Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Abla, C., & Fraumeni, B. R. (2019). Student engagement: Evidence-based strategies to boost academic and social emotional results. McREL International.
• Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
• Anđić, B., Maričić, M., Mumcu, F., Prodromou, T., Leoste, J., Saimon, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2024a). Direct and indirect instruction in educational robotics: A comparative study of task performance per cognitive level and student perception. Smart Learning Environments, 11, Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00298-6
• Anđić, B., Maričić, M., Weinhandl, R., Mumzu, F., Schmidthaler, E., & Lavicza, Z. (2024b). Metaphorical evolution: A longitudinal study of secondary school teachers’ concepts of 3D modelling and printing in education. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 14091-14126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12408-x
• Anđić, B., Šorgo, A., Weinhandl, R., Maričić, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2024c). Unveiling hype cycle patterns: Examining 3D printing adoption among secondary school teachers. TechTrends, 68, 1166-1182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-01009-1
• Anđić, B., Ulbrich, E., Dana Picard, T. N., Cvjetićanin, S., Petrović, F., Lavicza, Z., & Maričić, M. (2022). A Phenomenography study of STEM teachers’ conceptions of using 3D modelling and printing in teaching. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32, 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10005-0
• Avşar, F. (2007). Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve Beck depresyon envanteri üzerine bir uygulama [Confirmatory factor analysis and an application on Beck depression inventory] [Master’s thesis, Yildiz technical University].
• Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2010). Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2011.533096
• Barlow, A., & Brown, S. (2020). Correlations between modes of student cognitive engagement and instructional practices in undergraduate STEM courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, Article 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00214-7
• Bassachs, M., Cañabate, D., Nogué, L., Serra, T., Bubnys, R., & Colomer, J. (2020). Fostering critical reflection in primary education through STEAM approaches. Education Sciences, 10(12), Article 384. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10120384
• Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414-436. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20402
• Bisra, K., Liu, Q., Nesbit, J. C., Salimi, F., & Winne, P. H. (2018). Inducing self-explanation: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 703-725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9434-x
• Chen, C. C., & Huang, P. H. (2020). The effects of STEAM-based mobile learning on learning achievement and cognitive load. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(1), 100-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1761838
• Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual process of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161-238). Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Chi, M. T. H. (2017). Counter-intuitive findings from the science of learning. AERA Knowledge Forum. http://www.aera.net/About-AERA/AERACentennial/AERAKnowledge-Forum/Cluster-1
• Chi, M. T. H., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kim, S., Lancaster, M., Levy, R., Li, N., McEldoon, K. L., Stump, G. S., Wylie, R., Xu, D., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP theory of cognitive engagement into practice. Cognitive Science, 42(6), 1777-1832. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12626
• Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439-477. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3
• Chiu, J. L. & Chi, M. T. H. (2014). Supporting self-explanation in the classroom. In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson, & C. M. Hakala (Eds.), Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (pp. 91-103). Society for the Teaching of Psychology.
• Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
• Clements, D., & Joswick, C. (2018). Broadening the horizons of research on discovery-based learning. Instructional Science, 46(1), 155-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9449-1
• Cooper, L., Orrell, J., & Bowden, M. (2010). Work integrated learning: A guide to effective practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203854501
• Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/122.311
• Falloon, G. (2019). Using simulations to teach young students science concepts: An Experiential Learning theoretical analysis. Computers & Education, 135, 138-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.001
• Fielding-Wells, J., O’Brien, M., & Makar, K. (2017). Using expectancy-value theory to explore aspects of motivation and engagement in inquiry-based learning in primary mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29, 237-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0201-y
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
• Fulton, K., & Britton, T. (2011). STEM teachers in professional learning communities: From good teachers to great teaching. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
• Gorjanac Ranitović, M., Maričić, M., Marić, M., Petojević, A., & Gordić, S. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions of instructional guidance in online mathematics teaching. Uzdanica-Special Issue: Methodological Aspects of Teaching Mathematics, 19, 115-132. https://doi.org/10.46793/Uzdanica19.S.115GR
• Hadinugrahaningsih, T., Rahmawati, Y., & Sastrapraja, A. (2017). Developing 21^st century skills in chemistry classrooms: Opportunities and challenges of STEAM integration. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1868(1), Article 030008. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995107
• Herro, D., Quigley, C., & Cian, H. (2018). The challenges of STEAM instruction: Lessons from the field. Action in Teacher Education, 41(2), 172-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2018.1551159
• Janković, A., Maričić, M., & Cvjetićanin, S. (2023). Comparing science success of primary school students in the gamified learning environment via Kahoot and Quizizz. Journal of Computers in Education, 11, 471-494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-023-00266-y
• Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching, Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Lazonder, A. W., & Egberink, A. (2013). Children’s acquisition and use of the control-of-variables strategy: Effects of explicit and implicit instructional guidance. Instructional Science, 42(2), 291-304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9284-3
• Linder, S. M., Emerson, A. M., Heffron, B., Shevlin, E., & Vest, A. (2016). STEM use in early childhood education: Viewpoints from the field. YC Young Children, 71(3), 87-91.
• Maričić, M., Andjić, B., Soeharto, S., Mumcu, F., Cvjetićanin, S., & Lavicza, Z., (2024). The exploration of continuous teaching intention in emerging-technology environments through perceived cognitive load, usability, and teacher's attitudes. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13141-9
• Maričić, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2024). Enhancing student engagement through emerging technology integration into STEAM learning environment. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12710-2
• Maričić, M., Cvjetićanin, S., Adamov, J., Olić Ninković, S., & Anđić, B. (2022a). How do direct and indirect hands-on instructions strengthened by the self-explanation effect promote learning? Evidence from motion content. Research in Science Education, 53, 231-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10054-w
• Maričić, M., Cvjetićanin, S., Andevski, M., & Anđić, B. (2022b). Effects of withholding answers coupled with physical manipulation on students’ learning of magnetism-related science content. Research in Science and Technological Education, 41(4), 1596-1616. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2066648
• Maričić, M., Cvjetićanin, S., Anđić, B., Marić, M., & Petojević, A. (2023a). Using instructive simulations to teach young students simple science concepts: Evidence from electricity content. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 56(6), 691-710. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2023.2196460
• Maričić, М., Cvjetićanin, S., Anđić, B., Mumcu^, F., & Lavicza, Z. (2023b). Contribution of STEAM activities to the development of 21^st century skills of primary school students: Multiple case study. In STEAM-BOX empowering educators to integrate transdisciplinary STEAM practices in schools (pp. 1-17). https://doi.org/10.35011/9783903480032.1
• Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.203
• Moon, J. A., & Brockway, D. (2019). Facilitating learning in an interactive science simulation: The effects of task segmentation guidance on adults’ inquiry-based learning and cognitive load. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(1), 77-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1566038
• Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014
• Perales, J., & Arósteguib, J. L. (2021). The STEAM approach: Implementation and educational, social and economic consequences. Arts Education Policy Review, 125(2), 59-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2021.1974997
• Perignat, E., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002
• Ramma, Y., Bholoa, A., Watts, M., & Nadal, P. S. (2018). Teaching and learning physics using technology: Making a case for the affective domain. Education Inquiry, 9(2), 210-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508. 2017.1343606
• Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
• Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: Effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 77(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00852.x
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
• Sidney, P. G., Hattikudur, S., & Alibali, M. W. (2015). How do contrasting cases and self-explanation promote learning? Evidence from fraction division. Learning and Instruction, 40, 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.07.006
• Silva-Hormazábal, M., & Alsina, Á. (2023). Exploring the impact of integrated STEAM education in early childhood and primary education teachers. Education Sciences, 13(8), Article 842. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080842
• Sinatra, M. G., Heddy, C. B., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924
• Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479-507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919
• Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers. ASCD.
• Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA (vol. 724). Thomson/Brooks/Cole.
• Techakosit, S., & Nilsook, P. (2018). The development of STEM literacy using the learning process of scientific imagineering through AR. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(1), 230-238. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i01.7664
• Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Engaged and disaffected action: The conceptualization and measurement of motivation in the academic domain [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Rochester.
• Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236-250. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.236
• Zhang, L. (2019). “Hands-on” plus “inquiry”? Effects of withholding answers coupled with physical manipulations on students’ learning of energy-related science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 60, 199-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.001

APA

Maričić, M., Anđić, B., Mumcu, F., Marić, M., Gordić, S., Gorjanac Ranitović, M., & Cvjetićanin, S. (2025). Enhancing student engagement through instructional STEAM learning activities and self-explanation effect. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(1), em2560. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15798

Vancouver

Maričić M, Anđić B, Mumcu F, Marić M, Gordić S, Gorjanac Ranitović M, et al. Enhancing student engagement through instructional STEAM learning activities and self-explanation effect. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2025;21(1):em2560. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15798

AMA

Maričić M, Anđić B, Mumcu F, et al. Enhancing student engagement through instructional STEAM learning activities and self-explanation effect. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2025;21(1), em2560. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15798

Chicago

Maričić, Mirjana, Branko Anđić, Filiz Mumcu, Mia Marić, Snežana Gordić, Marijana Gorjanac Ranitović, and Stanko Cvjetićanin. "Enhancing student engagement through instructional STEAM learning activities and self-explanation effect". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2025 21 no. 1 (2025): em2560. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15798

Harvard

Maričić, M., Anđić, B., Mumcu, F., Marić, M., Gordić, S., Gorjanac Ranitović, M., and Cvjetićanin, S. (2025). Enhancing student engagement through instructional STEAM learning activities and self-explanation effect. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(1), em2560. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15798

MLA

Maričić, Mirjana et al. "Enhancing student engagement through instructional STEAM learning activities and self-explanation effect". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 21, no. 1, 2025, em2560. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15798