Learning Outcomes and Metacognitive Regulation after SLR-Oriented STEM-Integrated Research-Based Learning in Plant Metabolites
Share article
- Published
- 2026-07-31
- Pages
- 967-991
- Section
- Original Research Article
Abstract
The integration of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) with Research-Based Learning (RBL) may provide an authentic context for students to engage with scientific evidence while regulating their learning processes. This study aimed to (1) determine the extent to which students’ learning-outcome scores changed after participating in an SLR-oriented STEM-integrated RBL sequence and (2) describe students’ post-intervention metacognitive-regulation profiles. Sixty-three undergraduate Biology Education students participated in a quantitative pre-experimental study using a one-group pretest-posttest design. The three-meeting intervention required students to formulate a research question, search and screen literature, organize and synthesize evidence on coffee metabolites and roasting conditions, prepare a scientific article, and reflect on their work. Learning outcomes were assessed using four constructed-response items with a maximum score of 100; the available 65-response instrument-testing dataset yielded item-total correlations of .254–.438 and Cronbach’s α = .530. Metacognitive regulation was measured after the intervention using a 14-item questionnaire covering planning, monitoring, and evaluating (overall Cronbach’s α = .923). Mean learning-outcome scores increased from 26.03 (SD = 9.77) at pretest to 65.92 (SD = 12.98) at posttest, with a mean difference of 39.89, t(62) = 23.498, p < .001, 95% CI [36.50, 43.28]. The normalized gain was .538 (moderate), and Cohen’s dz was 2.960. The post-intervention metacognitive profile was good for planning (81.3%) and sufficient for monitoring (73.2%) and evaluating (69.7%). These findings provide evidence of substantial within-group learning-outcome change together with a differentiated post-intervention metacognitive-regulation profile. The design supports interpretation at the within-group and post-intervention levels, while causal effects and longitudinal metacognitive development remain questions for future comparative research.
Keywords
How to Cite
Ika Priantari, Suratno Suratno, Dwi Wahyuni, Dafik Dafik, Yoga Dwi Windy Kusuma Ningtyas. (2026). Learning Outcomes and Metacognitive Regulation after SLR-Oriented STEM-Integrated Research-Based Learning in Plant Metabolites. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengkajian Ilmu Pendidikan: e-Saintika, 10(2), 967-991. https://journal-center.litpam.com/index.php/e-Saintika/article/view/5768
References
Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012
Altındağ, M., & Senemoğlu, N. (2013). Metacognitive skills scale. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28(1), 15–26. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/hunefd/article/101825
Angell, D. K., Lane-Getaz, S., Okonek, T., & Smith, S. (2024). Metacognitive exam preparation assignments in an introductory biology course improve exam scores for lower ACT students compared with assignments that focus on terms. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 23(1), ar6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-10-0212
Aquino Nunez, W., Scott, M. C. B., & Morgan, D. E. (2025). Metacognitive mapping: Developmental biology students struggle with higher-order cognitive skills in multiple course formats. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 26(2), e00139-24. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00139-24
Brew, A. (2007, April 19–21). Research and teaching from the students’ perspective. International Policies and Practices for Academic Enquiry: An International Colloquium, Winchester, United Kingdom. http://portal-live.solent.ac.uk/university/rtconference/2007/resources/angela_brew.pdf
Brown, R., Brown, J., Reardon, K., & Merrill, C. (2011). Understanding STEM: Current perceptions. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(6), 5–9. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ918930
Chatzipanteli, A., Grammatikopoulos, V., & Gregoriadis, A. (2014). Development and evaluation of metacognition in early childhood education. Early Child Development and Care, 184(8), 1223–1232. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2013.861456
Chen, C.-H., & Yang, Y.-C. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review, 26, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.11.001
Colthorpe, K., Ogiji, J., Ainscough, L., Zimbardi, K., & Anderson, S. (2019). Effect of metacognitive prompts on undergraduate pharmacy students’ self-regulated learning behavior. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83(4), 6646. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe6646
Dafik, Sucianto, B., Irvan, M., & Rohim, M. A. (2019). The analysis of student metacognition skill in solving rainbow connection problem under the implementation of research-based learning model. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 593–610. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12438a
Daryanes, F., & Sayuti, I. (2023). Research-based learning in biology courses to train students critical thinking skills: Student’s perception. Biosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi, 16(1), 124–137. https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.23160
Dye, K. M., & Stanton, J. D. (2017). Metacognition in upper-division biology students: Awareness does not always lead to control. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar31. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-09-0286
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K–12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Healey, M., Jenkins, A., & Lea, J. (2014). Developing research-based curricula in college-based higher education. Higher Education Academy. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED561351
Helendra, H., Lufri, L., & Elizar, E. (2023). Students’ metacognitive skill level of Biology Education Study Program. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Biology, Science and Education (IcoBioSE 2021) (pp. 76–83). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-166-1_11
Hindun, I., Nurwidodo, N., & Wicaksono, A. G. C. (2020). Metacognitive awareness components of high-academic ability students in biology hybrid learning: Profile and correlation. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 6(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v6i1.11097
Hiwatig, B. M. R., Roehrig, G. H., & Rouleau, M. D. (2024). Unpacking the nuances: An exploratory multilevel analysis on the operationalization of integrated STEM education and student attitudinal change. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 6(1), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-024-00108-6
Holmlund, T. D., Lesseig, K., & Slavit, D. (2018). Making sense of “STEM education” in K–12 contexts. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, Article 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0127-2
Irwanto, Rohaeti, E., Widjajanti, E., & Suyanta. (2017). Students’ science process skill and analytical thinking ability in chemistry learning. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1868, 030001. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995100
Kania, N., Kusumah, Y. S., Dahlan, J. A., Nurlaelah, E., Gürbüz, F., & Bonyah, E. (2024). Constructing and providing content validity evidence through the Aiken’s V index based on the experts’ judgments of the instrument to measure mathematical problem-solving skills. REID (Research and Evaluation in Education), 10(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v10i1.71032
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
Komaria, N., Suratno, Sudarti, & Dafik. (2024). Analysis of the implementation of research-based learning material with STEM approach in improving students’ metacognitive skill. International Journal of Instruction, 17(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2024.17212a
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
Marrero, M. E., Gunning, A. M., & Germain-Williams, T. (2014). What is STEM education? Global Education Review, 1(4), 1–6. https://ger.mercy.edu/index.php/ger/article/view/135
Marsden, E. J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2012). Single group, pre- and post-test research designs: Some methodological concerns. Oxford Review of Education, 38(5), 583–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.731208
Monalisa, L. A., Dafik, Hastuti, Y., Hussen, S., & Oktavianingtyas, E. (2019). The implementation of research based learning in developing the students mathematical generalization thinking skills in solving a paving blocks design problem. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 243, 012168. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/243/1/012168
Quigley, A., Muijs, D., & Stringer, E. (2018). Metacognition and self-regulated learning: Guidance report. Education Endowment Foundation. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/31617/
Ratnayake, A., Bansal, A., Wong, N., Saseetharan, T., Prompiengchai, S., Jenne, A., Thiagavel, J., & Ashok, A. (2024). All “wrapped” up in reflection: Supporting metacognitive awareness to promote students’ self-regulated learning. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 25(1), e00103-23. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00103-23
Roehrig, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E., & Wieselmann, J. R. (2021). Understanding coherence and integration in integrated STEM curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 8, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00259-8
Sadykova, A., Iskakova, M., Ismailova, G., Ishmukhametova, A., Sovetova, A., & Mukasheva, K. (2024). The impact of a metacognition-based course on school students’ metacognitive skills and biology comprehension. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1460496. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1460496
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003044231033
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
Sota, C., & Peltzer, K. (2017). The effectiveness of research based learning among Master Degree student for health promotion and preventable disease, Faculty of Public Health, Khon Kaen University, Thailand. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 1359–1365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.226
Stanton, J. D., Dye, K. M., & Johnson, M. S. (2019). Knowledge of learning makes a difference: A comparison of metacognition in introductory and senior-level biology students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(2), ar24. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-12-0239
Stanton, J. D., Halmo, S. M., Carter, R. J., Yamini, K. A., & Ososanya, D. (2024). Opportunities for guiding development: Insights from first-year life science majors’ use of metacognition. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 25(3), e00053-24. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00053-24
Stanton, J. D., Neider, X. N., Gallegos, I. J., & Clark, N. C. (2015). Differences in metacognitive regulation in introductory biology students: When prompts are not enough. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(2), ar15. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0135
Stanton, J. D., Sebesta, A. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2021). Fostering metacognition to support student learning and performance. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(2), fe3. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0289
Suntusia, Dafik, & Hobri. (2019). The effectiveness of research based learning in improving students’ achievement in solving two-dimensional arithmetic sequence problems. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.1212a
Supit, P. G. Y., & Winardi, Y. (2024). Pembelajaran berbasis riset (Research-Based Learning) untuk meningkatkan kemampuan berpikir kritis, berpikir kreatif dan berpikir reflektif siswa dalam pembelajaran biologi. Polyglot: Jurnal Ilmiah, 20(2), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.19166/pji.v20i2.8355
Syofyan, H., MS, Z., & Sumantri, M. S. (2019). Use of integrated thematic teaching materials based on problem solving in natural science learning in elementary schools. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Technology and Educational Science (ICTES 2018). EAI. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.21-11-2018.2282034
Taleb, H. M., & Chadwick, C. (2016). Enhancing student critical and analytical thinking skills at a higher education level in developing countries: Case study of the British University in Dubai. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 6(1), 67–77. https://www.arastirmax.com/en/system/files/dergiler/116392/makaleler/6/1/arastirmax-enhancing-student-critical-and-analytical-thinking-skills-higher-education-level-developing-countries-case-study-british-university-dubai.pdf
Tanner, K. D. (2012). Promoting student metacognition. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033
Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón, D. L., Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., Grummer, J. A., Hennessey, K., Hsiao, J., Iranon, N., Jones, L., Jordt, H., Keller, M., Lacey, M. E., Littlefield, C. E., Lowe, A., Newman, S., Okolo, V., Olroyd, S., Peecook, B. R., Pickett, S. B., Slager, D. L., Caviedes-Solis, I. W., Stanchak, K. E., Sundaravardan, V., Valdebenito, C., Williams, C. R., Zinsli, K., & Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Dehaene, W., Deprez, J., De Cock, M., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Van de Velde, D., Van Petegem, P., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525
White, D. W. (2014). What is STEM education and why is it important? Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal, 1(14), 1–9. http://www.fate1.org/journals/2014/white.pdf
Winarni, J., Zubaidah, S., & Koes, S. (2016). STEM: Apa, mengapa, dan bagaimana. In Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pendidikan IPA Pascasarjana UM (Vol. 1, pp. 976–984). https://pasca.um.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Juniaty-Winarni-976-984.pdf
Xie, Y., Fang, M., & Shauman, K. (2015). STEM education. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 331–357. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145659
Yennita, Y., Astriawati, F., Jumiarni, D., & Irawati, S. (2025). The impact of Research-Based Projects (RBP) in Plant Physiology course on undergraduate student meta-skills. Bioedusiana: Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi, 10(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.37058/bioed.v10i1.12922
Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2015). Metacognition and teaching higher order thinking (HOT) in science education: Students’ learning, teachers’ knowledge and instructional practices. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 229–242). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315797021
Zou, T. X. P., Lee, J. C. Y., Yu, K. S., Chow, K. L., Barry, T. J., Leung, L. Y. Y., & Brew, A. (2024). Faculty members’ perceptions and students’ experiences of research-based curricula: A multiple case study of four undergraduate programmes. Higher Education, 88(3), 1205–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01166-x