Project-based learning with canva advances students’ critical thinking in digestive physiology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.66028Keywords:
Cognitive Achievement Outcomes, Digital Visual Artifacts, Generative Learning, Mechanistic Reasoning, Quasi-Experimental DesignAbstract
Biology learning becomes meaningful when students can explain how organs, enzymes, and nutrients interact as an integrated physiological system. Yet digestive physiology is often reduced to memorized labels, leaving a representational gap in how learners reason about invisible biochemical processes. Addressing this gap, this study examined the uniqueness of Canva-supported Project-Based Learning (PjBL) as a student-generated visual representation strategy for strengthening critical thinking and cognitive learning outcomes in the human digestive system. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control group design was implemented with 66 Grade XI students selected through purposive sampling at a public senior high school in Riau Province, Indonesia. Students were assigned to an experimental class taught through Canva-integrated PjBL and a control class taught through conventional instruction. Data were collected using critical thinking essays, cognitive tests, observation sheets, and student response questionnaires, then analyzed through baseline comparison, independent-samples testing, and normalized gain. Initial ability was comparable between groups (p = 0.385), but the experimental class achieved significantly higher posttest scores in cognitive learning outcomes (82.62 vs. 73.13) and critical thinking (82.52 vs. 73.08), with p < 0.001. N-gain results also favored the PjBL class for cognitive achievement (0.65 vs. 0.47) and critical thinking (0.61 vs. 0.41). High implementation fidelity (95.24%) and positive engagement supported these gains, although scheduling remained a self-regulation challenge (76.14%). The study contributes evidence that digital artifact-based PjBL can move biology instruction beyond recall toward mechanistic reasoning, with broader implications for designing student-centered, representation-rich biology education in complex physiology topics.
References
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
Arikunto, S. (2011). Dasar-dasar evaluasi pendidikan. Bumi Aksara.
Barak, M., & Yuan, S. (2021). A cultural perspective to project-based learning and the cultivation of innovative thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, 100766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100766
Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 271–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672056
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139
Bobek, E., & Tversky, B. (2016). Creating visual explanations improves learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1, Article 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0031-6
Boersma, K., Waarlo, A. J., & Klaassen, K. (2011). The feasibility of systems thinking in biology education. Journal of Biological Education, 45(4), 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2011.627139
Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer.
Brame, C. J. (2016). Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), es6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0125
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton Mifflin.
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
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251–19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
Ennis, R. H. (2011). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. University of Illinois.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 717–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9
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
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
Gilissen, M. G. R., Knippels, M. C. P. J., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2020). Bringing systems thinking into the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 42(8), 1253–1280. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1755741
Guo, P., Saab, N., Post, L. S., & Admiraal, W. (2020). A review of project-based learning in higher education: Student outcomes and measures. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101586
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
Heo, H., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, Y. (2010). Exploratory study on the patterns of online interaction and knowledge co-construction in project-based learning. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1383–1392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.012
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2801_7
Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013
Huber, C. R., & Kuncel, N. R. (2016). Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 431–468. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315605917
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). A systematic review of project-based learning in primary and secondary school. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
Markula, A., & Aksela, M. (2022). The key characteristics of project-based learning: How teachers implement projects in K-12 science education. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 4, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-021-00042-x
Meltzer, D. E. (2002). The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics: A possible “hidden variable” in diagnostic pretest scores. American Journal of Physics, 70(12), 1259–1268. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1514215
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction: What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347
Niu, L., Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Garvan, C. W. (2013). Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002
Quillin, K., & Thomas, S. (2015). Drawing-to-learn: A framework for using drawings to promote model-based reasoning in biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0128
Rau, M. A. (2017). Conditions for the effectiveness of multiple visual representations in enhancing STEM learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 717–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9365-3
Riduwan, & Akdon. (2015). Rumus dan data dalam analisis statistika. Alfabeta.
Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(3), 499–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20264
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
Sembiring, A. K., Rizky, R., Dinata, M., Ramadansur, R., & Alpito, D. (2026). Strategizing argumentative skills development: Infusing scientific critical thinking into digestive system learning for high schoolers. Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia, 15(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.23887/jpi-undiksha.v15i1.103315
Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-06-0115
Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Bétrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017
Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.129
Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3
Verhoeff, R. P., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2008). Systems modelling and the development of coherent understanding of cell biology. International Journal of Science Education, 30(4), 543–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701237780
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Biosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Authors submitting a manuscript do so on the understanding that if accepted for publication, copyright of the article shall be assigned to Biosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi (Biosferjpb) and Departement of Biology Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta as publisher of the journal.
