Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10, 1258-1268 2025 Publisher: Learning Gate DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10654 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate History: Received: 29 July 2025; Revised: 15 September 2025; Accepted: 19 September 2025; Published: 22 October 2025 * Correspondence: sirirat.pe@kmitl.ac.th The effectiveness of a scaffolded problem-based learning model to enhance systematic thinking and learning achievement in a Thai higher education database systems course Kridsada Budsara1, Sirirat Petsangsri2*, Thanin Ratanaolarn3 1,2,3School of Industrial Education and Technology, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL), Bangkok, 10520, Thailand; kridsada.bu@kmitl.ac.th (K.B.) sirirat.pe@kmitl.ac.th (S.P.) thanin.ra@kmitl.ac.th (T.R.) Abstract: The global digital skills gap, particularly in roles such as data engineering and system analysis, highlights the necessity for effective pedagogy in foundational courses like database systems. Students often encounter difficulties with the higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) required for database design and SQL programming. Consequently, this study developed and evaluated the effectiveness of a Scaffolded Problem-Based Learning (PBL) model, termed the ‘KRIS model,’ aimed at improving students' systematic thinking and academic achievement. The KRIS model was constructed through a synthesis of PBL, scaffolding literature, and prior research on student perceptions. It comprises four core components: (K) Knowledge base support, (R) Responsibility for self and collaboration, (I) Inter- connectedness in team interaction, and (S) Systematic process. The model was validated by a panel of seven experts specializing in database systems, PBL, and assessment. A quasi-experimental design was employed, comparing an experimental group (n=60) taught with the KRIS model against a control group (n=59) taught using traditional methods. Expert validation confirmed the model's high quality and suitability. The experimental results indicated that students in the experimental group, who learned through the KRIS Scaffolded PBL model, achieved significantly higher scores in both systematic thinking and academic achievement than those in the control group. The KRIS Scaffolded PBL model is an effective instructional strategy for enhancing higher-order cognitive outcomes in database education. It offers a structured framework to support learners, fostering systematic thinking and practical skills essential for the modern ICT (information communications technology) industry. Keywords: Database systems, Higher education, Learning achievement, Problem-based learning, Scaffolding, Systematic thinking. 1. Introduction The global digital economy faces a critical shortage of skilled personnel in key roles such as software developer, data engineer, system analyst, and AI-ML engineer (Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning) [1, 2]. These professions, outlined in international skills frameworks like SFIA (Skills Framework for the Information Age) 9, require a strong foundation in data management, systems development, and software engineering. Database systems are a cornerstone course underpinning these competencies, providing essential knowledge for navigating the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) [3, 4]. Mastery of specific skills within this course, namely, database design using Entity/Relationship Diagrams (E/R Diagrams) [5-7] and data manipulation via SQL programming [6], is essential for success in fields like data engineering and business intelligence [8, 9]. A key challenge remains, however. A primary reason for this skill gap is the uneven development of students' higher-order thinking skills (HOTS), which is consistent with the analysis, evaluation, and creation levels of the revised Bloom's taxonomy [10]. These cognitive levels are required to apply https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8393-2491 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4828-1740 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1612-4852 1259 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 1258-1268, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10654 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate knowledge and skills to complex, real-world problems, such as designing a normalized database from a set of user requirements or writing a complex SQL query to answer a real business problem. Passive, traditional instructional methods often fail to develop such advanced skills, resulting in shallow learning and the inability to apply knowledge in practical contexts or novel situations [11]. A paradigm shift toward engaging, student-centered pedagogies is necessary to address this problem. One such pedagogy is problem-based learning (PBL), which is rooted in constructivist principles [12]. It is intended to engage students in learning through complex, contextualized problem scenarios, work collaboratively to construct knowledge, and promote students' problem- solving and lifelong learning capacities, which include understanding, knowledge, and long-term memory retention [13]. However, a practical implementation of PBL is often nontrivial because of the students' lack of prerequisite knowledge or self-directed learning skills. Scaffolding, rooted in Vygotsky's concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) [14] provides temporary support that helps learners accomplish tasks they could not complete independently. These supports are gradually removed as the learner's competence increases [15, 16]. The following research objectives (ROs), research questions (RQs), and research hypotheses guide this experimental study: RO1: To study the effectiveness of a Scaffolded PBL model on enhancing students' systematic thinking and learning achievement [17]. RO2: To compare the systematic thinking and learning achievement of students in the experimental and control groups after learning through the Scaffolded PBL model. RQ1: How does the Scaffolded PBL (KRIS) improve students’ systematic thinking when solving problems in database design and SQL programming? RQ2: To what degree does the Scaffolded PBL (KRIS) model enhance students' database systems academic achievement compared to traditional instruction? RQ3: Is there a statistically significant difference in systematic thinking and academic achievement between students taught using the Scaffolded PBL model instead of the traditional model? Research Hypothesis. Systematic thinking skills of the students in the experimental group, in which the Scaffolded PBL model is applied, will be significantly higher than those in the control group, in which teaching with traditional methods is carried out (small groups). H2: Academic achievement of the students in the experimental group, in which the Scaffolded PBL model is applied, will be significantly higher than that of the students in the control group, in which teaching is carried out with traditional methods (whole class). 2. Literature Review This review establishes the theoretical foundation for the study by examining the core concepts of PBL and scaffolding, and their integration into the proposed instructional model. 2.1. Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Problem-based learning (PBL) is a learner-centered pedagogy in which students gain knowledge about a subject through the experience of solving an open-ended problem found in trigger material [18]. The process promotes students' active learning, constructing knowledge, which ultimately enhances their higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) [19]. It is an active learning style based on the constructivist theory of learning. PBL helps students develop skills used for their future practice. It enhances critical appraisal, literature retrieval, and encourages ongoing learning within a team environment [18]. It can also incorporate HOTS, which helps students analyze, evaluate, and create [20]. The collaborative nature of the process also reflects Vygotsky's social constructivist view that learning is a group process and knowledge construction, meaning that meaning-making is never a solitary activity. However, it is a collaborative process [14]. There are various ways to execute it, but the overall steps of the PBL process are often structured. As seen in Table 1, familiar patterns can be 1260 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 1258-1268, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10654 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate observed across many models, such as Wood [18], Moust et al. [19] and Knowles [21, 22]. In most models of the PBL process, learners begin by exploring a problem, progress through a self-directed learning phase, and conclude with a synthesis and reporting phase. These steps are designed to move learners toward synthesizing knowledge and solutions, which develop a structured and flexible method of successful critical thinking and problem solving in many educational areas, as applied in several Thai studies in recent years [23]. Table 1. A Comparative Overview of PBL Process Steps. Phase Wood [18] Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Moust, et al. [19] Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Knowles [21, 22] Self-Directed Learning (SDL) Problem Exploration Identify and clarify unfamiliar terms Discuss the case Clarify terms/Setting Problem Definition Define the problem Identify the questions Define the problem Analysis & Ideation Brainstorming & arranging explanations Brainstorm Analyze the problem Structuring Formulate learning objectives Analyze and structure Re-structure the problem systematically Learning Objectives - Formulate learning objectives Formulate learning objectives Self-Directed Learning Private study Do an independent study Self-directed learning Synthesis & Reporting Group shares results Discuss the findings Report back & synthesize 2.2. Scaffolding in Educational Contexts Scaffolding is an instructional technique in which Vygotsky's idea of the Zone of Proximal Development is integrated into the classroom (ZPD). Vygotsky defined the Zone of Proximal Development as the distance between a learner's developmental level, as determined by independent problem-solving, and their potential level, determined through problem-solving under a teacher's guidance or in collaboration with more advanced peers [14]. Scaffolding provides the temporary support structures to assist the learner in accomplishing a task or developing new understandings, so these can be taken away over time when they are no longer needed (the gradual removal of these structures is called "fading") as the learner develops autonomous learning strategies [15, 16]. It provides the help necessary to make students who do not have the required knowledge or skills to deal with difficult materials, such as database design and SQL programming. The purpose of scaffolding is not to solve the task for the learner but to give guidance by which the learner will know strategies that will later help them tackle the complexity of the materials alone [24]. Table 2. Core Elements of Instructional Scaffolding Across Theoretical Models Scaffolding Function Wood et al. [25] Van de Pol et al. [16] McKenzie [26] Engagement & Diagnosis Recruitment Diagnosis Provide Clear Directions, Clarify Purpose Task Support Reduction in degrees of freedom - Keep Students on Task, Reduce Uncertainty Guidance & Modeling Direction maintenance, Demonstration Contingency Point to Worthy Sources, Deliver Efficiency Cognitive Support Marking critical features - Offer Assessment to Clarify Expectations Affective Support Frustration control - Create Momentum Fading & Transfer - Fading, Transfer of Responsibility - As shown in Table 2, scaffolding encompasses many methods, from recruiting student interest and 1261 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 1258-1268, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10654 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate reducing the degree of freedom of the task to using modeling to provide an idealization of the act and offering formative feedback [16, 25, 26]. Successful scaffolding leads to the formation of higher-order thinking, in which students can meet the learning goal on their own by helping a learner overcome the gap between their current ability and the intended learning goal, and it promotes self-regulation and long-term knowledge retention. 2.3. The Integration of PBL and Scaffolding: The KRIS Model While PBL provides a practical framework for helping students engage in authentic problem solving, it cannot support students in gaining meaningful problem-solving (ill-structured) skills. On the other hand, scaffolding will be ineffective if we help students solve a particular problem by breaking it into meaningful parts and guiding them through solving the problem (structured problems). As such, the study combines the two pedagogic approaches into a unified model: the KRIS Scaffolded PBL Model. The model consists of four components arising directly from the literature: • K (Knowledge Base Support): Provides the necessary resources and underpinning knowledge structures [26] that students need in order to properly investigate and interrogate the PBL problem and avoid cognitive overload. • R (Responsibility for Self and Collaboration): Encompasses the fundamental PBL principle of self- directed learning and the scaffolding function of keeping on course [25] that involves ensuring that students take responsibility for their learning individually and within the team. • I (Interconnectedness in Team Interaction): Rooted in the social constructivist basis for both PBL and scaffolding, it demonstrates the importance of collaborative dialogue and peer support [14, 19] within the team in enabling students to construct knowledge. • S (Systematic Process): Provides a structured workflow (e.g., the PBL steps in Table 1) to scaffold students' problem-solving work, guiding them from initial possible confusion to a systematic and well-reasoned approach. The KRIS model aims at systematically promoting systematic thinking skills and academic achievements in complex domains like database systems by coupling motivational and cognitive engagement found in PBL with supportive scaffolding. 2.4. Research Gap This synthesis of literature reveals a critical research gap. While the individual benefits of PBL for database education [27, 28] and the theoretical importance of scaffolding for supporting diverse learners [16, 25, 26] are well-established, there is a scarcity of research that systematically integrates these two approaches into a cohesive instructional model specifically for technical courses like Database Systems. Furthermore, existing studies often focus on academic achievement or generic problem-solving skills, leaving a gap in understanding the impact of such integrated models on systematic thinking, a critical competency for database design and SQL programming that aligns directly with higher-order cognitive processes [7, 10]. Most importantly, there is a lack of empirical evidence from quasi-experimental studies that test the effectiveness of such a scaffolded PBL model in a real classroom setting, particularly within the Thai higher education context, where developing higher-order thinking skills is a national priority [8]. This study aims to fill this gap by developing, validating, and empirically testing the "KRIS" model, a scaffolded PBL framework designed to enhance systematic thinking and academic achievement in a database systems course. 3. Methods This study employed a two-phase, sequential explanatory mixed-methods design [29]. Phase 1 involved developing and validating the instructional model, while Phase 2 consisted of a quasi- 1262 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 1258-1268, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10654 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate experiment to test the model's effectiveness. 3.1. Research Design The research was undertaken using two processes: Process 1: The development and expert validation of the KRIS Scaffolded PBL model [17]. Process 2: A quasi-experimental study comparing the learning outcomes of an experimental group (taught with the new model) and a control group (taught with traditional methods) [12]. 3.2. Phase 1: Model Development and Validation Phase 1 entailed two steps. These were: 3.2.1. Model Development (Step 1) The KRIS Scaffolded PBL model was developed systematically by synthesizing relevant literature. Data sources included domestic and international journals, textbooks, and research articles on PBL and scaffolding methodologies. A content analysis form was used to extract and record key information. The synthesis of these findings led to the initial design of the instructional model, which integrates the core principles of both PBL and scaffolding into a cohesive framework. 3.2.2. Expert Validation (Step 2) The initial model was validated by seven purposively selected experts in relevant fields. The panel comprised: • Three experts in database systems content. • Three experts in active learning, specifically PBL and Scaffolding. • One expert in educational assessment. The experts critically reviewed the model using a structured evaluation form. Their qualitative feedback was analyzed using content analysis, and their quantitative ratings were used to establish the model's validity. The model was refined based on this expert feedback before proceeding to the experimental phase. 3.3. Phase 2: Quasi-Experimental Implementation 3.3.1. Participants and Sampling We experimented with undergraduate students from the Faculty of Science at KMITL in Thailand. All participants were enrolled in the Database Systems course during the 2024 academic year. We selected two classes through a random lottery from six classes. One class was assigned to an experimental group (n=60) taught with the KRIS Scaffolded PBL model, while the other class served as the control group (n=59) and received traditional, lecture-based instruction. 3.3.2. Research Instruments Two primary instruments were used to measure the outcomes: Learning Achievement Test (database design): This instrument used an analytical scoring rubric to assess the database design process. The rubric demonstrated high content validity, with an item congruence (IOC) index between 0.60 and 1.00. Inter-rater reliability (IRR), calculated using Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient (r) between two course instructors, was 0.84, indicating strong consistency in scoring. Systematic Thinking Test (SQL Programming): This instrument used a similar analytical rubric to assess systematic thinking as demonstrated through SQL code. It also showed high content validity (IOC = 0.60-1.00) and strong inter-rater reliability (IRR = 0.83). 1263 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 1258-1268, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10654 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 3.3.3. Data Collection Procedure The procedure was identical for both groups, differing only in the instructional method: 1) Both groups completed a pre-test on learning achievement. 2) The experimental group was taught using the developed Scaffolded PBL model. 3) The control group used traditional teaching methods such as lectures, instructor demonstrations, and student practice. 4) After the intervention, both groups completed post-tests for systematic thinking and learning achievement. 3.3.4. Data Analysis To compare the post-intervention outcomes between the experimental and control groups and control for potential Type I error, a One-Way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted [12]. The dependent variables were post-test scores in systematic thinking and learning achievement, and the independent variable was the group (experimental vs. control). After controlling for other effects, partial η² (eta squared) was used to report effect sizes, representing the proportion of variance in the dependent variables explained by the instructional model. Reporting partial η² provides information on the practical significance of the findings beyond the statistical significance indicated by p-values. According to Cohen's guidelines, .01, .06, and .14 values correspond to small, medium, and large effects, respectively. 4. Results 4.1. Phase 1: The Developed KRIS Scaffolded PBL Model The development and validation process resulted in the finalized KRIS Scaffolded PBL model. The model's name, "KRIS," is an acronym derived from its four core components, each detailed in Table 3 with comprehensive theoretical grounding. The expert validation phase yielded highly positive results. The seven experts rated the model highly on its utility, feasibility, appropriateness, and accuracy, confirming its quality and implementation readiness [30, 31]. Figure 1. The Scaffolded Problem-Based Learning (KRIS) Model. 1264 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 1258-1268, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10654 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 3. Components and Descriptions of the Scaffolded PBL (KRIS) Model. Key Component Description K Knowledge Base Support Supports the learner’s knowledge construction based on cognitive and social constructivist principles [32], including case studies and relevant learning resources. Scaffolding assists learners with limited prior knowledge within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) [14], enhancing understanding and problem-solving skills. R Responsibility Promotes self-responsibility and collaboration, making students aware of their duties to themselves and their group. Includes instructor coaching that encourages and accelerates learning without directly providing solutions. I Inter- connectedness Builds team interaction to support collaborative problem-solving [33], fostering effective communication through social network platforms and synchronous and asynchronous methods [34]. S Systematic Process Applies the Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) continuous improvement cycle [35] across the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC), integrating self-assessment and rubric-based evaluation to ensure fairness and transparency in assessing individual and group work quality. 4.2. Phase 2: Quasi-Experimental Results 4.2.1. Descriptive Statistics Table 4 details the experimental and control groups' academic achievement and systematic thinking scores, with students in the experimental group taught with the Scaffolded PBL model achieving higher mean scores in academic achievement (78.56 vs. 66.92) and systematic thinking (82.35 vs. 56.01) compared to the control group taught with traditional methods. Table 4. Academic Achievement and Systematic Thinking Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) Scores. Group n Academic Achievement (Max=100) Systematic Thinking (Max=100) Mean SD Mean SD Experimental 60 78.56 10.37 82.35 14.42 Control 59 66.92 10.53 56.01 21.08 Note. n = Number of individuals, M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation. 4.2.2. Preliminary Assumption Testing for MANOVA Before conducting the One-Way MANOVA, preliminary tests were performed to verify the statistical assumptions, as shown in Table 5. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was significant (p < .05), indicating that the dependent variables are correlated and suitable for MANOVA [36]. The PPMCC between academic achievement and systematic thinking was r = 0.66, falling within the acceptable range of 0.20 to 0.80, indicating a moderate relationship without multicollinearity concerns. Table 5. Statistics for Preliminary Examination of MANOVA Assumptions. Test Statistics Test Results Multicollinearity Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (Sig. < 0.05) Likelihood Ratio = 0.00, Approx. Chi- Square = 69.95, df = 2, Sig. = 0.00* Relationship between dependent variables Pearson correlation (0.20 ≤ r ≥ 0.80) r = 0.66, Sig. < 0.00 4.2.3. One-Way MANOVA Results Table 6’s One-Way MANOVA revealed a statistically significant overall effect of the instructional model on the combined dependent variables (academic achievement and systematic thinking), Wilks' Lambda = 0.631, F(2, 116) = 33.961, p < .001, partial η² = 0.369. 1265 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 1258-1268, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10654 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 6. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) Results for Learning Outcomes Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Partial η² Intercept Wilks' Lambda 0.020 2862.703 2 116 0.000 Group Wilks' Lambda 0.631 33.961 2 116 0.000 Follow-up univariate ANOVAs showed significant differences between groups for both dependent variables: For Academic Achievement: F(1, 117) = 36.934, p < .001, partial η² = 0.240 (1) For Systematic Thinking: F(1, 117) = 63.460, p < .001, partial η² = 0.352 (2) The effect sizes (partial η²) indicate that the instructional KRIS model accounted for 24.0% of the variance in academic achievement and 35.2% in systematic thinking, representing significant practical effects according to Cohen's conventions. These results provide strong empirical evidence supporting the research hypothesis that the Scaffolded PBL (KRIS) model significantly enhances academic achievement and systematic thinking compared to traditional instruction. 5. Discussion This study developed and empirically tested the effectiveness of the KRIS Scaffolded PBL Model for teaching database systems. The results provide compelling evidence for the model's efficacy in enhancing academic achievement and systematic thinking skills. The experimental groups' significant improvements (p < .001 for both outcomes) with large effect sizes (partial η² = 0.240 for achievement; 0.352 for systematic thinking) demonstrate the practical importance of the KRIS model. These findings align with previous research on scaffolded PBL [16, 17] but extend them by providing a structured framework tailored explicitly for database education [37]. The KRIS model’s success can be attributed to its integrated components. The knowledge base support (K) likely helped bridge the zone of proximal development for students with varying prerequisite knowledge. Simultaneously, the responsibility factor (R) fostered the self-directed learning essential for PBL success [38]. The interconnectedness element (I) facilitated the social constructivist learning environment crucial for complex problem-solving, and the systematic process (S) provided the structured approach needed for database design tasks within the SDLC framework [3]. The substantially larger effect on systematic thinking (35.2% of variance explained) compared to academic achievement (24.0% of variance) suggests that the model is particularly effective for developing higher-order cognitive skills. This is especially relevant given the identified gaps in Thai students' HOTS abilities [39] and aligns with national educational priorities. These findings have important implications for addressing the global digital skills shortage in roles requiring strong analytical and systematic problem-solving capabilities, as well as computational thinking skills essential for careers as data engineers and system analysts. 6. Conclusions This study successfully developed and validated the KRIS Scaffolded PBL Model, comprising four integrated components: knowledge base support, responsibility, interconnectedness, and systematic process. The experimental results demonstrate that: 1) Compared to traditional instruction, the KRIS model significantly enhances students' academic achievement in database systems. 2) The model produces even greater improvements in systematic thinking abilities, which are crucial for success in technical ICT roles. The KRIS model provides educators with an evidence-based framework for implementing scaffolded PBL in technical courses, particularly those requiring complex problem-solving and systematic approaches. By integrating structured support with authentic problem-solving, the model addresses 1266 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 1258-1268, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10654 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate common challenges in database education while developing the higher-order thinking skills demanded by the modern workforce. This study was conducted within a single university context, focusing on database systems. Future research should examine the model's effectiveness across different institutions, cultural contexts, and technical disciplines. Longitudinal studies tracking the retention of learning gains and career outcomes would also be valuable. 7. Practical Implications Educators should consider adopting scaffolded PBL approaches for technical courses, ensuring adequate knowledge support structures and systematic processes. Curriculum designers can use the KRIS framework to develop more effective learning experiences, bridging the theoretical knowledge and practical application gap. Institutional Review Board Statement: This research involved human participants and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (revised 2013). All participants provided informed consent. The study protocol was exempt from institutional ethics review under Thailand’s TSRI Guidance No. 3(3), as the research was conducted anonymously, did not collect identifiable information, involved no intervention, and posed no risk to participants' physical or mental integrity [40]. Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. This study followed all ethical practices during writing. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Ajarn Charlie for his Thai-to-English translation and English language editing support of the manuscripts. Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). References [1] A. N. Kumar et al., Computer science curricula 2023. New York: ACM Press; IEEE Computer Society Press; AAAI Press, 2023. [2] A. Mahmood, X. Huang, and N. Rehman, "STEM education as a catalyst for career aspirations and 21st‐century competences: Insights from teachers' perspectives," School Science and Mathematics, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.18381 [3] R. S. Pressman and B. R. Maxim, Software engineering—a practitioner's approach, 8th ed. London: McGraw-Hill Education, 2015. [4] I. Sommerville, Software engineering, 10th ed. Harlow, U.K: Pearson Education, 2015. [5] C. J. Date, An introduction to database systems, 8th ed. Boston, MA, USA: Pearson/Addison Wesley, 2004. [6] A. Silberschatz, H. F. Korth, and S. Sudarshan, Database system concepts, 7th ed. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Education, 2020. [7] R. Elmasri and S. B. Navathe, Fundamentals of database systems, 7th ed. London, U.K: Pearson, 2015. [8] N. Bagam, S. K. Shiramshetty, M. Mothey, H. G. Kola, S. Annam, and S. Bussa, "Optimizing SQL for BI in diverse engineering fields," International Journal of Communication Networks and Information Security, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 135- 151, 2024. [9] S. N. Jyoti, "A meta-analysis of business intelligence decision support systems in large enterprises through SQL- driven reporting," ASRC Procedia: Global Perspectives in Science and Scholarship, vol. 1, no. 01, pp. 925-958, 2025. https://doi.org/10.63125/t44ank03 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.18381 https://doi.org/10.63125/t44ank03 1267 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 1258-1268, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10654 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [10] N. Zhao and Q. Fu, "Under the framework of deep learning cognitive theory and Bloom's Taxonomy: Investigating the role of artificial intelligence in fostering higher-order thinking in engineering education," in 2025 7th International Conference on Computer Science and Technologies in Education (CSTE) (pp. 892-896). IEEE, 2025. [11] S. J. Doniyor o’g’li, "Problems and solutions to increase the efficiency of database teaching," European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Sciences, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 9-15, 2022. [12] P. Pimdee, A. Sukkamart, C. Nantha, T. Kantathanawat, and P. Leekitchwatana, "Enhancing Thai student-teacher problem-solving skills and academic achievement through a blended problem-based learning approach in online flipped classrooms," Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 7, p. e29172, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29172 [13] C. B. Omeh, C. J. Olelewe, and I. B. Ohanu, "Impact of artificial intelligence technology on students' computational and reflective thinking in a computer programming course," Computer Applications in Engineering Education, vol. 33, no. 3, p. e70052, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.70052 [14] L. Rahman, "Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development of teaching and learning in STEM education," International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 389-94, 2024. [15] R. Butarbutar, "Students’ perceptions of online scaffolding tools for improving writing skills," Cogent Education, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 2428906, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2428906 [16] J. Van de Pol, M. Volman, and J. Beishuizen, "Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research," Educational Psychology Review, vol. 22, pp. 271-296, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6 [17] I. N. Sari, S. Mahanal, and D. Setiawan, "Implementation of a problem-based learning model assisted with scaffolding to improve scientific literacy and student cognitive learning outcomes," Jurnal Biologi-Inovasi Pendidikan, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 35-47, 2024. https://doi.org/10.20527/bino.v6i1.17890 [18] D. F. Wood, "Problem based learning," Bmj, vol. 326, no. 7384, pp. 328-330, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7384.328 [19] J. H. Moust, H. V. Berkel, and H. G. Schmidt, "Signs of erosion: Reflections on three decades of problem-based learning at Maastricht University," Higher Education, vol. 50, pp. 665-683, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734- 004-6371-z [20] A. Ragab, A. Kaid, and A. K. Sayed, "Enhancing higher order thinking skills (hots) in education: Strategies and outcomes," TOFEDU: The Future of Education Journal, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 1488-1499, 2024. [21] S. N. Hidayah, "Application of self-directed problem-based learning to improve higher order thinking skills in vocational education," Edunity: Social and Educational Studies, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 865-873, 2024. [22] R. G. Brockett, Self-directed learning: A 21st-century imperative, in Understanding the Adult Learner. London: Routledge, 2023. [23] A. Sukkamart, P. Pimdee, P. Leekitchwatana, W. Kongpiboon, and T. Kantathanawat, "Predicting student-teacher self-directed learning using intrinsic and extrinsic factors: A Theory of Planned Behavior adoption," Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 14, p. 1211594, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1211594 [24] B. J. Reiser, Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners, in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. London, UK: Routledge, 2023. [25] D. Wood, J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross, "The role of tutoring in problem solving," Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 89-100, 1976. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x [26] L. D. McKenzie, "Scaffolding English language learners' reading performance," Ph.D. Dissertation, Walden University, Minnesota, 2011. [27] A. Uzun, A. Onur, and S. Alabay, "Students' views on database management systems course designed according to problem-based learning," International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 177-187, 2020. http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i1.20501 [28] B. Shebaro, "Using active learning strategies in teaching introductory database courses," Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 28-36, 2018. [29] W. Wipulanusat, K. Panuwatwanich, R. A. Stewart, and J. Sunkpho, "Applying mixed methods sequential explanatory design to innovation management," in The 10th International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management (pp. 485-495). Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2020. [30] T. Kantathanawat, A. Ussarn, M. Charoentham, and P. Pimdee, "Integrating mastery adaptive and problem-solving (MAPS) digital technology skills into a Thai community college student learning model," Educational Process: International Journal, vol. 14, p. e2025013, 2025. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.14.13 [31] D. L. Stufflebeam, "CIPP evaluation model checklist: A tool for applying the CIPP model to assess projects and programs. Western Michigan University Evaluation Center," 2015. https://tinyurl.com/yrz3ardf [32] C. Kalina and K. Powell, "Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom," Education, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 241-250, 2009. [33] R. G. Fernandes, L. F. d. Silva, and L. Vils, "Distributed team cognition and collaborative problem-solving in project management," International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 16, no. 6-7, pp. 713-742, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-05-2023-0100 [34] J. DiPasquale and W. J. Hunter, Fostering productive social interactions using asynchronous activities, in Thriving Online: A Guide for Busy Educators, R. H. Kay and W. J. Hunter, Eds. Oshawa, Canada: Ontario Tech University, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29172 https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.70052 https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2428906 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6 https://doi.org/10.20527/bino.v6i1.17890 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7384.328 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6371-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6371-z https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1211594 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i1.20501 https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.14.13 https://tinyurl.com/yrz3ardf https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-05-2023-0100 1268 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 1258-1268, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10654 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [35] A. Realyvásquez Vargas, J. L. García Alcaraz, S. Satapathy, D. A. Coraza, and Y. Báez López, The PDCA (Plan-Do- Check-Act) cycle, in Lean Manufacturing in Latin America: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications, J. L. García Alcaraz, G. C. Robles, & A. Realyvásquez Vargas (Eds.). Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2025. [36] R. A. Armstrong, "Recommendations for analysis of repeated‐measures designs: testing and correcting for sphericity and use of manova and mixed model analysis," Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 585-593, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12399 [37] P. Gu, J. Wu, Z. Cheng, Y. Xia, M. Cheng, and Y. Dong, "Scaffolding self-regulation in project-based programming learning through online collaborative diaries to promote computational thinking," Education and Information Technologies, vol. 130, pp. 16243–16267, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13367-1 [38] D.-C. Lee and C.-Y. Chang, "Evaluating self-directed learning competencies in digital learning environments: A meta-analysis," Education and Information Technologies, vol. 30, pp. 6847-6868, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13083-2 [39] P. Kwangmuang, S. Jarutkamolpong, W. Sangboonraung, and S. Daungtod, "The development of learning innovation to enhance higher order thinking skills for students in Thailand junior high schools," Heliyon, vol. 7, no. 6, p. e07309, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07309 [40] R. Lieophairot, N. Rojniruttikul, and S. Chaveesuk, "Factors influencing rail service passenger loyalty among older Thai adults," Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 18, p. 8240, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188240 https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12399 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13367-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13083-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07309 https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188240