K-12 STEM Education

Vol. 1, No. 3, Jul-Sep 2015, pp.123-136

Implementation of Authentic Learning and Assessment

through STEM Education Approach
to Improve Students Metacognitive Skills
ILMAN ANWARI*1, SEIJI YAMADA*2, MASASHI UNNO*2, TOMOKI SAITO*1,
IRMA RAHMA SUWARMA*1, LELY MUTAKINATI*1 YOSHISUKE KUMANO*1
*1
Graduate School of Science and Technology, Shizuoka University, Japan
*2
Shizuoka Attached Middle School, Shizuoka University, Japan

ABSTRACT
The important aspects of improving metacognitive skills are knowledge, intelligence,
experience, and practice. STEM education is considered to be one of the most influential
approaches to encouraging students to be self-regulated learners. In STEM education
lessons, students are provided many opportunities to develop their thinking skills
(metacognitive skills, critical and creative thinking). The goals of this study were to identify
the effects of STEM education in the improvement of metacognitive skills, and to investigate
metacognitive activities in STEM education. The participants were middle school students in
the third year. The research instrument was the Metacognitive Activities Inventory (MCAI),
used to identify changes in metacognitive skills before and after the lessons. Furthermore,
portfolios were used to record students learning processes and help them reflect on their
thinking and the tasks. The results show no significant changes in metacognitive skills.
However, STEM education engages students in metacognitive activities. Therefore,
implementation of STEM education in the classroom provides opportunities to students for
understanding the importance of the integration of different disciplines and its applications.
In addition, STEM education can increase students interest in science lessons.
Keywords: STEM education, metacognition, authentic learning, authentic assessment

Introduction
Decreasing enrollments and numbers of students graduating in science and
technology fields in several European countries, as well as Australia, Japan, and the United
States have been cause for concern at the national level because without science and
technology, the economic condition of a country cannot develop well (Gonzales & Kuenzi,
2012; Kearney, 2011; Osborne & Dillon, 2008; Queensland Department of Education,
Training, and the Arts, 2007). The Next Generation Science Standard (NGSS) developed by
the U.S. government is the new framework in science education that provides opportunities
to improve the quality of science education and student achievement (NGSS, 2013).
The vision of NGSS emphasizes that science education must provide challenges for
students in three dimensions, namely science and engineering practices, crosscutting
concepts, and disciplinary core ideas (NGSS, 2013). Therefore, the new challenge for
teaching and learning in science is how teachers can plan and manage science lessons that
combine science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core
ideas. The expectation is that students will achieve meaningful and sustainable learning as a
result.
STEM education is one innovative approach in science learning. STEM education is
similar to Science and Technology in Society (STS), although engineering processes are not
explicitly emphasized in STS. The similarity of STEM and STS is the necessity of use of
scientific processes by students in the classroom (Bybee, 2013; Yager, 1996). Based on the
characteristic of STEM education of focusing on design solutions for real world issues and
Ilman Anwari et al.

problems, a STEM education approach is one way to conduct science and engineering
practices combining several strategies that provide implementation of crosscutting concepts
and core disciplinary ideas in science lessons. Moreover, STEM education is a tool for
helping students become STEM literate (Bybee, 2013; Kearney, 2011).
STEM education activities involve scientific processes and engineering design.
Scientific processes are a methodological approach to the process of inquiry in which
empirically grounded theories of nature are constructed and verified (Betz, 2011). Scientific
processes occur naturally and spontaneously in our minds. By logically breaking down the
steps of our thinking, we can use scientific processes to find out how to answer questions
about how the world works. Scientific processes are not only useful in science, but also any
situation that requires critical thinking. Scientific process skills involve observing qualities,
measuring quantities, sorting and classifying, inferring, predicting, experimenting, and
communicating (Vitti & Torres, 2006).
In order to conduct science and engineering practices, what are the important skills
that students must possess? Metacognitive skills provide strategies to conduct science and
engineering practices effectively and efficiently. Metacognition is a set of higher-order
thinking skills that help students find the best solution to a problem (McGregor, 2006).
Furthermore, many experts in education and educational studies have suggested that
metacognitive skills affect students learning strategies, allowing them to achieve meaningful
learning and encouraging them to become lifelong learners.
Metacognitive skills can be improved through concept maps, complex learning of
unfamiliar problems and issues, taking notes, discussion, and scaffold instruction (Huang,
2012; Sharifi, 2012; Doyle, 2013; Paulsson & Mayer, 1991; Molenaar et al., 2011; Jelinek et
al., 2013; Van Der Stuyf, 2002). STEM education is one form of complex learning that
emphasizes practices in learning, where practices are the innovative steps of complex
learning that must be supported by metacognitive skills (Van Merrienboor & Kirschner,
2007).
The goals of this study were to investigate the effects of scaffolding instruction,
portfolios, and argumentation within a STEM education framework in improving students
metacognitive skills, and to investigate science and engineering practices and the efforts of
students to produce technology. The questions of the study are whether scaffold instruction
and portfolios improved students metacognitive skills, and how students made use of skills
and effort in producing technology.
Scaffold instruction helps students determine the logical steps needed to reach a
goal, while portfolios help students reflect on and evaluate their thinking, and then monitor
and plan their activities and knowledge. Discussion allows students to share ideas and
thinking, which can become a medium for reflection and evaluation of their own thinking.
Furthermore, STEM education is an approach to teaching scientific and mathematic
applications through engineering activities that involve the development of technology.
Therefore, the combination of scaffold instruction, portfolios, and discussion within a STEM
education framework will improve students metacognitive skills.
Methodology
This study was conducted at the middle school level. The participants were four
classes of third-year middle school students. Each class was divided into ten groups of four
or five students, with the requirement that each group there must have female student(s).
Each class had three lessons with the same instruction. This lesson was project based
learning, so thinking skills and performances were needed to find a solution. In fact,
students did find a solution in different ways.

124 K-12 STEM Education

 Implementation of Authentic Learning and Assessment
through STEM Education Approach
to Improve Students Metacognitive Skills

Two science teachers who had teaching experience of more than 10 years conducted
these lessons. Each teacher taught two classes. The lessons were conducted during the first
semester and were about magnetism, electricity, and electrical energy. The electricity
energy concept had been introduced to students the previous year. These concepts were
needed to understand energy concepts in the second semester. Therefore, the learning
environment forced students to correlate existed knowledge and new knowledge. This
learning process is one of metacognitive activity.
The problem of the lesson sequence related to real world activities, in which motors
have many functions in vehicles and other machines. The students were asked to make a
DC motor that was faster, more stable, more efficient, or cheaper. They had to decide what
kind of motor was needed. Therefore, students designed solutions based on their goal (goal
orientation is a metacognitive skill). In the design process, students must think about a
given budget to buy the parts of the DC motor and conduct several trials (like scientists and
engineers have to do).
For this research, students completed the pre- and post- Metacognitive Activity
Inventory (MCAI) questionnaire individually. The MCAI consisted of 27 questions that ask
about the frequency (always, sometimes, never) of specific metacognitive activities, which
were translated into Japanese. MCAI questionnaire was given to identify metacognitive
activities that are usually performed when students solve a problem (Cooper & Sandi-Urena,
2008). Questions 1 to 19 are positive statements, while items 20 to 27 are negative
statements. The positive statement "always" was scored as 5 points, "sometimes" 3 points,
and "never " 1 point. For negative statements, the scoring was opposite of positive
statements.
After students filled out the MCAI questionnaire, another questionnaire about DC
motors was given to students. These consisted of questions such as: Have you ever
disassembled d DC motor?; Please mention all of the parts in the DC motor; and What kind
of transformation energy occurs in a DC motor? Research materials included worksheets,
electrical tools (voltage and current tester, batteries, coated wire), the separate components
of the motor (rotor, motor case, wire, terminal, gear, coil), and other materials (circuit,
cutter, stopwatch, sandpaper).
To begin, the teacher introduced how the motor works based on magnetic theory,
and students identified how to utilize motors in many technologies and the benefits and
problems of electrical and gasoline cars. Furthermore, students were provided limited money
to buy parts for the motor: three wires with different diameters, a volt meter, and ampere
meter.
Students measured the current and voltage of each battery (alkaline and Ni-MH
batteries) and the different diameters of wire (0.32mm, 0.4mm, and 0.5mm). This activity is
a type of scaffold instruction. The reasons for measuring the electrical current and voltage
were not explained to students. Hopefully, students could understand the reason of
measuring ampere and voltage after comparing the differences of the motor designs using
different wires. Furthermore, students discussed the parts of the motor that they needed to
buy. During this time, students engaged in discussion within the group based on the data of
amperes and voltage. Debate is important in sharing thinking and ideas based on scientific
evidence (Hand et al., 2009).
In debate and discussion, students have a chance to share and learn new knowledge
and reflect on the ways other students think. Because these lessons could not be finished in
one class time, students were given chance to inquire about conceptual, contextual, and
technical information relating to motors and batteries at their homes. During outside school

Vol. 1, No. 3, Jul-Sep 2015 125

Ilman Anwari et al.

time, each student was required to make a portfolio to report the activity related to motor
design and battery used.
Once the students had finished designing a motor, they tested the performance of
the motor using a toy car on a circuit and recorded the speed of the toy car. In this step,
students identified problems, and evaluated their product. This activity provided students an
opportunity to redesign the solution or change the goal. In the last lesson, students
concluded what they have learned from these lessons with emphasis on energy, electricity,
electrochemistry, and motion concepts.
To assess students' performance, the learning processes of each group, recordings
by video camera and sound recorder, notes from observers, and students' portfolio were
analyzed qualitatively, and the MCAI questionnaire results were analyzed quantitatively
using T-tests to investigate the differences between mean pre- and post-questionnaire for
each question (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 1988). Many methods of recording were used to
avoid not recording any of the processes of learning and to provide material for formative
assessment (Dodge, 2009). In science lessons, assessment of learning processes is
important in improving student performance. Teachers can use it to reflect methods and
strategies to improve their instruction. Some methods in these lessons involve portfolio,
discussion, debate, and scaffolding in order to improve metacognitive skills of students
(Cakan, et al., 2010; Molenaar, 2011; Falk & Brodsky, 2013).

Results and Discussion

The data were collected over several weeks, and each class needed three lessons, or
five to six hours to finish the sequence. In the lessons, most students had difficulty making
the motor (designing it rather than constructing it). Designing the motor means making it
using the rotor and wire, while constructing the motor means making it using the coil (pink
wire). Students needed 10 minutes to fill out the MCAI questionnaire because they needed
to think about their habits when they encounter a problem. The contents of the MCAI
questionnaire consisted of questions about habits during problem-solving activities.
Beside the MCAI questionnaire, students had to fill out a questionnaire about their
experience with DC motors. Around 50% of the students had disassembled a DC motor in
second grade. Furthermore, questions about the transformation of energy in the DC motor
resulted in the following: 40.6% of the students answered electrical to kinetic energy;
39.1% did not know; 13.3% answered kinetic to electrical energy; and 7% answered
electrical energy to kinetic, heat, and sound energy. Not all students who knew about
energy transformation concepts had experience disassembling a DC motor. The concept of
energy transformation is taught to third-year students in the second semester, so many
students still did not understand the forms of energy.
MCAI questionnaire
Metacognition is important to decide the effective and efficient solution. In order to
decide solution, students need to think deeply weakness points and strength points of that
solution. Therefore, the results of pre-questionnaire show students' work in first attempt
solving problem.
The results of the MCAI showed that for the positive statements in the first to the
nineteenth question, students always did the activities on average. Average scores for
positive statements (questions 119) ranged from 3.114.71 on the pre-questionnaire and
2.944.71 on the post-questionnaire. Furthermore, for the negative statements (questions
2027) have mean scores ranged from 1.813.63 on the pre-questionnaire and 1.763.69
on the post-questionnaire.

126 K-12 STEM Education

 Implementation of Authentic Learning and Assessment
through STEM Education Approach
to Improve Students Metacognitive Skills

Generally, students gave higher ratings to Question 4 (Once a result is obtained, I

check to see that it agrees with what I expected). This means that students wanted to try
again if the result did not satisfy them. This evidence correlates with process learning in
STEM lessons. When students designed the motor successfully, but the car did not move or
ran slowly on the circuit, they tried to identify the failure and wanted to try to improve
performances. Moreover, students change the goal of manufacturing a motor after they got
other problems (consume more energy, overheat, and go out from circuit). Students
redesign the fast motor to be safety motor using thinner wire. In these activities, students
were recognized that thicker wire makes motor run rapidly, so they were used thin wire to
solve generated problems.
However, the lowest rating on the MCAI was Question 27 (During practice, if a
problem takes several attempts and I cannot get it right, I get someone to do it for me and
try to memorize the procedure). This means that students easily gave up when they faced
a difficult problem, and then they asked other students or the teacher to do it until there
was success because they wanted to find the correct procedure. After this success, they
tried to do it by themselves. In other words, students made no effort to think deeply and
preferred to memorize everything. According to the teachers and the principal, most
students in this school had the attitude revealed in Question 27.

Table 1. Calculation of Pre- and Post-Questionnaire for all Third-Year Students.

Variable Value Mark
Number of students 147 t calculated at less than the value at alpha
0.1, which means the null hypothesis was
SUM Gain 160
confirmed (not significant).
SUM Gain2 9430
Std. Deviation (s) 7.962
Normal Gain (t) 0.657
t alpha 0.1 1.671
t alpha 0.05 2.000
t alpha 0.01 2.660

The null hypothesis was confirmed, which means there were no significant
differences between the pre- and post-MCAI questionnaire for all third-year students (Table
1). Nevertheless, the means for pre- and post-MCAI show differences in scores. According to
an analysis of mean scores of each question on the MCAI, it was found that students did
most of the activities listed on the questionnaire, which indicates that they already had good
metacognitive skills. This cannot be analyzed as resulting from the lesson because there
were no significant differences. However, when responses were analyzed individually, there
were several students whose attitudes toward the statements changed after the lesson.
Students Design Processes
The worksheets involved measuring voltage and amperes, listing parts, design
(explanation of reasons for using each part), and recording time and differences between
the two batteries. Not all groups filled out the worksheets completely, but the worksheets
adequately represented the attitudes and skills of the students. It is mean that not all
students can work together in a group.

Vol. 1, No. 3, Jul-Sep 2015 127

Ilman Anwari et al.

In scientific experiments, students need to measure more than once to gain the
reliability of the data. If students are inaccurate in measuring and generate inaccurate data,
this can lead to misconceptions in their beliefs. According to some teachers information and
observations of elementary school lessons, students need to understand that electrical
current flows more easily through a thick wire than a thin one (lesson study at Shizuoka
University Attached Elementary School Hamamatsu in 2011). This evidence shows that
students do not apply initial knowledge and experience to a new context. Therefore,
students do not have awareness of their cognition. Students need this kind of skill in the
future to make the best decisions in solving problems and issues. This activity is a
metacognitive activity, where levels of metacognitive awareness in the first level coordinate
with experience and knowledge in the new context of the fourth level (McGregor, 2006).
Most of the students did not know that the wire that was provided was a coated
wire, and that measuring it would generate incorrect data. In addition, students did not
measure current and voltage under the same conditions. As a result, the teacher directed
the students to measure current and voltage again. The teacher communicated with
students using questions that guided them to scratch the wires and measure them under
the same condition. This phenomenon is one of scaffolding in order to guide students'
knowledge and practical skills. Measurement of wires and batteries is one example used in
scientific inquiry, which illustrates inquiry generally done by scientists (Table 2).

Table 2 Measuring voltage and current of two batteries and three wires
Alkaline Battery Ni-MH Battery
Group Properties
No No
Wire 0.32 0.4 0.5 Wire 0.32 0.4 0.5

Voltage (V) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5
A
Current (A) 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.3 2 2 2.9 2.5

Voltage (V) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.25 1.1 1.25 1.3
B
Current (A) 4.5 4; 3.8 4; 4.1 5 4 3.2; 4.1 4.2 3.5; 5

Voltage (V) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
C
Current (A) 2.1 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.2 2

After measuring voltage and current for reference in selecting parts, students had to
design a DC motor within a limited budget and write down all the parts needed and the
reasons. These activities are one of example of engineering practices, where students
design and redesign the motor until they are satisfied. Engineering design is divided into
three levels based on difficulty (Haik & Shahin, 2011). Adaptive design is manufacturing a
product with minor modifications, for example modifications in shape or size, materials,
specifications, and so on. This design activity does not require special knowledge or skills,
and solutions can be found easily. Development design requires more scientific training
and design skills to create a new product. This level of design also starts from an existing
product, but the new product is manifestly different from the existing one, for instance, the
design of plasma and LED television based on traditional tube-based television. New
design is the most difficult level because it requires mastery of previous skills, creativity and
imagination, insight, and foresight. In this lesson, students were given learning tasks at the
level of adaptive design, in which they needed to think logically to choose the best parts
according to their design goal.

128 K-12 STEM Education

 Implementation of Authentic Learning and Assessment
through STEM Education Approach
to Improve Students Metacognitive Skills

Most of the students argued that the thicker wire had less resistance, and that the
electrical current would flow more easily through it. In measuring current and voltage,
students calculated directly the amount of resistance of each wire because they thought that
they needed wire with less resistance to design a quicker DC motor. Nevertheless, there was
a misconception among the students about the correlation between the diameter of the wire
and the electrical current or resistance. Furthermore, students stated that the thickness of
the wire would not affect DC motor performance.
There are interesting accounts of students engaged in designing DC motors.
Students developed misconceptions if they failed in a trial and did not confirm their results
with other students or the teacher. This is one of the reasons for the importance of
discussion and argumentation in the classroom because students can evaluate and reflect on
their cognition and thinking through these processes (Erduran et al., 2006; Hand, et al.,
2009; Jelinek et al., 2013). Therefore, one of methods of improving metacognitive skills is
discussion and argumentation (Jelinek, et. al., 2013; Shen & Liu, 2011).
In the first example of how students designed a DC motor, a wire with greater
diameter was used to generate greater speed based on smaller resistance and higher
electrical current flow in the wire. Then students compared with the original coil (assembled
by Tamiya). The motor rotated more rapidly, but it moved more slowly on the circuit (no
power), while the original coil moved faster on circuit. As a result, students got the idea to
design the coil using a thin wire in order to wind it more compared with a thick wire and
fewer windings. Finally, they found evidence that the two kinds of winding (of the coil) were
no different in terms of performance. As a result, they concluded that low resistance would
generate low power. This conclusion differed from those of other groups that stated that a
thick wire had low resistance and would generate greater power and speed. Finally, they
checked several articles related to the design of a DC motor and concluded that according to
electromagnetic principles (application of scientific concepts), a thick wire, an increased
number of windings, and a strong magnet were needed to design a high-performance
motor. However, they did not think about the heat (engineering).
Another interesting example is the fourth one (Table 3). Students tried to design a
high-performance DC motor without problems. According to measurements of current and
voltage, they found the thick wire better in terms of current and resistance. This result is
parallel with their experiments in elementary school about differences between thick and
thin wire regarding the flow of electrical current (scientific process). The thickness of the
wire affected performance of the DC motor. They used thick wire to design the motor, but
the terminal burned. Then they tried using thin wire to avoid burning the motor, but it did
not work efficiently (moving and stopping). Then students determined that the motor did
not have power, so they got the idea to increase the number of windings. In this lesson, a
long wire was not provided, so students had to use lead and iron to connect two wires.
Finally, they finished designing the motor, but it did not move. After that, they became
aware that one wire was not scratched. They tried redesigning the coil until they produced
the one that worked best (engineering process). Students had to use lead and iron to
connect two wires. Finally, they finished designing the motor, but it did not move. After that,
they became aware that one wire was not scratched. They tried redesigning the coil until
they produced the best coil (engineering process).
The advantage of STEM education is that it improves knowledge and skills among
students. Students redesigned the DC motor when they found a problem. They thought
logically (with high levels of creativity and critical thinking) to solve problems and issues and
identify the source of the failure. They found many solutions after each failure. This means

Vol. 1, No. 3, Jul-Sep 2015 129

Ilman Anwari et al.

that they did not predict the disadvantages of each solution (lack of metacognitive skills).
Nevertheless, the lesson was a good experience that improved their metacognitive skills.
Sometimes experiments create misconceptions among students that are beyond the
control of the teacher. Some students need guidance or scaffolding to achieve meaningful
understanding. The following is an example of a misconception arising from a student
experiment that was beyond the control of the teacher.
0.4 mm < 0.32 mm < 0.5 mm
0.4 mm < 0.32 mm < 0.5 mm

(Translation: What we learned this time was the amount of resistance of the copper
wire. The results were 0.4 mm < 0.32 mm < 0.5 mm. We do not know why the result is 0.4
mm < 0.32 mm < 0.5 mm. We will buy the wire that has the lowest resistance).
This means that the 0.5 mm wire had greater resistance than the 0.32 mm and 0.4
mm wire, but the students reflected on and evaluated their understanding because they did
not have evidence for that conclusion.

Table 3. Examples of Students Logical Thinking and Misconceptions Regarding Design

Parts and Steps in Designing Reason
Rotor, terminal, motor case, Thick wire has high efficiency in the transfer of energy.
0.5 mm wire, and gear When motor uses 0.5 mm wire, trial was not successful
Second attempt using 0.32 mm and terminal was burnt, so we tried using thin wire.
wire (1.5 m) Motor sometimes stops and moves. This means there is
no power; so further winding will improve the power.
They used lead to connect two wires, but not successfully.
As a result, the motor did not rotate. Also, they did not
scratch the joined parts of the two wires.
Third attempt using two times
0.33 mm wire (3 m)

Based on observations during the lessons, most students decided to buy a motor
rather than make it, but they changed their decision after noticing other groups that were
able to design a motor and car that ran faster than the original motor. As a result, all
students tried to design their own motor in the next lesson. They found obstacles to
designing a faster motor, such as shock current, slow speed and ease of overheating, but
through scaffolding they were able to fix these problems.
Of 40 groups, 20 (50%) were successful at designing motors with different speeds;
19 (47.5%) completed their design of the motor but it did not rotate because of problems in
the design of the coil, such as the fact that the wire was not scratched, some wires were not
connected, and so on; and one group gave up on designing a motor and preferred to use a
simple one because the members were all female and did not have experience with DC
motors. This shows that experience and prior knowledge is important in improving other
skills in learning (Dochy, De Ridjt, & Dyck, 2002; Hailikari, Nevgi, & Lindblom-Ylanne, 2007).
Learning Processes in STEM Education
Bransford, Brown and Cocking (1999) provide three suggestions regarding teaching
and learning processes, as follows:
Students come to the classroom with preconceptions about how the world works. If
their initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and

130 K-12 STEM Education

 Implementation of Authentic Learning and Assessment
through STEM Education Approach
to Improve Students Metacognitive Skills

information that are taught, or they may learn them for purposes of a test but revert to their
preconceptions outside the classroom. To develop competence in an area of inquiry,
students must: (a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge, (b) understand facts and
ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and (c) organize knowledge in ways that
facilitate retrieval and application. A metacognitive approach to instruction can help
students learn to take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and
monitoring their progress in achieving them.
The learning process is one important aspect in improving teaching and learning
because it provides material for formative assessment. Formative assessment monitors the
process of students knowledge construction and progression toward the final product. It
encourages students to achieve higher-order thinking skills (Lombardi, 2008). The following
is a sample of students arguments during the lessons.
One student in the group asked how to measure the current. They used a bulb lamp,
and then discovered a problem with measurement, which was an electrical short. They
communicated very well and worked together. After all measurements were finished, they
started to think about how to make a motor at low cost. They discussed the wire (a thick
wire for better current flow) and battery (Ni-MH for better power) based on measuring the
wire (argumentation). Then they decided the parts needed to make the motor. They
succeeded in making a motor on the first day. They needed less than one hour to make the
motor, but it was low in power and speed, and easily overheated. In the next lesson, this
group wanted to upgrade their motor to have greater speed. They discussed the budget
more and then decided to rewind the coil. The students also discussed many problems with
the motor such as the terminals and wire becoming burnt. One student said that this was
because they used the Ni-MH battery, so motor rotation was too fast and some parts were
burnt. Nevertheless, another student rejected her opinion. They wound the wire on the rotor
more compactly to increase the number of windings. The motor rotated, but did not move
on the circuit. They said that this would make the motor cheaper than the original.
According to the results of observations, most students felt excited during these
lessons (STEM education approaches). STEM education provides students with knowledge
and concepts that have relationships and applications in everyday life. Moreover, students
can improve their logical thinking through engineering design processes based on scientific
knowledge. Prior knowledge and experience is important in finding the best solution. The
groups that had experience tended to be successful in designing a DC motor and made a
good effort to finish and solve many problems.
In these lessons, many groups did not successfully design a faster motor. Therefore,
there were students who understood the importance of balance in engineering design. For
instance, students found many problems, such as the terminals becoming burnt,
overheating, electrical shorts, and so on. In addition, they acquired scientific knowledge, for
example, transformation of electrical energy into heat, sound, and kinetic energy; the fact
that electrical current flows more easily through a thicker wire; the fact that a Ni-MH battery
has low resistance; and the fact that thick wire has low resistance.

Conclusion
From the results of this study, it can be concluded that most of the students had
good metacognitive skills from the average score for 1-19 questions. However, negative
statements consist of easy to give up behavior in solving problem. The improvement in their
metacognitive skills was not statistically significant. This showed that metacognitive skills
cannot be improved significantly with one treatment, but it does not mean there was no
improvement at all. Using questionnaire will generate inaccurate data, because students

Vol. 1, No. 3, Jul-Sep 2015 131

Ilman Anwari et al.

aware that under observation, so there are possibilities that students answer the questions
unnaturally (Cooper & Sandi, 2008). Using questionnaire is not recommended to measure
abilities, intelligences, and skills.
Some students improve metacognitive skills based on observation of learning
processes. Students improve their thinking, strategies, and creating of solutions through
discussion and trial-error to solve problem. Furthermore, students enjoyed learning and
communicated well in groups by posing questions to solve problems.
STEM education can attract students interest in science lessons and provide them
with a deep understanding of concepts and meaningful learning. Students can learn
important scientific concepts (scientific knowledge), as well as their relationship and
application in daily life. STEM education includes science and engineering practices (NRC,
2012). Therefore, students can do scientific research and engineering design at the same
time. This is one of the advantages of STEM education.
STEM education not only increases students interest in science lessons, but also
improves their thinking and practical skills. Students can find design failures and then
redesign until the product has a small risk of failure. In redesigning, students have to
connect scientific knowledge and experience to the context to find the best solution, and
then analyze the characteristics of the materials used.
Scaffolding during these lessons consisted of questions from the teacher that guided
students to think more or to connect prior knowledge with the new context (problem). In
addition, measuring voltage and electrical current can be identified as scaffolding that
guided students to find solutions to problems. Students were able to reflect on and evaluate
their thinking or solution when they encountered a failure. The notes made by the students
helped them identify their knowledge, learning processes, and understanding. Therefore,
students were able to monitor and evaluate their own understanding and thinking by
themselves. This suggests that scaffolding can train students to improve their metacognitive
skills. Therefore, we can identify scaffolding as a strong component of the portfolio.
Limitations of this study are using a questionnaire to investigate metacognitive skills
for efficiency the time, however it is not an effective method to gain accurate data, so it
authentic assessment is needed to assess students' skills. Observers not enough when
compared to number of group in one class, so each group's activities cannot observe
intensively. In concerning safety experiment, the motor can be very hot after running,
nevertheless, no safety tools were provided to students.

I lm an Anw ari was born in Bandung, Indonesia, in 1985.

He received a B.Ed. degree in chemical education from
Indonesia University of Education (UPI), Bandung,
Indonesia, in 2007, and M.Ed. and Ph.D. degrees in Science
Education from Shizuoka University, Shizuoka, Japan, in
2011 and 2014, respectively. Since 2014, he has been a
researcher in Shizuoka University, and his main research
interests are development of learning materials and lessons
for STEM education and Chemical education with the
Japanese team.

132 K-12 STEM Education

 Implementation of Authentic Learning and Assessment
through STEM Education Approach
to Improve Students Metacognitive Skills

Seiji Yam ada was born in Shizuoka prefecture, Japan in

1972. He received his B.Ed in geological education from Nihon
University, Mishima, Japan in 1995. Since 2000, he taught
science in Numazu Kanaoka Middle School, and then in 2012,
he moved to Shizuoka University Attached Middle School in
Shizuoka, Japan.

M asashi Unno was born in Ishikawa prefecture, Japan in

1978. He received a B.Ed in science education from
Yokohama University, Yokohama, Japan in 2000. Since
2003, he taught science in Namiyama Minami Elementary
School, and then in 2013, he moved to Shizuoka University
Attached Middle School in Shizuoka, Japan.

Tom oki Saito was a science teacher mainly in junior high

school. He is now a Ph.D. candidate at Shizuoka University,
studying STEM Education and directing the Future Scientist
program.

Vol. 1, No. 3, Jul-Sep 2015 133

Ilman Anwari et al.

I rm a Rahm a Suw arm a was born in Bandung,

Indonesia in 1981. She received her B.Sc degree in
physics from Padjajaran Univeristy and M.Ed in science
education from Indonesia University of Education (UPI),
Bandung, Indonesia, in 2003 and 2005, respectively.
Since 2008, she has worked in Indonesia University of
Education as a physics education lecturer in Bandung,
Indonesia.

Lely M utakinati was born in Sukabumi, Indonesia in

1983. She received her B.Ed. and M.Ed. degrees in
chemical education from Indonesia University of
Education (UPI), Bandung, Indonesia, in 2007 and 2010,
respectively. In 2015, she began a doctoral program at
Shizuoka University, Japan.

Yoshisuk e K um ano is a Professor of science education

at Shizuoka University where he teaches Curriculum
Studies, Science Education Methods, Seminar in Science
Education and others. It is his honor to serve in the
Fulbright Program in 1989-91, and 2012 for education
and research in the US. He earned a Ph.D. from the
University of Iowa in 1993. Now, his research mainly
focuses on STEM education reforms for Japan, with his
students who are Ph.D. candidates and other students in
his courses. Dr. Kumano is President of the Japan
Association of Energy & Environmental Education.

134 K-12 STEM Education

 Implementation of Authentic Learning and Assessment
through STEM Education Approach
to Improve Students Metacognitive Skills

References

Betz, F. (2011). Origin of scientific method. Managing Science: Innovation, Technology,

and Knowledge Management, 9, 21-41. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7488-4_2.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bybee, R. B. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. City?:
NSTA Press.
Cooper, M. M., & Sandi-Urena (2008). Reliable multi method assessment of metacognition
use in chemistry problem solving. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, pp.
18-24.
Dochy, F., De Ridjt C., & Dyck, W. (2002). Cognitive prerequisites and learning. Active
Learning Higher Education, 3(3), 265-284.
Dodge, J. (2009). 25 quick formative assessments for a differentiated classroom. NY:
Scholastic Inc.
Doyle, B. P. (2009). Metacognitive awareness: Impact of metacognitive intervention in a
pre-nursing course (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State University,
Los Angeles, USA.
Enduran, S., Ardac, D., & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case
studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science, and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14.
Gonzales, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) education: A primer. City?: Congressional Research Service of America.
Haik, Y., & Shahin, T. (2011). Engineering design process. Stamford, CT: Cengage
Learning.
Hailikari, T., Nevgi, A., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (2007). Exploring alternative ways of
assessing prior knowledge, its components and their relation to student
achievement: A mathematics-based case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation,
33, 320-337.
Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: The critical
role of argument in student inquiry. New Hampshire, NH: Heinemann.
Hinkle, D. E., & Wiersma, W. (1988). Applied statistics for behavioral science (2nd ed.).
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Huang, et. Al., (2012). Building e-portfolio learning model: Goal orientation and
metacognitive strategies. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International
Journal, 4(1), 16-36.
Jelinek, D. B., Parker, J., & Herrington, J. (2013). Student reflection and learning through
peer reviews. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 119-131.
Kearney, C. (2011). Efforts to increase students interest in pursuing science, technology,
engineering and mathematics studies and careers. Brussels, Belgium: European
Schoolnet.
Lombardi, M. M. (2008). Making the grade: The role of assessment in authentic learning.
Educause Learning Initiative, 1, 1-16.

Vol. 1, No. 3, Jul-Sep 2015 135

Ilman Anwari et al.

McGregor, D. (2006). Developing thinking, developing learning: A guide to thinking skills in

education. New York: Open University Press
Molenaar, et. Al. (2011). Scaffolding of small groups metacognitive activities with an avatar.
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 601-624.
National Research Council. (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and 21st
century skills: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Next Generation Science Standard. (2013). The next generation science standard.
Retrieved from: http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London,
UK: Kings College London.
Paulson, F. L., Paulson, P. R., & Meyer, C. A. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio?
Eight thoughtful guidelines to help educators encourage self-directed learning.
City?: EBSCO Publishing, 60-63.
Queensland Government Department of Education, Training, and Art. (2007). Towards a
10-year plan for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education and skills in Queensland. Queensland, Australia: The Smart State.
Sharifi, M. (2012). Relationship between portfolio assessment and metacognitive
knowledge. Contemporary Educational Researches Journal, 2, 48-52.
Shen, C., & Liu, H. (2011). Metacognitive skills development: A web-based approach in
higher education. TOJET, 10(2), 140-150.
Van Der Stuyf, R. R. (2002, Fall). Scaffolding as a teaching strategy. Adolescent Learning
and Development, 0500A, .
Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. & Kirschner, P. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A
systematic approach to four-component instructional design. New York: Routledge.
Vitti, D. & Torres, A. (2006). Practicing science process skills at home. Retrieved from
http://www.nsta.org/elementaryschool/connections/200712TorresHandoutParentN
STAConn.pdf
Yager, R. E. (1996). Science technology society as reform in science education. New York:
SUN.

136 K-12 STEM Education