Hehakaya, W., Matdoan, M. N., & Rumahlatu, D. (2022). Integrating STEAM with PjBL and PBL on biology education:
Improving students’ cognitive learning results, creative thinking, and digital literacy. Biosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan
Biologi, 15(1), 76-84. [Link]

10.21009/biosferjpb.24468 Hehakaya et al E-ISSN: 2614-3984 76

INTRODUCTION
One of the 21st century learning approaches which are associated with soft skills is STEAM (Science,
Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics). This is an innovative interdisciplinary learning approach, which
integrates science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics with the focus of solving real-life problems. In
STEAM learning, the students are trained how the concepts and principals of science, technology, engineering, art,
and mathematics can be combined to develop a certain product (Torlakson, 2014). In addition, STEAM is also
transdisciplinary in that it does not merely focus on mathematics, science, or technology, but it also focuses on
social life in a community (Guyotte et al., 2015). Boy (2013) explains that the STEAM approach is a humanistic
design in that this approach improves not only technology, education system and practices, but also students’
participation to act, express, criticize, explore concepts, and associate them with the complex system of life.
Biology learning in the 21st century requires students to develop creativity in learning and not only focus
on mastering concepts. STEAM learning provides color in 21st century learning because it integrates elements of
science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics as well as combines the five elements. The result is that
STEAM learning can be combined with various types of learning models to increase students' creativity, train them
to use technology and integrate engineering knowledge in learning, combine elements of art and mathematics to
empower ways of thinking, logic and innovation. The implementation of STEAM in learning can alter the common
educational paradigm between teachers and students (Herro & Quigley, 2016). Many studies on the integration of
STEAM in learning model have been carried out. Rosikhoh et al. (2019) explained that teachers approved and
accepted the implementation of STEAM in mathematics teaching and learning process although there has not been
much supporting literature in learning. Therefore, research on the implantation of STEAM in Science learning,
especially Biology, is necessary. STEAM is an integrated and thematic learning that can be used by biology teachers
to study biology as a science from various perspectives, namely using internet technology to carry out scientific
literacy; while engineering can be defined as the way students conduct scientific experiments or observations
using problem solving techniques, using various experimental tools and materials, designing and creating
experimental/observation stages that can be done to obtain data; art that aims to produce biological products by
taking into account the shape, arrangement, neatness, and quality; the integration of mathematics in biology
learning can be done by measuring, counting and adding up. Several researches have been conducted on the
integration of STEAM in Biology learning. Utomo et al. (2020) integrated STEAM in flash animation-based
Biotechnology module, and the results indicated that the N-gain score of the pretest and posttest was 0.72, which
was categorized as high. Suciari et al. (2021) also explained that the integration of STEAM in PjBL learning had a
positive effect on the students’ concept gaining. Moreover, Retnowati et al. (2021) reported that a lesson plan
integrated with STEAM based biology-entrepreneurship had fulfilled the validity criteria and had a significant
effect on the students’ critical thinking skills and entrepreneurship interest. Saidaturrahmi et al. (2021) integrate
STEAM with PjBL which is able to improve the science competence of junior high school students in the
experimental class compared to the control class.
Based on the results of those researches, it is known that STEAM approach can be integrated with several
learning models, such as Problem Based Learning (PBL) and Project Based Learning (PjBL). The syntax of these
two learning models can be equated, namely problem solving oriented. In addition, the syntax of these two models
can be integrated with the meaning of the term STEAM in high school biology learning in Central Maluku. The
difference between these two learning models is that the problem solving in the PjBL learning model is done
through a series of projects to produce a product. Meanwhile, the problem solving in the PBL learning model is
done through Non-Experiment Student worksheets. The research conducted by Sayuti et al. (2020) showed that
the implementation of PjBL could improve students’ creative thinking skills through group work to solve problems.
Creative thinking can empower students creativity to find ideas for solving problems in various versions (Kutlu &
Gökdere, 2015; Ulger, 2018). The implementation of PBL learning model also had an effect on students’ creative
thinking and cognitive learning results. Research by Leasa et al. (20121) recommends that learning using PBL in
elementary schools can improve students' higher order thinking skills, while Anwar et al. (2021) explained that
PBL learning accommodates students to be independent, construct their understanding through problem analysis
activities, work together with groups and be able to communicate effectively and accurately. Lee and Therriault
(2013) explained that creative thinking had a correlation with cognitive process, because producing creativity
requires long-term memory. In the ere of 21st century learning, learning activities can be carried out using different
learning models, however, the orientation of the learning should center on digital literacy. According to
Buckingham (2016), digital media are necessary for learning sources. However, the digital media should be applied
properly and accurately. These two learning models can be used and integrated with STEAM approach and applied
in the learning process in Senior High Schools in Maluku Tengah.
The learning process in senior high school 3 Maluku Tengah and senior high school 39 Salahutu has already
implemented student-centered cooperative learning models, one of which is PBL learning model. However, PjBL
learning model and STEAM as a new learning approach in the 21 st century have never been implemented and
integrated. One of the challenges that should be done in these two schools is to implement the two learning models
using STEAM approach. Therefore, the implementation of the learning models using STEAM approach should be
able to empower students’ creative thinking skills, concept gaining, and digital literacy.

10.21009/biosferjpb.24468 Hehakaya et al E-ISSN: 2614-3984 77

METHODS
Research Design
This is a quasi-experimental research with Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent Control Group Design (Table 1).
The focus of this research is to analyze the effect of two learning models integrated with STEAM approach on
cognitive learning results, creative thinking skills, and digital literacy of Class X at senior high school (SHS) 3
Maluku Tengah and SHS 39 Salahutu, Indoenesia.

Table 1
Research design
Pretest Experimental Group School Class Posttest
PjBL integrated with SHS 3 Maluku Tengah X1
O1 O2
STEAM SHS 39 Salahutu X1
PBL integrated with SHS 3 Maluku Tengah X2
O3 O4
STEAM SHS 39 Salahutu X2
(Modified from Supratman et al., 2021)
Research Samples
The population of this research was all the students of Class X Senior High Schools (SHS) in Central Maluku,
Maluku Province, Indonesia. Two schools were randomly selected using random sampling technique. The selected
schools were SHS 3 Maluku Tengah and SHS 39 Salahutu. Each of these schools only had two classes. Therefore,
the two classes were used as the experimental class (X1) and the control class (X2). Each class consisted of 24
students. Thus the total students of all classes were 96 students.

Instrument
The instruments used in this research were an essay test and digital literacy observation sheet. The essay
test instrument consists of questions of application level, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Table 2). The essay
test was given before and after the learning process to measure the students’ cognitive learning results and
creative thinking skills in learning the concepts of ecosystem. In addition, the digital literacy observation sheet
was given during the learning process. The digital literacy observation sheet consisted of several indicators,
namely analyzing information, synthesizing information, comparing information from various learning sources,
presenting information, evaluating information, evaluating learning sources, using information ethically (Launuru
et al., 2021). Moreover, before the essay test was used, the validity and the reliability of the test were initially
analyzed using SPSS 18.0 (Table 3).

Table 2
Specification of the instrument for the essay test
Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation Total
Aspects Taught
(40%) (20%) (20%) (20%) (100%)
Ecosystem components (50%) 4 1 5
Interactions in food chains and webs 2 2
(20%)
Biogeochemical cycle (30%) 1 2 3
Total (100%) 4 2 2 2 10

Table 3
The results of the validity and reliability of the essay test
Item Significance Interpretation Cronbach’s Significance Interpretation
rXY
number Value Alpha Value Value
1 0.387
2 0.570
3 0.106
4 0.517
5 0.742
p>0.05 Valid 0.659 p>0.05 Reliable
6 0.944
7 0.615
8 0.079
9 0.887
10 0.609

10.21009/biosferjpb.24468 Hehakaya et al E-ISSN: 2614-3984 78

Procedure
The learning procedures were carried out based on the predetermined plan, namely a pretest was
administered to the experimental class and the control class in the both schools, the learning activities based on
the steps of the learning models, and the posttest was administered in the experimental class and the control class.
The steps of the learning models are presented in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4
The Stages of the STEAM integrated with PjBL learning model
STEAM Aspects PjBL stages Integration
Science 1. Teachers empower the students to design the concepts of
(Concepts of science related to ecosystem to find a contextual problem.
Science) 2. Teachers empower the students to search information
through internet using laptops, smartphones, or computers.
Technology Planning 3. Students and teachers design the project plan
(Digital collaboratively.
Technology) 4. Students carry out the project (measuring the area of
ecosystems, calculating the individual density of
Engineering ecosystems, calculating evaporation rate, photosynthesis
(Planning, rate, measuring oxygen levels) according to the plans that
designing, have been made.
Implementing) 5. Students make products that contain aesthetic value.

Art
(neatness, Creating
appropriateness, 6. The students present the results of the projects and
and esthetics) products in groups before the class.

Mathematics
(the study about Presenting
calculation,
measurement,
numbers, and etc,.)
(Rumahlatu & Sangur, 2019)
Table 5
The Stages of STEAM integrated with PBL learning model
STEAM Aspects PBL Stages Integration
Science 1. Orientation of the 1. Teachers empower the students to find scientific
(Concepts of students to the problems problems.
Science)
Technology 2. Organizing the students 2. Teachers organize the students to analyze scientific
(Digital to learn problems using their prior knowledge.
technology)
3. Teachers empower the students to use technology
Engineering 3. Guiding the students to (smartphones, laptop, etc) to access information.
(Planning, do individual
designing, investigation and group 4. Students do problem solving activities using experiment
implementing) investigation student worksheets.
Art
(neatness, 4. Problem solving and 5. The students do the exercises in the student worksheet
appropriateness, providing solutions related to measurement and calculation, and then the
and esthetics) teachers empower the students to answer the exercises
in the student worksheets by considering the values of
Mathematics Report Presentation esthetic.
(the study about
calculation, 6. The students present the results of their work in the form
measurement, of projects, which will then be observed and assessed. A
numbers, and reflection is then done on the learning activities and the
etc,.) project results.

(Simone, 2014)

10.21009/biosferjpb.24468 Hehakaya et al E-ISSN: 2614-3984 79

Data Analysis Techniques
The research data were analyzed using inferential statistics (ANCOVA and ANOVA). The Ancova test was
used to know the effect of STEAM integrated with PjBL and PBL learning models on students’ cognitive learning
results and creative thinking. Moreover, the Anova test was used to know the effect of the integration of STEAM
with PjBL and PBL learning models on the students’ digital literacy. Before the inferential analyses were
performed, the research data were initially tested for the homogeneity and the normality of the data. The
homogeneity test used Levene test, while the normality test used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Table 6). These
data analysis techniques were performed with the assistance of Excel application and SPSS for Windows 18.0
version.

Table 6.
The results of the homogeneity and normality data analyses
Levene
Variables Sig. Description Kolmogorov value Sig. Description
Value
Cognitive learning results 1.364 .140 Homogenous .126 .053 Normal
Creative thinking .812 .370 Homogenous .109 .200 Normal
Digital literacy 1.911 .170 Homogenous .124 .064 Normal

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The effect of the integration of STEAM with PjBL and PBL learning models on students’ cognitive learning
results
The results of Ancova analysis showed that learning models had an effect on students’ cognitive learning
results with p<sig.0.05 (Table 7). This shows that the implementation of STEAM integrated with PjBL and PBL had
an effect on students’ cognitive learning results in learning about the concepts of ecosystem. Furthermore, to know
which integration of learning models had more significant effects on the students’ cognitive learning results, the
post hoc LSD test was performed (Table 8). The results of the post hoc LSD test (Table 8) show different notations.
The different notations indicate that the integration of STEAM with PjBL learning model had more significant effect
towards the cognitive learning results of class X students of SMA 3 Maluku Tengah and SMA Negeri 39 Salahutu
senior high schools in learning the concepts of ecosystem than the integration of STEAM with PBL model.

Table 7
The results of ANCOVA analysis on the effect of learning models on students’ cognitive learning results
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected model 1464.358a 2 732.179 14.363 .000
Intercept 159101.979 1 159101.979 3121.015 .000
Pre_test 96.071 1 96.071 1.885 .173
Learning_model 1372.567 1 1372.567 26.925 .000
Error 4740.920 93 50.978
Total 685782.183 96
Corrected total 6205.278 95

Table 8
Results of LSD test
Learning models Average Notation
STEAM integrated with PjBL model 87.9117 a
STEAM integrated with PBL model 80.3610 b

The results of the ANCOVA analysis show that the Integration of STEAM with PjBL and PBL learning models
had a significant effect on students’ cognitive learning results (Table 7). This is because the learning stages that
had been designed for learning were in accordance with the integration of STEAM with PjBL and PBL learning
models. The first stage of the two learning models integrated with STEAM was introducing the students with
problems which were related to scientific concepts, namely ecosystem. However, there was a significant difference
between the two integrated learning models. In the STEAM-PjBL learning model, the students did the problems
through projects, while the students in the STEAM-PBL model did the problems by initially identifying the
problems. According the Naji et al. (2020), project-based learning emphasizes on contextual project-based tasks,
analyzing problems, giving solutions through the use of technology. The next stage was using technology, namely
smartphones, to search information online to solve the problems that had previously been formulated. After that,
in the STEAM-PjBL learning class the next stage was that the students carried out projects, while the students in

10.21009/biosferjpb.24468 Hehakaya et al E-ISSN: 2614-3984 80

the STEAM-PBL answered the Experiment student worksheet. Brundiers and Wiek (2013) explained that the
difference between PjBL and PBL learning models laid on the categories of the main activity and the principal
organization. The main activity in the PjBL was that the students produced products and did projects, while the
main activity in the PBL was on investigating problems and focusing on learning tutorial. In addition, the final
results of the STEAM-PjBL learning model were that the students presented their product in the form of artificial
ecosystem completed with individual density, hydrologic cycle replica, and carbon, nitrogen which occurred in the
ecosystem, and food chain or food web. While the final results of the learning activities in the STEAM-PBL learning
model was that the students reported the results of the group discussion related to the experiment student
worksheet.
The difference in the learning activities and the learning processes between the two learning models
integrated with STEAM could have an effect on the students’ cognitive learning results. The results indicated that
the average scores of the students’ cognitive learning results in the STEAM-PjBL class were higher than those of
the students in the STEAM-PBL class. This could be explained that the students in the STEAM-PjBL class
constructed their understanding about the concepts of ecosystem through searching information, direct
measurement, and constructing a scientific product. The students in the STEAM-PBL class were also trained to
identify scientific problems, searching information using technology, measuring and calculating in experiments
related to the concepts of ecosystem, having discussion and making conclusions through student worksheet.
However, this condition provided the students with different ways in understanding the concepts of ecosystem
and applying the concepts in the final test. Therefore, the average scores of the final test of the students in SHS 3
Maluku Tengah and SHS 39 Salahutu taught using different learning models were also different. The students’
learning experience and concepts were developed based on the product that the students produced during the
project-based learning processes where the students constructively learned using research-based learning
approach towards an issue or problem (Grant, 2002). Similar research results were reported by Simbolon and
Koeswanti (2020) that the PJBL learning model was better in empowering the students’ learning results than the
PBL learning model was. Moreover, Mills and Treagust (2003) emphasized the difference between PjBL and PBL
learning models on the aspect of the learning period. In the PjBL learning model, the project to be carried out could
be complex or simple depending on the particular learning period. While in the PBL learning model, the students
identified problems through problem solving activities and there was not any predetermined learning period.

The effect of the integration of STEAM with PjBL and PBL learning models on students’ creative thinking
skills
The results of ANCOVA analysis showed that learning models had an effect on students’ creative thinking
skills with p<sig.0.05 (Table 9). This shows that the implementation of STEAM integrated with PjBL and PBL had
an effect on students’ creative thinking skills in learning about the concepts of ecosystem. Furthermore, to know
which integration of learning models had more significant effects on the students’ creative thinking skills, the post
hoc LSD test was performed (Table 10). The results of the post hoc LSD test (Table 10) show different notations.
The different notations indicate that the integration of STEAM with PjBL learning model had more significant effect
towards the creative thinking skills of class X students of SHS 3 Maluku Tengah and SHS 39 Salahutu in learning
the concepts of ecosystem than the integration of STEAM with PBL model did.

Table 9
The effect of learning models on students’ creative thinking skills
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected model 670.071 a 2 335.035 7.009 .001
Intercept 61526.034 1 61526.034 1287.050 .000
Creative_pre 210.696 1 210.696 4.407 .038
Learning_models 557.062 1 557.062 11.653 .001
Error 4445.763 93 47.804
Total 646036.000 96
Corrected total 5115.833 95

Table 10
The results of LSD test
Learning models Average Notation
STEAM integrated with PjBL model 83.8958 a
STEAM integrated with PBL model 79.5208 b

The results of the ANCOVA analysis show that the integration of STEAM with PjBL and PBL learning models
had an effect on students’ creative thinking skills (Table 9). Meanwhile, the average value of the integration of

10.21009/biosferjpb.24468 Hehakaya et al E-ISSN: 2614-3984 81

STEAM with PjBL is higher than the integration of STEAM with PBL (Table 10). This shows that the integration of
STEAM with PjBL is better able to accommodate the creative thinking skills of SHS 3 Maluku Tengah and SHS 39
Salahutu. Moreover, similar research results were reported by Anazifa and Djukri (2017) that there was a
difference in the average scores of the creative thinking skills between the students in the PjBL and PBL learning
models, which were 70.38 and 59.77 respectively. Ridlo et al. (2020) explained that Project learning integrated
with STEAM had an effect on students’ creative thinking skills in learning the concepts of water purification. Thus,
it can be explained that the integration of STEAM with PjBL learning model was more effective in empowering the
creative thinking skills of the students of Class X in SHS 3 Maluku Tengah and SHS 39 Salahutu in learning the
concepts of ecosystem than the integration of STEAM with PBL learning model. This was influenced with many
factors, one of which was the learning stages of the two learning models. According to Awang (2007), the project-
based learning empowers the students to obtain knowledge and trains their creativity in learning as well as doing
interpretation. Meanwhile, at the implementation of PBL learning model, the students’ performance is assessed
through problem solving, and the learning results are obtained from writing learning reports. Rahmawati et al.
(2019) also reported that STEAM approach integrated with PjBL could empower students’ creative thinking,
analyzing skill, and interpretation skill. When the students are planning the steps to carry out a project, the
students are trained to empower their creative thinking skills, namely creative in searching digital information,
organizing the stages of the projects, and making products. Sheu and Chen (2014) explain that creative thinking is
the ability to find ideas and solutions to problems. Moreover, Supratman et al. (2021) explain that the problem-
solving activity that the students do during the learning process can improve their creative thinking skills.

The effect of the integration of STEAM with PjBL and PBL learning models on students’ digital literacy
The results of ANOVA analysis show that the learning models do not have a significant effect on students’
digital literacy with p>sig.0.05 (Table 11). This shows that the implementation of STEAM integrated with PjBL and
PBL did not have a significant effect on the students’ digital literacy in learning the concepts of ecosystem.

Table 11
The effect of learning models on students’ digital literacy
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between groups 18.375 1 18.375 1.615 .207
Within groups 1069.583 94 11.379
Total 1087.958 95

During the research process, the students followed the learning stages of the STEAM-PjBL learning model
or the STEAM-PBL learning model. During the learning process in both learning models, the students actively used
their smartphones to access the internet through Scholar, Google, or Mozilla search. Nelson et al. (2011) explained
that accessing information using internet or digital device can be easily understood by the students, and it can
improve the learning. As a result, the process of the information search by the students can be easier and faster.
Thus, it helps improve the students’ digital literacy in the future. Based on the learning stages of the two learning
models which used smartphones to access the internet for search, finding, and using information, the results of
the Anova analysis on the integration between STEAM with PjBL and PBL learning models did not have an effect
on the digital literacy of the students of SHS 3 Maluku Tengah and SHS 9 Salahutu with p>sig.0.05 (Table 11).
The results of Ambarwati et al. (2019) explains that all learning Systematics of Animal Biology can improve
students' digital literacy through searching for information from websites, so that students can produce scientific
papers well. Moreover, Setiawan et al. (2021) also explained that the students’ digital literacy in learning the
concepts of Protista improved through analyzing and using information activities. In addition, Utama et al. (2019)
argued that using technology in learning not only improves students’ digital literacy but also improves students’
concept gaining. Furthermore, Saxena et al. (2018) stated that the use of smartphones for searching information
could revolutionize the students’ learning activities. In learning biology, this ecosystem concept can also empower
digital literacy using the integration of STEAM with PjBL and the integration of STEAM with PBL. Thus, the results
of this research have showed that in this 4.0 era, the implementation of various models which empower the
students’ ability at searching information using digital device can improve the students’ digital literacy.

CONCLUSION
The results of this research show that the integration of STEAM with PjBL and PBL learning models had an
effect on students’ cognitive learning results and creative thinking skills. This means that the integration of STEAM
with PjBL and PBL learning models is effective in empowering students’ cognitive learning results and creative
thinking skills. However, the integration of STEAM with PjBL and PBL learning models did not an effect on
students’ digital literacy. This is related to the students’ poor ability in using digital technology to search
information about the concepts of ecosystem. In addition, the results of this research can be the basis for

10.21009/biosferjpb.24468 Hehakaya et al E-ISSN: 2614-3984 82

integrating STEAM with other learning models to improve students’ higher order thinking skills and literacy in
this digital era.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the SHS 3 Central Maluku and SHS 39 Salahutu, Indonesia for providing
facilities during the research.

REFERENCES
Ambarwati, R., Faizah, U., & Rahayu, D. A. (2019). Enhancing the Digital literacy of pre-service biology teacher
through animal systematics course. Advances in Computer Science Research: Mathematics, Informatics,
Science, and Education International Conference, 95, 197-201. [Link]
Anazifa, R. D., & Djukri, D. (2017). Project-based learning and problem-based learning: Are they effective to
improve student's thinking skills. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 6(2), 346-355.
[Link]
Anwar, Y., Rahmayanti, R., & Ermayanti. (2021). Biodiversity with problem-based learning: impact on quality
of students’ scientific argumentation. Biosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi, 14(2), 216-227.
[Link]
Awang, D. (2007). Comparison between “project-oriented” learning and problem-based learning (PBL) in design
subject. Regional Conference on Engineering Education, 290-329.
Boy, G. A. (2013). From STEM to STEAM: Toward a human-centred education, creativity & learning thinking.
Proceedings of the 31st European conference on cognitive ergonomics, 1-7.
[Link]
Brundiers, K., & Wiek, A. (2013). Do we teach what we preach? An international comparison of problem-and
project-based learning courses in sustainability. Sustainability, 5, 1725-1746.
[Link]
Buckingham, D. (2016). Defining digital literacy. Nordic journal of digital literacy, 4(4), 59-71.
[Link]
Grant, M. M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases and recommendations. Meridian: A
middle school computer technologies journal, 5(1), 1-18.
Guyotte, K., Sochacka, N., Costantino, T., Walther, J., & Kellam, N. (2015). STEAM as social practice: Cultivating
creativity in transdisciplinary spaces. Art Education, 67(6), 12-19.
[Link]
Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2016). Innovating with STEAM in middle school classrooms: Remixing education. On the
Horizon, 24(3), 190-204. [Link]
Kutlu, N., & Gökdere, M. (2015). The effect of purdue model based science teaching on creative thinking.
International Journal of Education and Research, 3(3), 589-600.
Lee, C. S., & Therriault, D. J. (2013). The cognitive underpinnings of creative thought: A latent variable analysis
exploring the roles of intelligence and working memory in three creative thinking processes. Intelligence,
41(5), 306-320. [Link]
Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering Education–is Problem-based learning the answer. Australasian
Journal Of Engineering Education, 3, 1-14.
Naji, K. K., Ebead, U., Al-Ali, A. K., & Du, X. (2020). Comparing models of problem and project-based learning (PBL)
courses and student engagement in civil engineering in Qatar. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 16(8), 1-16. [Link]
Nelson, K., Courier, M., & Joseph, G. W. (2011). An investigation of digital literacy needs of students. Journal of
Information Systems Education, 22(2), 95-110.
Rahmawati, Y., Ridwan, A., & Hadinugrahaningsih, T., & Soeprijanto. (2019). Developing critical and creative
thinking skills through STEAM integration in chemistry learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1156,
012033. [Link]
Retnowati, L., Sugianto, S., & Alimah, S. (2021). The development of integrated biology-entrepreneurship learning
design based STEAM. Journal of Innovative Science Education, 10(2), 124-129.
[Link]

10.21009/biosferjpb.24468 Hehakaya et al E-ISSN: 2614-3984 83

Ridlo, Z. R., Nuha, U., Terra, I. W. A., & Afafa, L. (2020). The implementation of project-based learning in STEM
activity (water filtration system) in improving creative thinking skill. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
1563, 012073. [Link]
Rosikhoh, D., Mardhiyatirrahmah, L., Abdussakir, A., Abtokhi, A., & Rofiki, I. (2019). Experienced teachers’
perceptions: Math-focused steam learning. Abjadia: International Journal of Education, 4(2), 118-128.
[Link]
Rumahlatu, D., & Sangur, K. (2019). The influence of project-based learning strategies on the metacognitive skills,
concept understanding and retention of senior high school students. Journal of Education and Learning,
13(1), 104-110. [Link]
Launuru, A., Rumahlatu, D., & Matdoan, M. N. (2021). PjBL-HOTS Learning Models: It’s application and effect on
cognitive learning outcomes, critical thinking, and social attitudes. Bioedupat: Pattimura Journal of Biology
and Learning, 1(1), 1-10. [Link]
Leasa, M., Fenanlampir, A., Batlolona, J. R., & Saimima, A. S. (2021). Problem-solving and creative thinking
skills with the PBL model: The concept of the human circulatory system. Biosfer,Jurnal Pendidikan
Biologi,14(2), 154-166. [Link]
Saidaturrahmi, I., Susilo, S., & Amirullah, G. (2021). Does STEM-project based learning improve students’ literacy
as scientific competencies?. Biosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi, 14(2), 167-174.
[Link]
Saxena, P., Gupta, S. K., Mehrotra, D., Kamthan, S., Sabir, H., Katiyar, P., & Prasad, S. S. (2018). Assessment of digital
literacy and use of smart phones among Central Indian dental students. Journal of Oral Biology and
Craniofacial Research, 8, 40-43. [Link]
Sayuti, H. A. M., Ann, T. G., Saimi, W. M. S. A., Bakar, M. A., Bakar, A., Dawawi, S. N. A., & Mohamad, M. (2020). Using
Gold Standard Project Based Learning for Intermediate Year Three Pupils to Enhance English Speaking Skill:
A Conceptual Paper. Creative Education, 11(10), 1873-1889. [Link]
Sheu, F. R., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Taking a signal: A review of gesture-based computing research in education.
Computers & Education, 78, 268-277. [Link]
Simbolon, R., & Koeswanti, H. D. (2020). Comparison of PBL (project based learning) models with PBL (problem
based learning) models to determine student learning outcomes and motivation. International Journal of
Elementary Education, 4(4), 519-529. [Link]
Simone, C. D. (2014). Problem-based learning in teacher education: trajectories of change. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 4(12), 17-29.
Setiawan, D., Mahanal, S., & Zubaidah, S. (2021). RICOSRE: Effect and potential to enhance biology students’ digital
literacy at Universitas Negeri Malang. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2330, 030041.
[Link]
Suciari, N. K. D., lbrohim, & Suwono, H. (2021). The impact of PjBL integrated STEAM on students’ communication
skills and concept mastery in high school biology learning. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2330, 030060.
[Link]
Supratman, Zubaidah, S., Corebima, A. D., & Ibrohim. (2021). The Effect Size of Different Learning on Critical and
Creative Thinking Skills of Biology Students. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 187-206.
[Link]
Torlakson, T. (2014). Innovate: A blueprint for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in california public
education. California: State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
[Link]
Ulger, K. (2018). The effect of problem-based learning on the creative thinking and critical thinking disposition of
students in visual arts education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12(1), 10-21.
[Link]
Utama, C., Sajidan., Nurkamto, J., & Wiranto. (2019). Investigating Biology Pre-service Teacher Perception of
General Biology and Digital Literacy. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 243, 012046.
[Link]
Utomo, A. P., Hasanah, L., Hariyadi, S., Narulita, E., Suratno., & Umamah, N. (2020). The effectiveness of STEAM-
based biotechnology module equipped with flash animation for biology learning in high school.
International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 463-476. [Link]

10.21009/biosferjpb.24468 Hehakaya et al E-ISSN: 2614-3984 84