Variability in explanations of physical mechanisms among 10th-grade students when solving a STEM problem

Kenji López; Marlenny Guevara; Valeria Cabello; Jairo Montes; Kenji López; Marlenny Guevara; Valeria Cabello; Jairo Montes

doi:10.3934/steme.2026020

STEM Education

2026, Volume 6, Issue 3: 467-495. doi: 10.3934/steme.2026020

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Variability in explanations of physical mechanisms among 10th-grade students when solving a STEM problem

1.
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Facultad de Educación, y Universidad del Valle, Facultad de Psicología, Cali – Colombia; jose.julian.kenji@gmail.com
2.
Universidad del Valle, Facultad de Psicología, Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias del Desarrollo, del Aprendizaje y Subjetividades (CIDEAS), Cali, Colombia; marlenny.guevara@correounivalle.edu.co
3.
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Facultad de Educación, Center for the Study of Policies and Practices in Education (CEPPE UC), Santiago de Chile, Chile; vmcabello@uc.cl
4.
Gaming & Learning, Cali, Colombia; jairoamontes@gmail.com

Academic Editor: William Guo

Received: 02 December 2025 Revised: 10 March 2026 Accepted: 17 April 2026 Published: 11 May 2026

The development of scientific thinking during adolescence does not necessarily show a progressive linear sequence. The variability in students' explanations expressing scientific thinking organization requires a comprehensive examination in STEM education. The purpose of this study was to characterize such variability in 424 explanations provided by 53 10th-grade high school students when solving a STEM problem. Using a descriptive exploratory design, a microgenetic method was employed, with an intraindividual analysis of eight repeated measurements. Participants were assigned to solve a problem, which required linking physical mechanisms to achieve a goal in a virtual game. The complexity of participants' explanations in the game's dialogue windows was analyzed in relation to Kurt Fischer's theory. The five clusters showed nonlinear patterns. The first cluster had a score of 76.14 (n = 15) and showed a progressive increase. The second cluster scored 54.14 (n = 12) and showed intermediate fluctuations. The third cluster, characterized by low-complexity trajectories, had a mean of 39.54 (n = 10). The fourth cluster, 32.21 (n = 32.21), showed fluctuations between low and high scores. The fifth cluster, 17.55 (n = 7), showed a pattern of fluctuating scores throughout the sessions. These findings contribute to the field of research by considering the complexity of scientific thinking in problem-solving situations and by informing science education to promote the understanding of physical concepts among secondary students.
- variability science education,
- thinking,
- problem-solving,
- explanations
Citation: Kenji López, Marlenny Guevara, Valeria Cabello, Jairo Montes. Variability in explanations of physical mechanisms among 10th-grade students when solving a STEM problem[J]. STEM Education, 2026, 6(3): 467-495. doi: 10.3934/steme.2026020

Related Papers:

Abstract

The development of scientific thinking during adolescence does not necessarily show a progressive linear sequence. The variability in students' explanations expressing scientific thinking organization requires a comprehensive examination in STEM education. The purpose of this study was to characterize such variability in 424 explanations provided by 53 10th-grade high school students when solving a STEM problem. Using a descriptive exploratory design, a microgenetic method was employed, with an intraindividual analysis of eight repeated measurements. Participants were assigned to solve a problem, which required linking physical mechanisms to achieve a goal in a virtual game. The complexity of participants' explanations in the game's dialogue windows was analyzed in relation to Kurt Fischer's theory. The five clusters showed nonlinear patterns. The first cluster had a score of 76.14 (n = 15) and showed a progressive increase. The second cluster scored 54.14 (n = 12) and showed intermediate fluctuations. The third cluster, characterized by low-complexity trajectories, had a mean of 39.54 (n = 10). The fourth cluster, 32.21 (n = 32.21), showed fluctuations between low and high scores. The fifth cluster, 17.55 (n = 7), showed a pattern of fluctuating scores throughout the sessions. These findings contribute to the field of research by considering the complexity of scientific thinking in problem-solving situations and by informing science education to promote the understanding of physical concepts among secondary students.

References

[1]	Ben-Soussan, T., Croce, R., Horvat, M., McCullick, B., Pesce, C., Tomporowski, P.D., et al., Variability of practice as an interface between motor and cognitive development. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2019, 17(2): 133‒152. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2016.1223421 doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2016.1223421
[2]	Vieira, R.M. and Tenreiro-Vieira, C., Fostering scientific literacy and critical thinking in elementary science education. International Journal of science and mathematics education, 2016, 14(4): 659‒680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9605-2 doi: 10.1007/s10763-014-9605-2
[3]	Yıldız Taşdemir, C. and Güler Yıldız, T., Science learning needs of preschool children and science activities carried out by teachers. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 2024, 21(1): 82‒101. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2024.005 doi: 10.36681/tused.2024.005
[4]	Rushton, E.A. and Reiss, M.J., From science teacher to 'teacher scientist': exploring the experiences of research-active science teachers in the UK. International Journal of Science Education, 2019, 41(11): 1541‒1561. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1615656 doi: 10.1080/09500693.2019.1615656
[5]	Díaz-Levicoy, D.A., Ferrada, C., Puraivan, E. and Salgado Orellana, N., Análisis bibliométrico sobre educación STEM. Revista espacios, 2019, 40(08).
[6]	García, J.G., El constructivismo en la educación y el aporte de la teoría sociocultural de Vygotsky para comprender la construcción del conocimiento en el ser humano. Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores, 2020.
[7]	Hadzigeorgiou, Y. and Schulz, R.M., Engaging Students in Science: The Potential Role of "Narrative Thinking" and "Romantic Understanding." Frontiers in Education, 2019, 4: 454767. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00038 doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00038
[8]	Lager, A. and Lavonen, J., Engaging Students in Scientific Practices in a Remote Setting. Educ. Sci., 2023, 13(5): 431. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050431 doi: 10.3390/educsci13050431
[9]	Sarı, U., Duygu, E., Şen Ömer, F. and Kırındı, T., The Effects of STEM education on scientific process skills and STEM awareness in simulation based ınquiry learning environment. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 2020, 17(3): 387‒405. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.34 doi: 10.36681/tused.2020.34
[10]	Shirazi, S., Student experience of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 2017, 39(14): 1891–1912. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1356943 doi: 10.1080/09500693.2017.1356943
[11]	Brock, R. and Taber, K.S., Making Sense of 'Making Sense' in Science Education: A Microgenetic Multiple Case Study. In Cognitive and Affective Aspects in Science Education Research: Selected Papers from the ESERA 2015 Conference, 2017,157‒166. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58685-4_12
[12]	Abello, R., Castaño, J. and Escobar, H., Trayectorias de control y covariación de variables como expresión del cambio cognitivo en la solución de un problema. Universitas Psychologica, 2016, 15(1): 281‒302. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy15-1.tccv doi: 10.11144/Javeriana.upsy15-1.tccv
[13]	Aróstegui, J.L., A New Education for a New Era: Transdisciplinarity, Transversal Competences and an Eclectic Approach to Evaluation. En: Ortega-Sánchez, D. (ed). Controversial Issues and Social Problems for an Integrated Disciplinary Teaching, 2022, 53‒64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08697-7_5
[14]	Mora, S.Z.J., La transversalidad curricular: algunas consideraciones teóricas para su implementación. Revista boletín redipe, 2018, 7(11): 65‒81.
[15]	Nikolay, T., The transversal competence for problem-solving in cognitive learning. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 2018, 6(3): 67‒82. https://doi.org/10.5937/ijcrsee1803067T doi: 10.5937/ijcrsee1803067T
[16]	Resing, W.C., Bakker, M., Pronk, C.M. and Elliott, J.G., Progression paths in children's problem solving: The influence of dynamic testing, initial variability, and working memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2017,153: 83‒109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.09.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.09.004
[17]	Al Muhdhar, M., Fitriani, A., Susilo, H. and Zubaidah, S., The Effects of Integrated Problem-Based Learning, Predict, Observe, Explain on Problem-Solving Skills and Self-Efficacy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 2020, 20(85): 45‒64. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.85.3 doi: 10.14689/ejer.2020.85.3
[18]	Guevara, M., Rojas Ospina, T. and van Geert, P., Understanding transfer from a dynamic system approach: Two studies of children using problem-solving tasks. Cogent Education, 2020, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1814512 doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2020.1814512
[19]	Evans, T., Klymchuk, S., Murphy, P.E., Novak, J., Stephens, J. and Thomas, M., Non-routine mathematical problem-solving: creativity, engagement, and intuition of STEM tertiary students. STEM Education, 2021, 1(4): 256‒278. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2021017 doi: 10.3934/steme.2021017
[20]	Zuljan, D., Valenčić Z.M. and Pejić P.P., Cognitive constructivist way of teaching scientific and technical contents. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 2021, 9(1): 23‒36. https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2021-9-1-23-36 doi: 10.23947/2334-8496-2021-9-1-23-36
[21]	Xu, F., Towards a rational constructivist theory of cognitive development. Psychological Review, 2019,126(6): 841–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000153 doi: 10.1037/rev0000153
[22]	Agarkar, S.C., Influence of learning theories on science education. Resonance, 2019, 24(8): 847‒859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12045-019-0848-7 doi: 10.1007/s12045-019-0848-7
[23]	Geelan, D.R., Learning to communicate: Developing as a science teacher. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 1996, 42(1).
[24]	McLure, F., The Thinking Frames Approach: Improving High School Students' Written Explanations of Phenomena in Science. Res Sci Educ, 2023, 53: 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10052-y doi: 10.1007/s11165-022-10052-y
[25]	Fischer, K.W., Bullock, D.H., Rotenberg, E.J. and Raya, P., The dynamics of competence: How context contributes directly to skill. In Development in context, 2014, 93‒117. Psychology Press.
[26]	Hatch, J.B., Jensen, J.L., Neeley, S. and Piorczynski, T., Learning scientific reasoning skills may be key to retention in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 2017, 19(2): 126‒144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115611616 doi: 10.1177/1521025115611616
[27]	Ratheeswari, K., Information communication technology in education. Journal of Applied and Advanced research, 2018, 3(1): 45‒47. https://doi.org/10.21839/jaar.2018.v3iS1.169 doi: 10.21839/jaar.2018.v3iS1.169
[28]	Hasanah, D., Samsudi, S., Khafid, M. and Mahmud, A., Vocational High School Teachers Continuous Professional Learning. International Conference on Science, Education, and Technology, 2023, 9(1): 176–183.
[29]	Klahr, D. and Zimmerman, C., Development of Scientific Thinking. Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119170174.epcn407 doi: 10.1002/9781119170174.epcn407
[30]	Land, S.M. and Zimmerman, H.T., Supporting children's place-based observations and explanations using collaboration scripts while learning-on-the-move outdoors. Intern. J. Comput-Support. Collab. Learn, 2022, 17: 107–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-022-09366-w doi: 10.1007/s11412-022-09366-w
[31]	Lewis, M.D., The promise of dynamic systems approaches for an integrated account of human development. Child Development, 2000, 71: 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00116 doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00116
[32]	van der Aalsvoort, G.M., van Geert, P. and Steenbeek, H.W., Microgenetic methodology: Possibilities with regard to research on learning and instruction. Investigating Classroom Interaction, 2009,203‒227. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087907624_011
[33]	Frøyland, M. and Remmen, K., Students' use of observation in geology: towards "scientific observation" in rock classification. International Journal of Science Education, 2019, 42(1): 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1704914 doi: 10.1080/09500693.2019.1704914
[34]	De Carvalho, A.M.P. and Paulo, S., Building up Explanations in Physics Teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 2004, 26(2): 225‒237. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052072 doi: 10.1080/0950069032000052072
[35]	Siegler, R.S., Microgenetic Analyses of Learning. In D. Kuhn, R. S. Siegler, W. Damon, & R.M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognition, perception, and language, 2006,464–510. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
[36]	Filippi, R., Ceccolini, A., Periche-Tomas, E. and Bright, P., Developmental trajectories of metacognitive processing and executive function from childhood to older age. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2020, 73(11): 1757‒1773. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820931096 doi: 10.1177/1747021820931096
[37]	Márquez, C., Roca, M., Sardà, A., Pujol, R. and Gómez, A., La construcción de modelos explicativos complejos mediante preguntas mediadoras. Investigación en la Escuela, 2004, 53: 71‒81.
[38]	Jufrida, J., Basuki, F.R., Kurniawan, W., Pangestu, M.D. and Fitaloka, O., Scientific literacy and science learning achievement at junior high school. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 2019, 8(4): 630‒636. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v8i4.20312 doi: 10.11591/ijere.v8i4.20312
[39]	Schneider, B., Krajcik, J., Lavonen, J., Salmela-Aro, K., Klager, C., Bradford, L., et al., Improving science achievement—Is it possible? Evaluating the efficacy of a high school chemistry and physics project-based learning intervention. Educational Researcher, 2022, 51(2): 109‒121. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211067742 doi: 10.3102/0013189X211067742
[40]	Copur-Gencturk, Y. and Atabas, S., A microgenetic analysis of teachers' learning through teaching. IJ STEM Ed, 2024, 11: 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00488-1 doi: 10.1186/s40594-024-00488-1
[41]	Fossa, P., Cortés, C., Molina, M.E., Barros, M., Marcotti, C.M., Sprovera, I., et al., Microgenetic Analysis of Thought Trajectories: A Mixed Design. Integr. psych. behav., 2022, 56: 630–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09633-9 doi: 10.1007/s12124-021-09633-9
[42]	Guevara, M., Peer Interaction and Scientific Reasoning Processes in Preschoolers: An intra-individual approach [Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen], 2015, Groningen, The Netherlands.
[43]	van Geert, P.L.C., Dynamic systems approaches and modeling of developmental processes. In J. Valsiner, & K. Connoly (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychology, 2003,640‒672. SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608306.n28
[44]	Montes, J., Variabilidad y experimentación: Una aproximación desde los sistemas dinámicos no lineales al razonamiento científico [Doctoral dissertation, Universidad del Valle], 2013, Cali - Colombia.
[45]	van der Steen, S., Steenbeek, H., Van Dijk, M. and Van Geert, P., A process approach to children's understanding of scientific concepts: A longitudinal case study. Learning and Individual Differences, 2014, 30: 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.004 doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.004
[46]	Chen, L., A Brief Review of Microgenetic Method in Second Language Acquisition Research. In 7th International Conference on Social Science and Higher Education (ICSSHE 2021), 2021,100‒106. Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211122.065
[47]	Golzar, J., Noor, S. and Tajik, O., Convenience Sampling. International Journal of Education & Language Studies, 2022, 1(2): 72‒77.
[48]	Fischer, K.W. and Bidell, T.R., Dynamic development of action and thought. Handbook of child psychology, 2006, 1: 313‒399. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0107 doi: 10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0107
[49]	Abraira, V., El índice kappa. SEMERGEN - Medicina de Familia, 2001, 27(5): 247–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1138-3593(01)73955-X doi: 10.1016/S1138-3593(01)73955-X
[50]	Fortus, D. and Touitou, I., Changes to students' motivation to learn science. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 2021, 3(1): 1‒14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-020-00029-0 doi: 10.1186/s43031-020-00029-0
[51]	Johnson, T.M., Byrd, K.O. and Allison, E.R., The impact of integrated STEM modeling on elementary preservice teachers' self‐efficacy for integrated STEM instruction: A co‐teaching approach. School Science and Mathematics, 2021,121(1): 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12443 doi: 10.1111/ssm.12443
[52]	Aguilera, D., Lupiáñez, J., Perales, J. and Vílchez, J., Objetivos de la educación STEM. Revisión sistemática. Actas electrónicas del XI Congreso internacional en investigación en didáctica de las ciencias, 2021, 1939‒1942.
[53]	Potvin, P.J. and Schutz, R.W., Statistical power for the two-factor repeated measures ANOVA. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 2000, 32: 347–356. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207805
[54]	Siburian, L., Data Mining Memprediksi Kebutuhan Vaksin Imunisasi dengan Menggunakan Metode Naive Bayes (Studi kasus UPT Puskesmas Teladan). Resolusi: Rekayasa Teknik Informatika dan Informasi, 20221, 1(5): 282‒290.
[55]	Grimalt-Álvaro, C. and Couso, D., ¿Qué sabemos del posicionamiento STEM del alumnado? Una revision sistemática de la literatura. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 2022, 40(2): 531‒547. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/rie.467901 doi: 10.6018/rie.467901
[56]	Hellgren, J.M. and Lindberg, S., Motivating students with authentic science experiences: changes in motivation for school science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 2017, 35(4): 409‒426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1322572 doi: 10.1080/02635143.2017.1322572
[57]	Hurtado, J.P.A., Zapata, J.A.V. and Jaimes, M.E.B., Variabilidad y cambio en la comprensión de deseos en niños preescolares: un estudio microgenético. Universitas Psychologica, 2021, 20: 1‒14. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy20.vccd doi: 10.11144/Javeriana.upsy20.vccd
[58]	Czyż, S.H., Variability of practice, information processing, and decision making—how much do we know? Frontiers in Psychology, 2021, 12: 639131. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.639131 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.639131
[59]	López Takegami, J.J.K., Cabello González, V., Guevara Guerrero, M. and Montes González, J.A., Exploring Students' Scientific Reasoning During Virtual Game in STEAM Problem Solving. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 2025, 13(3): 1. https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.13.3.2795

Author's biography Dr. José Julián Kenji López Takegami: Psychologist. Specialist in Educational Psychology. Master's in Education. Doctor of Psychology. Doctor of Education. Professional Profile: Professor and Researcher, Santiago de Cali University; Dr. Marlenny Guevara Guerrero: Psychologist. Master's in Psychology. Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology, University of Groningen, Netherlands. Master's in Psychology, University of Valle, Cali, Colombia. Psychologist, University of Valle, Cali, Colombia. Professional Profile: Associate Professor, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia (2016-Present). Member of the Institute for Research in Development Sciences, Learning and Subjectivities (CIDEAS), Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia; Dr. Valeria Cabello González: Psychologist. Master's in Psychology with a specialization in Educational Psychology from the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Psychology, University of Dundee, Scotland. Professional Profile: Research Associate at the Center for the Study of Policies and Practices in Education (CEPPE UC). Associate Professor, School of Education, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile; Dr. Jairo Andrés Montes: Psychologist. Master's in Psychology. PhD in Developmental Psychology and Master's in Educational Psychology from Universidad del Valle, and Psychologist from Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Cali. Professional Profile: He has worked at educational institutions as a professor, consultant, and researcher in areas related to the study of cognitive development, specifically in the development of scientific thinking and higher-order thinking skills

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2026 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)