Bridging the Gap in Abstract Biology Concepts: A Needs Analysis for STEM-Integrated Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) Photosynthesis Learning
DOI:
10.29303/jppipa.v12i6.14445Published:
2026-06-25Downloads
Abstract
This study aims to analyze teachers' needs for the development of photosynthesis learning based on Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) integrated with the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) approach as the basis for developing learning tools. The study was conducted at the needs analysis stage within the Design-Based Research (DBR) framework using a mixed methods approach with a sequential explanatory design. Quantitative data were obtained through a survey of 33 high school biology teachers in Lampung Province using a Guttman scale-based questionnaire, while qualitative data were obtained through in-depth interviews with three biology teachers. The results showed that 66.7% of teachers were not familiar with the ADI model and 54.5% had not implemented the STEM approach in learning. 90.9% of teachers had never used STEM-integrated ADI-based student worksheets, and 100% of teachers had never applied it to photosynthesis material. In addition, 75.7% of teachers had not measured critical thinking skills and 87.8% had not systematically measured collaboration skills. Interview results revealed that teachers still experience difficulties in understanding the implementation of ADI, integrating STEM in learning, developing appropriate learning tools, and facing obstacles such as the abstract nature of photosynthesis material, time constraints, and limited laboratory facilities. Based on these findings, it is recommended to develop a photosynthesis student worksheet based on STEM-integrated ADI equipped with critical thinking and collaboration assessment instruments to support more meaningful biology learning and oriented towards 21st-century skills.
Keywords:
Collaboration skills Critical thinking skills Photosynthesis STEM-integrated ADIReferences
AAAS. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. AAAS. Retrieved from https://www.aaas.org/resources/vision-change-undergraduate-biology-education-call-action
Aslam, F., Adefila, A., & Bagiya, Y. (2023). STEM education for sustainable development: Challenges and opportunities in classroom implementation. Education Sciences, 13(2), 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020145 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020145
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Virginia: NSTA press.
Çetin-Dindar, A., Boz, Y., & Erduran, S. (2023). Integrating argumentation and STEM practices in science education: Current trends and future directions. Science & Education, 32(4), 891–913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00387-4
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E., & Roehrig, G. H. (2023). Creating integrated STEM learning experiences for secondary students. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00402-8
El Nagdi, M., Leammukda, F., & Roehrig, G. H. (2023). Developing teachers’ STEM pedagogical practices: Challenges and opportunities in integrated STEM implementation. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00415-3
English, L. D. (2023). Advancing STEM literacy through integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00395-4
Ennis, R. H. (2011). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. University of Illinois. Retrieved from https://education.illinois.edu
Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2024). Scientific argumentation and science education: Contemporary perspectives and future directions. Science & Education, 33(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00502-5
Fakhriyah, F., Rusilowati, A., & Susilaningsih, E. (2021). The effectiveness of argument-driven inquiry in improving students’ scientific argumentation skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 5, 52101. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1918/5/052101
Fiore, S. M., Graesser, A. C., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W., & Hesse, F. W. (2023). Assessing collaborative problem solving: Advances, challenges, and implications for education. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09752-8
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (10th ed.) (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Graesser, A. C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W., & Hesse, F. W. (2018). Advancing the science of collaborative problem solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(2), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618808244 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618808244
Greenstein, L. (2012). Assessing 21st Century Skills. A Guide to Evaluating Mastery and Authentic Learning. SAGE Company.
Hasnunidah, N. (2022). Biology education research methodology. Media Akademi.
Herro, D., Quigley, C., Andrews, J., & Delacruz, G. (2022). Co-measure: Developing integrated STEM learning materials and supporting teacher implementation. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00328-7
Kaltakci-Gurel, D., & Eryilmaz, A. (2023). Students’ conceptual understanding and misconceptions in photosynthesis: A review of recent science education studies. Journal of Biological Education, 57(5), 1123–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2022.2082947
Karaarslan, G., & Sungur, S. (2024). Inquiry-based science learning and students’ scientific reasoning in biology education. International Journal of Science Education, 46(2), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2284715
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
Knight, A. M., McNeill, K. L., & González-Howard, M. (2022). Teachers’ understanding and enactment of scientific argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(8), 1354–1380. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21774 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21774
Koba, S., & Tweed, A. (2023). Hard-to-teach biology concepts: A framework for deeper understanding. NSTA Press.
Koseoglu, F., & Efendioglu, A. (2024). Visual representations and conceptual understanding in biology learning: Implications for teaching photosynthesis. Journal of Biological Education, 58(2), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2023.2214587
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2022). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and student engagement. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00342-9
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315105642 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203818183
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education: Vol. I. PISA). OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i_53f23881-en.html DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
Park, M. H., Dimitrov, D. M., Patterson, L. G., & Park, D. Y. (2022). Early career teachers’ challenges in implementing integrated STEM education. Eurasian Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(4), 2097. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11884
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2019). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Rowman & Littlefield. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9781538133798-11
Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421
Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C. L., Ebbeler, J., & Pieters, J. M. (2023). Data-informed assessment practices and teachers’ challenges in measuring higher-order thinking skills. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 76, 101233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101233 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101233
Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2022). Assessing teacher readiness for integrated STEM education implementation. School Science and Mathematics, 122(3), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12501 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12501
Taiz, L., Zeiger, E., Møller, I. M., & Murphy, A. (2022). Plant physiology and development (7th ed.). Sinauer Associates. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hesc/9780197614204.001.0001
Tekkaya, C., & Balcı, S. (2022). Misconceptions in biology education: Challenges and implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 44(9), 1452–1469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2054873
Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., Loof, H., Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., & Depaepe, F. (2022). Integrated STEM education: Teacher challenges and implementation requirements. European Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/13052
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://ardian.id/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/21st_Century_Skills_Learning_for_Life_in_Our_Times____2009-3.pdf
UNESCO. (2024). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark%3A/48223/pf0000379381 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004738058
Urry, L. A., Cain, M. L., Wasserman, S. A., Minorsky, P. V, & Orr, R. B. (2023). Campbell Biology (13th ed.). Pearson.
Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., & Zimmerman, C. O. (2023). Argument-driven inquiry and its impact on students’ scientific reasoning and communication. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(4), 745–768. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21835 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21835
Zohar, A., & Alboher, M. (2024). Critical thinking in science education: Current perspectives and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 60(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2023.2283148
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fitriyani, Neni Hasnunidah, Kartini Herlina, Chansanah Diawati, Noor Fadiawati
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY License). This license allows authors to use all articles, data sets, graphics, and appendices in data mining applications, search engines, web sites, blogs, and other platforms by providing an appropriate reference. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
