



















































EduLearn


Journal of Green Learning, e-ISSN 2807-890X 

Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2023, pp. 27-35. 
DOI: 10.53889/jgl.v3i1.218 

-------------------------------------------------------- 

 

Promoting productive thinking and physics learning achievement 

of high school students through STEAM education 
 

Piyathida Polmart1 & Prasart Nuangchalerm1 

 
 1 Faculty of Education, Mahasarakham University, Thailand 

 

Article Info  ABSTRACT 

Article history: 
Received May 28, 2023 
Revised   June 12, 2023 

Accepted June 28, 2023 

 

 
Through STEAM education, this action research aims to 

improve senior high school students' ability to think critically 

and learn effectively. The target group for this study consisted 

of 36 senior high school students from one school in Thailand. 

A STEAM education lesson plan, a test of productive thinking, 

and a test of learning achievement were used as research tools. 

Statistics tools including mean, standard deviation, and 

percentage were used to analyze the data. The study showed that 

throughout the first and second cycles, students had scored 

51.16% and 65.15% on the productive thinking scale 

respectively. The learning organization improved the academic 

performance of the students in each cycle. It is reasonable to 

infer and consider the potential that STEAM education can 

support students' intellectual development. It is useful for 

scientific instruction in schools, but teachers also need to be 

knowledgeable about how to organize their classes. 

 

Keywords: 
Learning achievement 

Productive thinking 

Science classroom 

STEAM education  

This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license. 

 

Corresponding Author: 
Prasart Nuangchalerm  

Faculty of Education 

Mahasarakham University  

Thailand 

Email: prasart.n@msu.ac.th 

 

1. INTRODUCTION  

Over the past century, science educators have learned a lot and shared what they've 

learned through education and instruction. With the goal of making people more knowledgeable 

and promoting learning in general. Currently, we learn about supporting parts in an online 

culture and a world where information has no borders and is less accessible through various 

kinds of learning channels. This has caused rapid changes in how science is taught and learned 

in the 21st century classroom. These shifts have begun to have a significant impact, requiring 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


28 

 

learners to know how to adapt and seek knowledge through the scientific process with more 

necessary skills (Nuangchalerm, 2015; Supena et.al., 2021).  

Learners have to know how to adapt and seek knowledge through the scientific process 

with the necessary skills. An important part of productive thinking in a science lesson is getting 

students to think critically, creatively, and independently while using scientific methods and 

ideas to solve problems and explore new ideas. In a science classroom, the following methods 

could be used to encourage thinking. Empower students to ask and answer open-ended 

questions that involve deeper thinking, analysis, and assessment by asking them to do so 

themselves and encouraging them to do so (Fausan et.al., 2021; Voorhees et.al., 2022).  

The productive thinking, students should have experiments and they should be able to 

plan and run their own experiments to test their own ideas and learn more about science 

(Husnaini & Chen, 2019; Meyer & Norman, 2020). Science classroom should allow students 

to keep a record of their findings, to think critically about their findings, and to develop 

conclusions based on the facts (Manz et.al., 2020, Kwangmuang et.al., 2021). That is, learning 

environment should encourage students to work together by having them work in pairs or small 

groups to come up with ideas, share their thoughts, and find solutions to problems (Prince et.al., 

2020). Students can benefit by learning from one another, building on one another's abilities, 

and developing their ability to think critically if they do so (Quigley & Herro, 2019; Bertrand 

& Namukasa, 2020; Wilson et.al., 2021). 

Students should get feedback on their work that is both positive and helpful, with an 

emphasis on how important scientific methods and reasoning based on evidence are. Employing 

examples from the actual world or real-life situations, students can learn when teaching them 

how to link scientific principles to everyday lives. It is very helpful to include examples from 

the real world and case studies. Students might be able to better understand the connection of 

science to their own lives and be encouraged to think critically about the world that surrounds 

them (Stehle & Peters-Burton, 2019; Sharon & Baram‐Tsabari, 2020; Queiruga-Dios et.al., 
2020). In general, a key part of productive thinking in a science classroom is getting students 

to think creatively and critically, ask questions, and look into scientific issues through 

experimentation and teamwork.  

Instead of focusing on memorization, the way education is run around the world should 

teach students how to think critically. They should have the capacity to think, evaluate, and be 

rational, as well as the ability to comprehend and learn in an appropriate manner. Learning to 

be creative and figuring out different ways to advertise their idea as a commodity in the form 

of goods. It is one of the concepts that is unique in a constructive way, is practical, and can be 

implemented for the benefit of both the individual and society as a whole. The concept of 

productivity holds that a person's mental capacity to generate a picture or something tangible 

that can be used to solve a problem or used to one's advantage in a variety of activities 

constitutes that person's productive capacity. 

The researchers studied learning active management styles that were suitable for the 

development of students’ productive thinking. It was found that learning management should 

be holistic, focusing on the integration of students’ lifestyles (Listiana et al., 2019; 

Nuangchalerm et al., 2020). Yakman (2008) stated that STEM integrated learning is difficult to 

understand, but it can be occurred in the school science.  Therefore, the STEAM model has 

been developed from the original STEM by improving the integration structure, adding art into 

it. Kim & Park (2012) stated that the relationship between science that focuses on academic 

thinking and art that focuses on creativity is perfectly combined. The steps for organizing 



29 

learning activities are as follows: identify a challenge, explore ideas, plan and develop, test and 

develop, test and evaluate, and present the solution. It can be seen that the process of organizing 

activities according to the method of steam education.  There are steps that are similar and 

related to the elements and implications of productive thinking. 

The researchers realized the problem and the need to develop the ability to think 

productively.  The researcher is therefore interested in developing the productive thinking 

ability of Senior high school level 4 students who have been managed according to the STEAM 

education approach to be useful for developing group learning management. 

 

2. METHOD 

Participants 

Thirty six of grade 10 students, Semester 2, Academic Year 2021 from Borabue School, 

Borabue District, Mahasarakham Province under the Office of the Secondary Educational 

Service Area 26. 

Research instruments 

Learning management plan based on steam education on momentum and collisions 

senior high school level 4, 8 learning plans, including 12 hours of teaching time, with the 

appropriateness of the learning management plan between 4.95-5.00 and very good quality 

level. 

Productive thinking test which is created based on the measurement principle based on 

3 components: planning, working agility, and quality of work. The nature of the measure is a 

subjective test. Eight sets of situational analysis adjusted according to Pongsuphan (2018) 

approach by finding the index of consistency (IOC) of the measurements. Difficulty in the range 

was 0.47-0.60, power discrimination in the range was 0.48-0.56, the reliability value was 0.71. 

The researcher made a test to measure how well people learned, which was used to 

measure how well people could learn. Which cognitive processes-memory, comprehension, 

application, and analysis—include There are 30 items in all, divided into 4 multiple-choice 

exams. The test's index of consistency ranged from 0.67 to 1.00, while its difficulty ranged from 

0.37 to 0.83 and its discriminating power ranged from 0.23 to 0.57. The learning 

accomplishment test's overall version has a reliability score of 0.78. 

Data collection 

This research aims to study the ability to think productively and develop learning 

achievement by learning management according to a steam education approach on momentum 

and collisions. For junior high school level 4 students, the data collection was conducted in two 

phases  

Cycle 1: The course of learning the researcher observed student behavior using post-

teaching recordings.  At the end of the instructional learning management Cycle 1, the 

researcher collected data using the productive thinking ability test created by the researcher as 

a subjective model. Situation pattern, 4 items, 15 items of learning achievement test, and a 

record after learning management at the end of the teaching.  The researcher therefore uses the 

information obtained from the data collection. Recording after learning and the productive 

thinking ability test then summarizes the information that has been used to improve, correct and 

develop for use in organizing the next learning activity. 

Cycle 2: Using post-teaching recordings, the researcher tracked student behavior 

throughout the learning process. The productive thinking capacity test that the researcher 

devised served as a subjective model for data collection at the conclusion of the second cycle 



30 

 

of learning management in teaching. situational pattern, four components, fifteen elements on 

the learning accomplishment exam, and a record following the conclusion of learning 

management in the classroom. As a result, the researcher makes use of the data collection's 

information. The information that has been utilized to enhance, correct, and develop is 

summarized following learning and the test of productive thinking capacity so that it may be 

used to plan the following learning activity. 

Data analysis 

The researcher analyzed the data divided into 2 parts. Productive thinking quantitative 

data analysis the data were analyzed by statistics, namely mean, percentage and standard 

deviation. Learning achievements on momentum and collisions quantitative data analysis is the 

use of data from data analysis with basic statistics such as mean, percentage and standard 

deviation. 

3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION 

According to the study of the problems in productive thinking ability of students who 

were taught according to the steam education approach, which had 3 factors, it was found that 

students had the average scores for each component as shown in Table 1.  

 

Table 1 Productive thinking 

 

This study found that teaching phase 1 separated by components of productive thinking. 

1. On average, the pupils were given a score of 2.17 points for their planned work. It 

was discovered that the students had achieved an average score of 2.78 out of a possible score 

of 4 during the second cycle of instruction. The students in Teaching Cycle 1 were able to 

identify problems in the scenario; however, they were unable to find a solution to those 

problems. This is due to the fact that at this stage, they are required to combine a wide variety 

of theoretical concepts and mathematical principles in order to plan. The pupils need to be 

guided and directed by their teachers so that they may design solutions to the dilemma. The 

majority of pupils showed marked academic growth throughout Cycle 2. Some of the students 

who did not significantly improve their results did so because they still lacked the sequence of 

actions to solve issues, knowledge, and the ability to search for information in a way that did 

not satisfy the objectives as they should have. 

2. The students' average score for working fluently throughout Cycle 1 was 2.09 points, 

giving them a passing grade overall. After teaching Cycle 2, it was found that students scored 

an average of 2.78 out of a possible 4. This shows that the students did well. Even though they 

don't know everything, students can name the parts of the manufacturing process, such as the 

materials and the machines. During the planning stage, students are able to come up with 

solutions because teachers have to help them. During the second round of instruction, the 

majority of the pupils made progress. Nonetheless, there are still certain children that require 

the guidance of their teachers. 

3. Overall, the students did about as well as an average of 1.91 points in the first cycle 

of lessons. It was found that the students' overall performance in Phase 2 instruction led to an 

average score of 2.39 out of a possible 4. The majority of students had never developed a 

Compone

nts 

    Scores 

Planning 

(4) 

Fluent 

practice (4) 

Quality of 

work (4) 

Total  

(12) 

% 

Score in 

each 

cycle 

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 

2.17 2.78 2.09 2.65 1.91 2.39 6.17 7.82 51.16 65.16 



31 

product before, which resulted in the lowest average score for the teaching cycle 1 at this level; 

The majority of students will only design based on what they have experienced in the past, 

which results in their work not being original. In the second phase of instruction, it was 

discovered that, from the productive thinking test, the students' scores tended to increase 

because they were able to create works that met their objectives but lacked novelty and interest. 

This was discovered as a result of the fact that they were able to create works that met their 

objectives. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 Average score for each factor of productive thinking 

 

The teaching in Phase 1, students had a total average score of 51.16% and by teaching 

Phase 2, students had a total average score of 65.16%, which showed that students tended to 

have higher development. A study of physics learning achievement of students who were 

managed according to the steam education approach. The results were found as shown in Figure 

2. 

 

The teaching in Cycle 1            The teaching in Cycle 2 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2 Students’ score in each cycle 

 

During the first cycle of instruction, it was found that the students' overall academic 

achievement score was 7.64 out of a possible 15. This is a percentage of 50.93%, and 8 of the 

students met the 70% requirement. There were 70 percent of 19 students who passed the 

criterion of 70 per person, which is a decline from the previous amount. The total academic 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Planning Fluent Practice Quality of work

Phase 1

Phase 2

The 

students 

pass the 

measurent 

at 70 

percent 

The 

students 

do not 

pass the 

measurent 

at 70 

Pass Student Non Pass Student

The 

student 

the 

measurent 

at 70 

percent 

The 

students 

do not 

pass the 

measurent 

at 70 

Pass Student Non Pass Student



32 

 

achievement score was 10.53 out of a possible score of 15, which represents 70.19 percent. The 

number of students who passed the criteria decreased. 

According to the research on the development of productive thinking abilities of Senior 

high school level 4 students who received a learning management based on a steam education 

approach, additional physics subjects on momentum and collisions.  The following issues were 

discussed for discussion: 

Teaching cycle 1: Productive thinking for students through STEAM education, it was 

found that students had an average productivity thinking score of 6.17 out of 12 because most 

students were interested in new activities and intended to work together, enjoying and 

teamwork. The teachers arrange various situations to stimulate the students' interest. 

Understanding of the problem which uses basic knowledge in science, technology, engineering, 

art and mathematics to design creative work.  Beautiful meets the objectives set by the teacher 

and put to good use from learning management according to the approach of STEAM education 

tends to develop productive thinking of the students in the target group. But there are still 

students who still have low scores.  The cause may be caused during the event. The students 

still did not dare to think, dare to do which the minority of students can identify the problem. 

They need the situation, but still not completely clear and it may be because of the problem 

situation that the students are not familiar with (Utami & Vioreza, 2021). 

Teaching Cycle 2, when improving and developing learning activities according to the 

steam education approach from teaching Phase 1, it was found that students had an average 

score of productive thinking equal to 7.82 out of a full score of 12. It can be seen that the 

student's scores increased because the researcher has adjusted the teaching process in the 

problem identification stage. The teacher added videos to give students more visualization, 

practice, analyzing and synthesize data for students to apply to their own work and added rules, 

regulations, duration spent on activities including providing a suitable place to do activities. 

Creating an atmosphere of learning for students to the fullest to make students enthusiastic 

intend to do activities cooperate more with friends in the group (Onsee & Nuangchalerm, 2019). 

As a result, the students' developmental scores increased from teaching cycle 1 with higher 

average scores for each step.  In part of the stage of active work it because the students still 

don't choose the right equipment to create the work.  There must also be a teacher to guide.  But 

the score has increased from the original (Guzey & Jung, 2021).  In terms of the quality of the 

work, both the teaching phases 1 and 2 had low scores because the students unfamiliar with 

creating new works this allows the students to create works from what they have seen mostly. 

From the discussion of the results of teaching in both phases, it can be seen that the 

development of productive thinking of the target group of students the development of students' 

productive thinking. The productivity there is always a way to create a successful work. There 

are always 3 elements. 1) Planning: there is a plan to create a work in stages and can be 

implemented. 2) Fluent work: able to choose the right materials and equipment to create the 

works correctly and appropriately can specify the details of the equipment used including 

considering the durability of the work-piece for use. 3) Quality of work: work produced by 

students meets the objectives, is novel in a positive way, is practical and can be applied for the 

benefit of the students.  self and society, from teaching and learning according to the approach 

of STEAM education, it was found that students learn by themselves.   

Additionally, the learning atmosphere is very important to affect the success of learning 

management, etc.  Learning based on STEAM education also makes learners creative and 

productive individuals, which is an important goal of every country helps to relax forming good 

work habits, give students the opportunity to research. The teacher is the one who helps, 

encourages questions and suggests opinions (Auernhammer & Roth, 2022). Students learn more 

real-life working principles and working principles of engineering.  It can be considered that 



33 

learning management according to the STEAM education approach is a way to develop 

students' productive thinking. 

The development of the academic achievement in physics found that the students' 

learning achievement in teaching Phase 1 had an average score of 7.64. Out of the full score of 

15, representing 50.93 percent and 8 students passed the criteria of 70 percent. In the second 

phase of teaching, students had an average academic achievement of 10.36 out of the full score 

of 15, representing 70.19 percent, and had students pass. The criteria of 70 percent of 19 people 

in learning management to promote academic achievement. From organizing activities that 

focus on students searching for knowledge by themselves through that learning activity.  At the 

end of every hour, all students have to solve a problem.  It was found that the students were 

able to complete their assigned tasks and were able to solve some complex problems.  But most 

of the students still do not remember the formulas used in the calculations, including solvin g 

mathematical equations is not completely correct. Teachers then help explain the steps to solve 

problems and summarize various formulas and add equation solving for students to go back and 

review more content (Prommaboon et al., 2022). Students can connect them to the context of 

the suitable learning by using group principles to allow peers to help peers in groups increases 

their learning achievement.   

From the research, it can be seen that learning management according to the approach 

of STEAM education can promote achievement of students and it also fosters the ability to 

think productively because of achievement scores and student productivity thinking in both 

phases of teaching has continued to increase as a result of learning management according to 

the STEAM education approach. That makes students have the courage to think, dare to do, 

have the ability to search for information, analyze and synthesize information systematically 

and can understand the problem and find a solution (Nuangchalerm et al., 2020). Students 

should have leading to the creation of quality and beautiful work pieces, helping to promote 

cooperation and teamwork.   

 

4. CONCLUSION 

The study showed that throughout the first and second cycles, students had scored 

51.16% and 65.15% on the productive thinking scale respectively. The learning organization 

improved the academic performance of the students in each cycle. It is reasonable to infer and 

consider the potential that STEAM education can support students' intellectual development. It 

is useful for scientific instruction in schools, but teachers also need to be knowledgeable about 

how to organize their classes. 

 
REFERENCES 

Auernhammer, J., & Roth, B. (2022). Different types of productive thinking in design: From 

rational to social design thinking. In Design thinking research: achieving real 

innovation (pp. 271-290). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 

Bertrand, M. G., & Namukasa, I. K. (2020). STEAM education: student learning and 

transferable skills. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 43-

56.  

Fausan, M. M., Susilo, H., Gofur, A., Sueb, & Yusop, F. D. (2021). Assessing students’ prior 

knowledge on critical thinking skills in the biology classroom: Has it already been 

good?. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2330, No. 1, p. 030016). \Guzey, S. S., & 

Jung, J. Y. (2021). Productive thinking and science learning in design 

teams. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19, 215-232.  



34 

 

Husnaini, S. J., & Chen, S. (2019). Effects of guided inquiry virtual and physical laboratories 

on conceptual understanding, inquiry performance, scientific inquiry self-efficacy, and 

enjoyment. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), 010119.  

Kim, Y., & Park, N. (2012). Development and application of STEAM teaching model based on 

the Rube Goldberg’s invention. In Computer science and its applications: CSA 

2012 (pp. 693-698). Springer Netherlands.  

Kwangmuang, P., Jarutkamolpong, S., Sangboonraung, W., & Daungtod, S. (2021). The 

development of learning innovation to enhance higher order thinking skills for students 

in Thailand junior high schools. Heliyon, 7(6), e07309. 

Listiana, I., Abdurrahman, A., Suyatna, A., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2019). The effect of 

Newtonian dynamics STEM-integrated learning strategy to increase scientific literacy 

of senior high school students. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni, 8(1), 43-52.  

Manz, E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2020). Rethinking the classroom science 

investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1148-1174.  

Meyer, M. W., & Norman, D. (2020). Changing design education for the 21st century. She Ji: 

The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(1), 13-49.  

Nuangchalerm, P., Prachagool, V., El Islami, R. A. Z., & Abdurrahman, A. (2020). 

Contribution of integrated learning through STEM education in ASEAN 

countries. Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif, 10(1), 11-21. 

Nuangchalerm, P., Prachagool, V., Prommaboon, T., Juhji, J., Imroatun, I., & Khaeroni, K. 

(2020). Views of primary Thai teachers toward STREAM education. International 

Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(4), 987-992.  

Onsee, P., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2019). Developing critical thinking of grade 10 students 

through inquiry-based STEM learning. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA, 5(2), 

132-141.  

Prince, M., Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2020). Active student engagement in online STEM classes: 

Approaches and recommendations. Advances in Engineering Education, 8(4), 1-25. 

Prommaboon, T., Boongthong, S., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2022). STREAM education 

curriculum for primary Thai language teachers and school implementation. Journal of 

Educational Issues, 8(1), 84-100.  

Queiruga-Dios, M. Á., López-Iñesta, E., Diez-Ojeda, M., Sáiz-Manzanares, M. C., & Vazquez 

Dorrio, J. B. (2020). Citizen science for scientific literacy and the attainment of 

sustainable development goals in formal education. Sustainability, 12(10), 4283.  

Quigley, C. F., & Herro, D. (2019). An educator's guide to steam: Engaging students using 

real-world problems. Teachers College Press. 

Sharon, A. J., & Baram‐Tsabari, A. (2020). Can science literacy help individuals identify 
misinformation in everyday life?. Science Education, 104(5), 873-894.  

Stehle, S. M., & Peters-Burton, E. E. (2019). Developing student 21st Century skills in selected 

exemplary inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM 

Education, 6(1), 1-15.  

Supena, I., Darmuki, A., & Hariyadi, A. (2021). The influence of 4C (Constructive, Critical, 

Creativity, Collaborative) learning model on students' learning outcomes. International 

Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 873-892.  

Utami, P. P., & Vioreza, N. (2021). Teacher work productivity in senior high 

school. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 599-614.  

Voorhees, D. H., LeMay, L. E., Nagy, E. A., & Perez, A. E. (2022). Successes with 

metacognition: Empowering faculty and transforming student learning. New Directions 

for Community Colleges, 2022(199), 17-33.  



35 

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.  

Yakman, G. (2008). STEAM education: An overview of creating a model of integrative 

education. Virginia Polytechnic and State University. 

 
 


