Content uploaded by Yosep Dwi Kristanto
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yosep Dwi Kristanto on Aug 09, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Yosep Dwi Kristanto
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yosep Dwi Kristanto on Jul 15, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Southeast Asia Mathematics Education Journal
Volume 13, No 1 (2023)
1
Integrating STEAM Education and Computational Thinking: Analysis of Students’
Critical and Creative Thinking Skills in an Innovative Teaching and Learning
1, 2 Mathematics Education Department, Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2yosepdwikristanto@usd.ac.id
Abstract
Teaching and learning in the 21st century should equip students with critical and creative
thinking skills to be ready to live and contribute productively to society. One suitable learning
approach is integrating STEAM education and computational thinking—the STEAM-CT
approach. The present study aims to describe students' critical and creative thinking skills in
STEAM-CT integrative learning. The descriptive qualitative method was employed in this
study. The current study included 26 eighth-grade students from a private middle school in
Yogyakarta, Indonesia. According to the analysis, the students demonstrated critical and
creative thinking skills during the integrative STEAM-CT learning process, particularly in
planning problem solving, flexibility in providing problem solutions, and the aesthetics of their
product designs. However, students must still be encouraged to conduct in-depth evaluations
and use the results for improvement. For recommendation, to promote students' critical and
creative thinking skills, feedback practices could be embedded in teaching and learning.
Keywords: Critical thinking; creativity; STEAM education; computational thinking.
Introduction
Uncertainty and complexity in the twenty-first century necessitate a learning transformation.
Learning in the twenty-first century should prepare students to work, live, and become
productive citizens in the face of a variety of challenges (Kristanto, 2020). At least this learning
needs to equip students with critical and creative thinking skills (Ritter et al., 2020; Shavelson
et al., 2019; Van Laar et al., 2020). Both of these skills are important to use in dealing with the
emergence of new technologies, especially information and communication technologies that
make it easier to move, present, manipulate, and re-present information (Almerich et al., 2020;
Higgins, 2014).
Even though critical and creative thinking skills are crucial, many students still lack critical
thinking and creativity. A study conducted by Benyamin et al. (2021) discovered that the
majority of their subjects' students had moderate or low critical thinking skills. This result is
consistent with that revealed by Wayudi et al. (2020). Apart from these two studies, several
studies also have demonstrated the need to enhance student’s critical thinking skills (Agnafia,
2019; Hidayat et al., 2019; Hidayati et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Ridho et al., 2020).
Similar to the problem of critical thinking skills, many students still have low creative
thinking skills. A study conducted by Rasnawati et al. (2019) unveiled that the vocational high
school students who were their subjects had low creative thinking skills. Rachman and Amelia
(2020) also found similar results, specifically, the creative thinking skills of high school
students who were their subjects were lacking. Several other studies corroborate the findings
of these studies. (Kadir et al., 2022; Siregar, 2019; Suparman & Zanthy, 2019).
1Epifani Putri Mariana & 2Yosep Dwi Kristanto
Integrating STEAM Education and Computational Thinking: Analysis of Students’ Critical and
Creative Thinking Skills in an Innovative Teaching and Learning
2
The existence of problems related to students’ critical and creative thinking skills indicates
the need for learning innovation. Vincent-Lancrin et al. (2019) provide learning design
principles to develop students’ critical thinking skills and creativity. To begin, such learning
must pique students' interest and be challenging. The learning should also help students develop
technical skills and enable them to create actual products or artifacts. Furthermore, the learning
environment must allow students to co-design components of a product or solution. It implies
that learning must be open to a wide range of student's interests, ideas, and abilities, as well as
provide space for student agency. The principle of respect for diverse perspectives in dealing
with problems is as follows. Furthermore, learning also needs to provide space for the
unexpected. Finally, the learning also needs to provide space and time for students to reflect as
well as to give and receive feedback. Giving and receiving feedback not only encourage
students to improve their work but also facilitate them to learn (Kristanto, 2018). One learning
approach that follows these principles is STEAM education.
STEAM education is a learning approach that integrates Science, Technology, Engineering,
Arts, and Mathematics. STEAM education makes students more appreciative of various fields
of knowledge simultaneously. It sparks the development of their critical and creative thinking
skills in re-imagining new and old real-world problems (B. Wilson & Hawkins, 2019). The
STEAM approach is innovative because it is considered up-to-date in the Industry 4.0 era,
which can support critical and creative thinking skills through project-based learning (Lu et al.,
2022; Shatunova et al., 2019). This project-based STEAM learning is based on real-world
problems and can teach students how to research, propose, and select solutions, as well as
design and create products (Chistyakov et al., 2023; Diego-Mantecon et al., 2021).
Generally, implementing the STEAM approach administers an Engineering Design Process
(EDP) (Ozkan & Umdu Topsakal, 2021). Although a variety of EDP cycles is found in the
literature (Haik et al., 2017, p. 9; Hubka, 2015, p. 31), these cycles typically include problem
clarification, program assembly for needs, design planning, prototype construction, testing, and
optimization, product analysis, and product presentations to clients or target groups (Vossen et
al., 2020). These stages can be simplified into five: asking, imagining, planning, creating, and
improving (Hester & Cunningham, 2007). The EDP can bridge science and mathematics
concepts in making or using technology while also considering aesthetics in the STEAM
approach.
According to the literature, the STEAM approach has the potential to develop or improve
students' critical and creative thinking skills. This approach can provide students with the
opportunity to create products that will help them develop their creativity and problem-solving
skills (Katz-Buonincontro, 2018). The implementation of STEAM teaching and learning by
Wilson et al. (2021) for elementary and middle school students illustrated that this approach
effectively increased critical and creative thinking skills. Furthermore, numerous other studies
have discovered similar results, which indicate the STEAM approach can help students develop
critical and creative thinking skills (Alkhabra et al., 2023; Anggraeni & Suratno, 2021;
Engelman et al., 2017; Priantari et al., 2020; Rahmawati et al., 2019).
Problem-solving is a central activity in STEAM education. The problem-solving activities
can be supported by learning designs that support the development of computational thinking
(CT) dimensions (Barr & Stephenson, 2011; Wu & Su, 2021). Decomposition, pattern
recognition, abstraction, and algorithm are the CT dimensions. (Google, 2023). Decomposition
Epiphany Princess Mariana, Yosep Dwi Kristanto
3
is the process of breaking down a complex problem into smaller problems in order to make the
problem easier to understand, handle, or manage. The search for similarities between different
problems is referred to as pattern recognition. Focusing on important information while
ignoring irrelevant details is what abstraction entails. The final dimension, algorithm, refers to
the process of creating steps or rules to solve problems. The four CT dimensions can be
embedded in STEAM learning activities (Barr & Stephenson, 2011).
CT support in teaching and learning is often carried out using computers, especially
programming. It is because programming includes making computer-readable instructions so
that the computer can complete specific tasks or problems (Wang et al., 2022). It is in line with
one of the dimensions of CT, namely the algorithm. Programming is also essential to support
critical tasks related to CT (Grover & Pea, 2013). The programming activities are also often
integrated into STEAM education, such as using Scratch (Oh et al., 2013; Tan et al., 2020) and
Lego Mindstorm (Ding et al., 2019; Ruiz et al., 2019).
CT support in teaching and learning can also be implemented without the use of a computer.
This strategy is appropriate for implementation in schools that lack technological infrastructure
(Brackmann et al., 2017). Thus, integrating CT and STEAM education has a greater potential
to be widely implemented. Furthermore, this integration in learning that does not use computers
or other expensive technology makes it easier for teachers or other practitioners to adopt or
adapt it (Padmi et al., 2022).
In summary, on the one hand, critical and creative thinking skills are two essential skills for
students to live and contribute productively in the 21st century. On the other hand, many
students still lack these two skills. STEAM education that supports the development of CT,
which hereinafter we refer to as STEAM-CT, can potentially develop students’ critical and
creative thinking skills. Such teaching and learning can be implemented without a computer so
that learning activities can be widely adopted or adapted. Therefore, the present study aimed
to analyze students’ critical and creative thinking skills in the STEAM-CT approach, which
did not use computers or other digital technologies.
Methods
The present study employed a descriptive qualitative method. This method is employed to
achieve the research objectives because it is appropriate for describing events or experiences
and seeking in-depth knowledge of the phenomena being studied (Kim et al., 2017; Neergaard
et al., 2009).
Learning Design
The STEAM-CT approach in the present study provided experiences for students to design
and develop seesaw miniatures that are fun, efficient, and safe. The training was conducted
over four meetings. At each meeting, respectively, the students (1) imagine and design a
seesaw; (2) create the designed seesaw; (3) test and present the seesaw; and (4) improve and
reflect on the seesaw.
During the first meeting, students imagined and designed a seesaw that meets three criteria:
fun, efficiency, and safety. Students were guided to learn art, simple machines, the types and
strengths of the constituent materials, and linear functions while decomposing the
Integrating STEAM Education and Computational Thinking: Analysis of Students’ Critical and
Creative Thinking Skills in an Innovative Teaching and Learning
4
characteristics of the seesaw. With this knowledge, the students devised a list of the tools and
materials required, sketched the design, and planned the sequential steps that would be used to
construct the seesaw.
Students made seesaws at the second meeting, using the tools and materials planned and the
design sketches drawn at the first meeting. Students did this by listing and explaining what
needs to be considered when building a seesaw. In addition, the students were asked to analyze
and explain what influences the balance of the seesaw.
Students tested and presented their seesaws at the third meeting. They tested the seesaw and
evaluated it to discover if it was enjoyable, efficient, and safe. They also analyzed areas for
improvement and observed the seesaw patterns of other groups to inspire them to improve their
own. Following that, the students presented their seesaws in classical.
In the fourth meeting, students improved their seesaw and reflected on their learning
experiences. The learning activities at this meeting began with decomposing the steps to
improve the seesaw. After that, students identified the variables so that the seesaw fits the fun,
efficient, and safety criteria. Finally, students reflected on their learning experiences to abstract
the factors that support successful seesaw development. They also modelled the seesaw using
linear functions.
Table 1 illustrates the learning experiences mapping in each meeting with STEAM content
and CT dimensions. The learning design was discussed with the Mathematics, Natural
Sciences, and Arts teachers of the students who were the subjects of the present study.
Table 1
Mapping Learning Activities, STEAM Content, and CT Dimensions
Meeting
Learning experience
STEAM content
CT dimensions
1
Imagining and
designing seesaws
Simple machine (Natural Science);
simple product engineering (Craft);
model image (Arts and Culture);
straight line equations
(Mathematics)
Decomposition,
algorithm
2
Creating seesaws
Simple machine (Natural Science);
creating simple products (Crafts)
Decomposition
3
Testing and presenting
seesaws
Simple machine (Natural Science);
testing and communicating of
phenomena (Informatics); Testing
and presenting of engineering
works (Craft)
Pattern recognition
4
Improving seesaws and
reflecting on learning
experiences
Simple machine (Natural Science);
Engineering procedures (Craft);
application of linear functions
(Mathematics)
Decomposition,
abstraction
Research Subject
The subjects of the present study were 26 eighth-grade students, consisting of 14 boys and
12 girls. All of the subjects came from one class at a private junior high school in Yogyakarta,
Indonesia. The subject selection was conducted by first discussing with the teachers so that the
selected students were usually active and had good verbal skills. Thus, the data obtained from
Epiphany Princess Mariana, Yosep Dwi Kristanto
5
these subjects can provide rich and valuable information about their critical and creative
thinking skills (Campbell et al., 2020; Kelly, 2010).
Data Collection
The data in the present study were the students’ answers in their worksheets and the seesaw
construction they created. The sequence of the questions and instructions in the worksheet is
adjusted to the EDP cycle (see Appendix A). The questions and instructions in the worksheet
are also structured following indicators of critical and creative thinking skills, as shown in
Table 2. Critical thinking skills indicators are obtained by synthesizing critical thinking skills
indicators from Ennis (2015), Sihotang et al. (2012), and Wade (1995). Formulating the
problem, gathering facts, planning, devising a strategy, and providing additional explanation
were the obtained critical thinking skills indicators. The indicators of creative thinking skills
were synthesized from Treffinger et al. (2002), Mahmudi (2010), and Guilford (1976). The
synthesis obtained four indicators: fluency, flexibility, authenticity, and detailedness. These
indicators were used to create tasks in student worksheets as well as guidelines for scoring
students' products. Table 2 depicts the mapping of indicators of critical and creative thinking
skills, student worksheet tasks, and student products.
Table 2
Mapping of Critical and Creative Thinking Indicators, Student Worksheet Tasks, and Student
Product
Skill
Indicator
Student Worksheet’s
Tasks
Student’s Product
Critical thinking
Formulating the problem
I.5
Gathering facts
I.1, I.2, I.3, IV.3
Planning
I.4, I.5
Devising strategy
II.1, IV.1
Purpose
Providing further explanation
II.2, III.1, III.2, IV.2, IV.3,
IV.4
Purpose
Creative
thinking
Fluency
II.1, IV.1
Flexibility
I.4, I.5
Authenticity
I.4, I.5, III.2, IV.3
Design and construction
Detailedness
II.2, III.1, III.2, IV.2, IV.3,
IV.4
Relevance
Data Analysis
The data analysis process began with the development of a rubric for scoring student
answers on worksheets and the products they created. The rubric is divided into two parts: a
rubric for students' worksheet answers and the resulting seesaw product.
Each item on the worksheet has a maximum score of 10 or 15. The difference in the
maximum score indicates a difference in cognitive demand in each question. As an illustration,
we consider question number I.4, which asks students to name the tools and materials they will
use, had a smaller cognitive demand than question number IV.1, which asks them in groups to
discuss and write down the strategies they need to improve their works. It aligns with our
findings in the Results and Discussion that students experience difficulties developing
Integrating STEAM Education and Computational Thinking: Analysis of Students’ Critical and
Creative Thinking Skills in an Innovative Teaching and Learning
6
improvement strategies. Thus, questions I.4 and IV.1 have a maximum score of 10 and 15,
respectively. We administered the same considerations to determine the maximum score for
the other questions. To demonstrate how we score students’ answers on the worksheet, identify
the example of one group’s answers shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. A sample of students’ answers on the worksheet
Based on Figure 1, the group mentioned its improvement strategy and its purpose clearly
and fluently. Therefore, we suggested that the group has demonstrated devising strategy and
fluency skills.
There are three scoring aspects that we use for students’ seesaw products, i.e. relevance,
design and construction, and purpose of the product. Product relevance was related to
detailedness, product design and construction were related to authenticity, and product purpose
was related to devising strategy and providing further explanation. We scored each aspect of
the scoring with a range of 1 to 4. As an illustration of the scoring process that we carried out
on student products, consider Figure 2 below.
Figure 2. A sample of students’ seesaw product
Figure 2 depicts a product that is distinct from those produced by other groups. The
originality comes from the use of various colors and decorations while maintaining a balance
of seesaws. Thus, we proposed that the group's work was authentic. We provided this product
with a four for product form or authenticity. We scored the other aspects using similar criteria.
After completing the scoring process, we utilized descriptive statistics, specifically
percentages, to summarize the scores for each indicator of critical and creative thinking skills.
In addition, we use thematic analysis to identify key themes in students' worksheet answers.
Braun and Clarke (2006) proposed a procedure for conducting thematic analysis.
Epiphany Princess Mariana, Yosep Dwi Kristanto
7
Results and Discussion
The results of the analysis of students’ critical and creative thinking skills are presented and
discussed in the following three sections.
Students’ Critical Thinking Skills
Table 3 displays the average score of critical thinking skills based on the students’ answers
on the worksheet and the seesaw product presented for each indicator. Based on these five
indicators, the student's critical thinking skills averaged 73.97.
Table 3
Students’ Critical Thinking Skills
Indicator
Average
Formulating the problem
72
Gathering facts
75.5
Planning
86
Devising strategy
66
Providing further explanation
70.38
Average
73.97
The skill of planning is the indicator of critical thinking skills with the highest average score.
Two themes of planning skills can be discovered in the student's worksheet answers. First,
students can meticulously plan the tools and materials to be used. Second, students can design
each design's function or usability.
Translation:
Write down the tools and materials that will be used
(tools and materials provided: glue gun and popsicle
sticks)
Answer:
Tools:
- A hot glue gun (to hold the sticks together)
- Markers (to draw)
- Scissors/cutter (to cut cardboard and sticks)
Materials:
- Popsicle sticks (as the arm of the seesaw)
- A cardboard/paperboard (as base and pedestal)
- Loads (coins) (to check the seesaw’s balance)
Figure 3. Planning for tools and materials in one group’s answer.
In the worksheet, all students described the tools and materials in detail. Figure 3 depicts
the response of one group of students. The diagram shows that the group was able to not only
plan tools and materials in detail but also provide a comprehensive classification of tools and
materials. In other words, they can create categories and then determine who the members of
those categories are. Furthermore, the group provided functional descriptions of the tools and
materials they intend to employ to construct a seesaw.
Integrating STEAM Education and Computational Thinking: Analysis of Students’ Critical and
Creative Thinking Skills in an Innovative Teaching and Learning
8
Translation:
Draw a seesaw design as detailed and attractive as
possible! Write down the reasons too!
Answer:
Board length = 30 cm
Board width = 2 cm
Fulcrum height = 6 cm, fulcrum width = 3 cm
Load weight = 3 grams (1 coin)
The length and height of the handle = 2 cm
Reason
a. The length is 30 cm, thus, it is not too short
b. The width is 2 cm, thus, it is not too thick
c. The height of the fulcrum is 6 cm, thus, it can
seesaw
d. The weight of the load is 3 grams, thus, it balances
e. The length of the handle is 2 cm, thus, it is not too
long
f. The handle length of the horizontal part is 2 cm to
match the length of the handle
Figure 4. Mentioning the function of the design from one group’s answer.
The second theme is that students design the designs' function or usability. Almost every
group created a seesaw based on the size and design of the seesaw drawn. The group includes
reasons for each size and explains its function, especially for those shown in Figure 4.
However, developing strategy skills is the indicator of critical thinking skills that receives
the lowest score. There are three themes associated with strategy development: (1) product
development strategy, (2) evaluation awareness, and (3) improvement strategy.
Figure 5. The initial and final product of one group.
Figure 5 demonstrates the seesaw product before (left) and after (right) revision. During the
trial and presentation, the students who constructed the seesaw saw their mistakes and received
feedback from the teacher. The feedback relates to the balance, comfort, and aesthetics of the
seesaw. Nonetheless, these students have not used the feedback to develop improvement
strategies and have not used these strategies to improve the seesaw.
Epiphany Princess Mariana, Yosep Dwi Kristanto
9
Students’ Creative Thinking Skills
Table 4 displays the average score of creative thinking skills based on the worksheet answers
and seesaw products of each indicator. Based on these four indicators, the average creative
thinking skills of students are 73.05.
Table 4
Students’ Creative Thinking Skills
Indicator
Average
Fluency
57
Flexibility
86
Authenticity
78.83
Detailedness
70.38
Average
73.05
Four indicators of creative thinking skills are evaluated, with each indicator receiving a
different average score. Flexibility is the creative thinking skills indicator with the highest
average score. There are two themes that emerged from students' work in terms of their
flexibility: (1) variations in answers and problem-solving; and (2) flexibility in creating
appealing designs.
Translation:
Draw a seesaw design as detailed and attractive as
possible! Write down the reasons too!
Answer:
Tools and materials
- Cardboard (as a base)
- Scissors (for cutting)
- Toothpick (as support reinforcement)
- Sticks (as seesaw)
- Glue (as adhesive)
- Weights (plasticine)
The seesaw has a balanced length and a moderate
fulcrum, so the board does not rise too high (safe
seesaw).
Figure 6. Students work showing the theme of variation
Figure 6 displays students who provide a variety of answers and problem-solving ideas, as
well as flexibility in creating appealing designs. The students documented the tools and
materials. Surprisingly, these students documented the function of each tool and material. This
answer is also unique in that it mentions "play dough" as the weight. It means that the students
come up with different problem-solving ideas for seesaw weights.
Integrating STEAM Education and Computational Thinking: Analysis of Students’ Critical and
Creative Thinking Skills in an Innovative Teaching and Learning
10
Furthermore, Figure 6 demonstrates that these students are adaptable in creating appealing
designs. These students present three variations of the image, each with a unique perspective
and function. The students each contribute a unique nuance to the product designs. Figure 7
depicts the finished seesaw, whose design is depicted in Figure 6. Even though the seesaw is
imperfect, in that it is not balanced and the weight is not the same as planned, the students have
created a seesaw that is nearly identical to the design they worked on.
Figure 7. Seesaw product
The fluency indicator, on the other hand, receives the lowest score for creative thinking
skills. Several factors contribute to the current study's average student fluency score, which is
still relatively low. These factors include (1) insufficient problem solutions and (2) a lack of
understanding of the errors.
Translation:
Write the group’s strategy for fixing the seesaw!
- Create a new seesaw
Figure 8. Example of low fluency
Figure 8 portrays one of the students' incomplete answers in writing solutions, as well as a
lack of comprehension of the errors. The student devised a plan to improve the seesaw by
replacing it with a new one. These students may develop the notion that the seesaw they
construct must be replaced due to numerous errors. These students, however, did not provide a
detailed solution to improve it. The students are aware of errors in their previous designs but
are unable to write down ideas for how to correct them fluently.
Discussion
The present study has described the students’ critical and creative thinking skills in
integrative STEAM-CT teaching and learning. Based on the analysis of critical thinking skills,
the students are able to make a reasonable plan. It is because they are given a space to make a
plan through one of the EDP stages, namely planning (National Research Council, 2012).
Planning is an essential activity in learning. It is because planning necessitates students to
consider their objectives and devise strategies to achieve them (Eilam & Aharon, 2003). Such
Epiphany Princess Mariana, Yosep Dwi Kristanto
11
planning can trigger the desired learning behaviors and ultimately lead to higher learning
outcomes (Raković et al., 2022).
Based on an analysis of creative thinking skills, the students are adaptable in providing
alternative solutions and can create an appealing design. The students have provided reasons
and functions for the design aspects on which they are working. Their design drawing is also
visually appealing. It is inextricably associated with the critical role of the arts in STEAM
integrative learning, which encourages student creativity (Liao, 2016).
The present study also found that several aspects of critical and creative thinking skills need
attention. This research shows that some students still lack detail in providing solutions to
problems. In general, the students are less aware of the errors made. The students need to
evaluate the errors so that the errors can be corrected and not repeated. In addition, they also
need to use the feedback they receive for improvement. Therefore, evaluation practices
supported by students’ feedback literacy are essential for solving problems (Carless & Boud,
2018; Ifenthaler, 2012). It can be corroborated in an integrative STEAM-CT approach by
providing peer feedback activities (Chang et al., 2021; Kristanto, 2018). This feedback practice
supports the growth of students’ critical thinking skills and creativity (Vincent-Lancrin et al.,
2019).
There are several limitations to the current study. Following the characteristics of the
research method used, namely descriptive qualitative, this study only directly describes the
critical and creative thinking skills of students who are the subject of this study. Thus, the
findings of this study cannot be generalized to different contexts and settings. Second, this
study uses students’ answers on worksheets and their final product. Thus, the description of
students’ critical and creative thinking skills presented here is their skills during the learning
process.
Conclusion
The current study explained students' critical and creative thinking skills in innovative
STEAM and CT teaching and learning practices. This practice has sparked students to be able
to make plans to solve problems, be flexible in providing solutions, and create aesthetic product
designs. Nonetheless, this study also found that it was necessary to support students in carrying
out in-depth evaluations so that they could provide accurate solutions. In addition, students also
need to be supported in acquiring feedback literacy. Therefore, we recommend that the
STEAM-CT approach needs to provide space for students to develop their feedback literacy.
Acknowledgements
We want to express our sincere gratitude to Beni Utomo, M.Sc. and Adhi Surya Nugraha,
S.Pd., M.Mat. for their invaluable comments and feedback on our initial manuscript. We also
thank Scholastica Lista Febriantari, S.Pd., Dina Ari Puspita, S.Pd., and Antonius W., S.Pd. for
their generosity in validating our lesson plans. Finally, we are grateful to all the research
participants who generously gave their time and effort to this project.
Integrating STEAM Education and Computational Thinking: Analysis of Students’ Critical and
Creative Thinking Skills in an Innovative Teaching and Learning
12
References
Agnafia, D. N. (2019). Analisis kemampuan berpikir kritis siswa dalam pembelajaran biologi.
Florea : Jurnal Biologi Dan Pembelajarannya, 6(1), 45.
https://doi.org/10.25273/florea.v6i1.4369
Alkhabra, Y. A., Ibrahem, U. M., & Alkhabra, S. A. (2023). Augmented reality technology in
enhancing learning retention and critical thinking according to STEAM program.
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 174.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01650-w
Almerich, G., Suárez‐Rodríguez, J., Díaz‐García, I., & Cebrián‐Cifuentes, S. (2020). 21st‐
century competences: The relation of ICT competences with higher‐order thinking
capacities and teamwork competences in university students. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 36(4), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12413
Anggraeni, R. E. & Suratno. (2021). The analysis of the development of the 5E-STEAM
learning model to improve critical thinking skills in natural science lesson. Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, 1832(1), 012050. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
6596/1832/1/012050
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved
and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1),
48–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
Benyamin, B., Qohar, Abd., & Sulandra, I. M. (2021). Analisis kemampuan berpikir kritis
siswa SMA kelas X dalam memecahkan masalah SPLTV. Jurnal Cendekia : Jurnal
Pendidikan Matematika, 5(2), 909–922. https://doi.org/10.31004/cendekia.v5i2.574
Brackmann, C. P., Román-González, M., Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Casali, A., & Barone,
D. (2017). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities
in primary school. Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary
Computing Education, 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137069
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., &
Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples.
Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake
of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Chang, D., Hwang, G.-J., Chang, S.-C., & Wang, S.-Y. (2021). Promoting students’ cross-
disciplinary performance and higher order thinking: A peer assessment-facilitated
STEM approach in a mathematics course. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 69(6), 3281–3306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10062-z
Chistyakov, A. A., Zhdanov, S. P., Avdeeva, E. L., Dyadichenko, E. A., Kunitsyna, M. L., &
Yagudina, R. I. (2023). Exploring the characteristics and effectiveness of project-based
learning for science and STEAM education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science
and Technology Education, 19(5), em2256. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13128
Epiphany Princess Mariana, Yosep Dwi Kristanto
13
Diego-Mantecon, J.-M., Prodromou, T., Lavicza, Z., Blanco, T. F., & Ortiz-Laso, Z. (2021).
An attempt to evaluate STEAM project-based instruction from a school mathematics
perspective. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 53(5), 1137–1148.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01303-9
Ding, F., Cai, M., & Chen, S. (2019). Application of STEAM Theory in Robot Teaching.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Economics and Management,
Education, Humanities and Social Sciences (EMEHSS 2019). Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Economics and Management, Education, Humanities and
Social Sciences (EMEHSS 2019), Suzhou City, China. https://doi.org/10.2991/emehss-
19.2019.24
Eilam, B., & Aharon, I. (2003). Students’ planning in the process of self-regulated learning.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 304–334.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00042-5
Engelman, S., Magerko, B., McKlin, T., Miller, M., Edwards, D., & Freeman, J. (2017).
Creativity in Authentic STEAM Education with EarSketch. Proceedings of the 2017
ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 183–188.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017763
Ennis, R. H. (2015). Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception. In M. Davies & R. Barnett
(Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education (pp. 31–47).
Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_2
Google. (2023). Exploring computational thinking.
https://edu.google.com/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the
field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
Guilford, J. P. (1976). Aptitude for creative thinking: one or many? The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 10(3), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1976.tb01019.x
Haik, Y., Sivaloganathan, S., & Shahin, T. M. (2017). Engineering design process (3rd ed).
Cengage.
Hester, K., & Cunningham, C. (2007, June). Engineering is elementary: An engineering and
technology curriculum for children [Paper presentation]. American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, Hawaii.
https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--1469
Hidayat, F., Akbar, P., & Bernard, M. (2019). Analisis kemampuan berfikir kritis matematik
serta kemandiriaan belajar siswa SMP terhadap materi SPLDV. Journal on Education,
1(2), 515–523.
Hidayati, A. R., Fadly, W., & Ekapti, R. F. (2021). Analisis keterampilan berpikir kritis siswa
pada pembelajaran IPA materi bioteknologi. Jurnal Tadris IPA Indonesia, 1(1), 34–48.
https://doi.org/10.21154/jtii.v1i1.68
Higgins, S. (2014). Critical thinking for 21st-century education: A cyber-tooth curriculum?
PROSPECTS, 44(4), 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-014-9323-0
Hubka, V. (2015). Principles of Engineering Design. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Integrating STEAM Education and Computational Thinking: Analysis of Students’ Critical and
Creative Thinking Skills in an Innovative Teaching and Learning
14
Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Determining the effectiveness of prompts for self-regulated learning in
problem-solving scenarios. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 38–
52. JSTOR.
Kadir, I. A., Machmud, T., Usman, K., & Katili, N. (2022). Analisis kemampuan berpikir
kreatif matematis siswa pada materi segitiga. Jambura Journal of Mathematics
Education, 3(2), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.34312/jmathedu.v3i2.16388
Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2018). Gathering STE(A)M: Policy, curricular, and programmatic
developments in arts-based science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education Introduction to the special issue of Arts Education Policy Review: STEAM
Focus. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(2), 73–76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2017.1407979
Kelly, S. E. (2010). Qualitative Interviewing Techniques and Styles. In I. Bourgeault, R.
Dingwall, & R. De Vries (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health
Research. SAGE Publications.
Kim, H., Sefcik, J. S., & Bradway, C. (2017). Characteristics of qualitative descriptive studies:
A systematic review. Research in Nursing & Health, 40(1), 23–42.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21768
Kristanto, Y. D. (2018). Technology-enhanced pre-instructional peer assessment: Exploring
students’ perceptions in a Statistical Methods course. Research and Evaluation in
Education, 4(2), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v4i2.20951
Kristanto, Y. D. (2020). Upaya peningkatan kualitas pembelajaran matematika melalui flipped
classroom dan gamifikasi: Suatu kajian pustaka. In PRISMA: Prosiding Seminar
Nasional Matematika (Vol. 3, pp. 266–278). Universitas Negeri Semarang.
Li, Y., Li, K., Wei, W., Dong, J., Wang, C., Fu, Y., Li, J., & Peng, X. (2021). Critical thinking,
emotional intelligence and conflict management styles of medical students: A cross-
sectional study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100799.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100799
Liao, C. (2016). From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary: An arts-integrated approach to
STEAM education. Art Education, 69(6), 44–49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2016.1224873
Lu, S.-Y., Lo, C.-C., & Syu, J.-Y. (2022). Project-based learning oriented STEAM: The case
of micro–bit paper-cutting lamp. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 32(5), 2553–2575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09714-1
Mahmudi, A. (2010). Mengukur Kemampuan Berpikir Kreatif Matematis. Konferensi Nasional
Matematika XV, Manado.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
Neergaard, M. A., Olesen, F., Andersen, R. S., & Sondergaard, J. (2009). Qualitative
description – the poor cousin of health research? BMC Medical Research Methodology,
9(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-52
Oh, J., Lee, J., & Kim, J. (2013). Development and application of STEAM based education
program using scratch: Focus on 6th graders’ science in elementary school. In J. J. Park,
Epiphany Princess Mariana, Yosep Dwi Kristanto
15
J. K.-Y. Ng, H.-Y. Jeong, & B. Waluyo (Eds.), Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering
(pp. 493–501). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6738-6_60
Ozkan, G., & Umdu Topsakal, U. (2021). Exploring the effectiveness of STEAM design
processes on middle school students’ creativity. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 31(1), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09547-z
Padmi, R. S., Subarni, T., & Nurhasanah, F. (2022). Disability-Friendly Environment with
Ramp: STEM Activity in Mathematics Classroom for Promoting Social Justice.
Southeast Asian Mathematics Education Journal, 12(2), 149–160.
https://doi.org/10.46517/seamej.v12i2.195
Priantari, I., Prafitasari, A. N., Kusumawardhani, D. R., & Susanti, S. (2020). Improving
Students Critical Thinking through STEAM-PjBL Learning. Bioeducation Journal,
4(2), 94–102.
Rachman, A. F., & Amelia, R. (2020). Analisis kemampuan berpikir kreatif matematis siswa
SMA di kabupaten bandung barat dalam menyelesaikan soal pada materi trigonometri.
Maju, 7(1), 83–88.
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. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
6596/1156/1/012033
Raković, M., Bernacki, M. L., Greene, J. A., Plumley, R. D., Hogan, K. A., Gates, K. M., &
Panter, A. T. (2022). Examining the critical role of evaluation and adaptation in self-
regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 68, 102027.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.102027
Rasnawati, A., Rahmawati, W., Akbar, P., & Putra, H. D. (2019). Analisis kemampuan berfikir
kreatif matematis siswa smk pada materi sistem persamaan linier dua variabel (SPLDV)
di kota cimahi. Jurnal Cendekia : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 3(1), 164–177.
https://doi.org/10.31004/cendekia.v3i1.87
Ridho, S., Ruwiyatun, R., Subali, B., & Marwoto, P. (2020). Analisis kemampuan berpikir
kritis siswa pokok bahasan klasifikasi materi dan perubahannya. Jurnal Penelitian
Pendidikan IPA, 6(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v6i1.194
Ritter, S. M., Gu, X., Crijns, M., & Biekens, P. (2020). Fostering students’ creative thinking
skills by means of a one-year creativity training program. PLOS ONE, 15(3), e0229773.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229773
Ruiz, F., Zapatera, A., Montés, N., & Rosillo-Guerrero, N. (2019). From STEM to STEAM
using LEGO mindstorms in learning projects obtained from LOMCE. INTED2019
Proceedings, 5592–5598. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2019.1374
Shatunova, O., Anisimova, T., Sabirova, F., & Kalimullina, O. (2019). STEAM as an
innovative educational technology. Journal of Social Studies Education Research,
10(2), 131–144.
Shavelson, R. J., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Beck, K., Schmidt, S., & Marino, J. P. (2019).
Assessment of university students’ critical thinking: Next generation performance
assessment. International Journal of Testing, 19(4), 337–362.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2018.1543309
Integrating STEAM Education and Computational Thinking: Analysis of Students’ Critical and
Creative Thinking Skills in an Innovative Teaching and Learning
16
Sihotang, K., K., F. R., Molan, B., Ujan, A. A., & Ristyantoro, R. (2012). Critical thinking:
membangun pemikiran logis. PT Pustaka Sinar Harapan.
Siregar, H. M. (2019). Analisis kesalahan siswa dalam menyelesaikan soal tes kemampuan
berpikir kreatif matematis materi lingkaran. AKSIOMA: Jurnal Program Studi
Pendidikan Matematika, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.24127/ajpm.v8i3.2379
Suparman, T., & Zanthy, L. S. (2019). Analisis kemampuan beripikir kreatif matematis siswa
SMP. Journal on Education, 1(2), 503–508.
Tan, W.-L., Samsudin, M. A., Ismail, M. E., & Ahmad, N. J. (2020). Gender differences in
students’ achievements in learning concepts of electricity via STEAM integrated
approach utilizing scratch. Problems of Education in the 21st century, 78(3), 423–448.
https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.423
Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A
guide for educators. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & De Haan, J. (2020).
Determinants of 21st-century skills and 21st-century digital skills for workers: A
systematic literature review. SAGE Open, 10(1), 215824401990017.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900176
Vincent-Lancrin, S., González-Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., De Luca, F., Fernández-Barrerra,
M., Jacotin, G., Urgel, J., & Vidal, Q. (2019). Creativity and critical thinking in
everyday teaching and learning. In S. Vincent-Lancrin, C. González-Sancho, M.
Bouckaert, F. De Luca, M. Fernández-Barrerra, G. Jacotin, J. Urgel, & Q. Vidal,
Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking (pp. 127–164). OECD.
https://doi.org/10.1787/10f841e0-en
Vossen, T. E., Henze, I., De Vries, M. J., & Van Driel, J. H. (2020). Finding the connection
between research and design: The knowledge development of STEM teachers in a
professional learning community. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 30(2), 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09507-7
Wade, C. (1995). Using writing to develop and assess critical thinking. Teaching of
Psychology, 22(1), 24–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2201_8
Wang, C., Shen, J., & Chao, J. (2022). Integrating computational thinking in STEM Education:
A literature review. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
20(8), 1949–1972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10227-5
Wayudi, M., Suwatno, S., & Santoso, B. (2020). Kajian analisis keterampilan berpikir kritis
siswa sekolah menengah atas. Jurnal Pendidikan Manajemen Perkantoran, 5(1), 67–
82. https://doi.org/10.17509/jpm.v5i1.25853
Wilson, B., & Hawkins, B. (2019). Art and science in a transdisciplinary curriculum. CIRCE
Magazine: STEAM Edition, 27–36.
Wilson, H. E., Song, H., Johnson, J., Presley, L., & Olson, K. (2021). Effects of
transdisciplinary STEAM lessons on student critical and creative thinking. The Journal
of Educational Research, 114(5), 445–457.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1975090
Wu, S.-Y., & Su, Y.-S. (2021). Visual programming environments and computational thinking
performance of fifth- and sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 59(6), 1075–1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120988807
Epiphany Princess Mariana, Yosep Dwi Kristanto
17
Appendix A. Student Worksheet
Worksheet I: Let’s think about and design a seesaw!
Let's think about it! A playground in one of the cities has a variety of children's toys. The
seesaw is one of the park's children's toys. How do we make seesaws that are enjoyable,
efficient, and safe?
Task I.1: Identify the characteristics of a fun seesaw!
Task I.2: Identify the characteristics of an efficient seesaw!
Task I.3: Identify the characteristics of a safe seesaw!
Let’s design! Let's design and decide on the tools and materials to use now that we've identified
fun, efficient, and safe seesaws!
Task I.4: Write down the tools and materials utilized (tools and materials provided: hot glue
gun and popsicle sticks)
Task I.5: Draw a seesaw design in detail and as attractive as possible! Write down the reasons
too!
Worksheet II: Let’s make seesaws!
Let's build a seesaw! Let's build a fun, efficient, and safe seesaw using the pre-made designs
and the tools and materials provided!
Task II.1: What factors do you consider when creating seesaws? For instance, the pedestal's
location, the length and width of the board, or the weight of the load)
Task II.2: According to the group, what influences the seesaw to be balanced?
Worksheet III: Let’s test and present the seesaw!
Let us test and then present! Check the results of the seesaw product to see if they are in
accordance with the success indicators, consult with the teacher, and present it to the class!
Task III.1: Write down the evaluation results and analyze your group’s mistakes!
Task III.2: Write down the improvement/improvement efforts that the group will do in the
seesaw project!
Worksheet IV: Let’s fix and reflect on the seesaw!
Let’s fix the seesaw! It’s time to fix the seesaw based on the results of trials, evaluations, and
improvement efforts.
Task IV.1: Write down the group’s strategy for fixing the seesaw!
Task IV.2: Which combination of variables influences the correctly constructed seesaw?
Let’s reflect! Reflect on the results of doing a seesaw project with your group mates!
Task IV.3: Draw the final design of the finished product, and determine the following: (a) the
seesaw gradient, if one side is loaded; and (b) the straight-line equation of the seesaw if one
side is loaded.
Task IV.4: Write down your conclusions after doing a seesaw project!
Integrating STEAM Education and Computational Thinking: Analysis of Students’ Critical and
Creative Thinking Skills in an Innovative Teaching and Learning
18