Submitted:
25 July 2023
Posted:
27 July 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Statement of the Problem and Aim of the Study
3. Sustainable Progressive STEAM Model
4. Methodology
4.1. Research Design
4.2. Population and Sample
4.3. Data Collection Tools
4.4. Data Collection Procedures
4.5. Data Analysis Procedures
5. Results
5.1. Split-Plot ANOVA Results
5.1.1. Impact of SP-STEAM Model on Critical Thinking Dispositions
5.1.2. Impact of SP-STEAM Model on Mathematic Achievements
6. Discussion
7. Conclusion
8. Suggestions for Further Studies
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Afdareza, M.Y.; Yuanita, P.; Maimunah, M. Development of learning device based on 21st century skill with implementation of problem based learning to increase critical thinking skill of students on polyhedron for grade 8th junior high school. Journal of Educational Sciences 2020, 4, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aini, N.R.; Syafril, S.; Netriwati, N.; Pahrudin, A.; Rahayu, T.; Puspasari, V. Problem-based learning for critical thinking skills in mathematics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2019, 1, 1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bybee, R.W. K-12 engineering education standards: Opportunities and barriers. Technology and Engineering Teacher 2011, 70, 21–29. [Google Scholar]
- Carroll, M.C. Shoot for the moon! The mentors and the middle schoolers explore the intersection of design thinking and STEAM. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 2014, 4, 14–30. [Google Scholar]
- Cash, P.; Stanković, T.; Štorga, M. Experimental design research: Approaches, perspectives, applications. Springer: Switzerland, 2016.
- Çelik İskifoğlu, T.; Çerkez, Y.; İskifoğlu, G. Thinking culture and critical thinking dispositions of high school students in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Frontiers in Psychology 2022, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Çiftçi, A.; Topçu, M.S.; Foulk, J.A. Pre-service early childhood teachers’ views on STEAM education and their STEAM teaching practices. Research in Science & Technological Education, 2022 40, pp. 207-233. [CrossRef]
- English, L.D.; King, D. STEAM integration in sixth grade: Designing and constructing paper bridges. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Facione, P.A. Critical thinking: A Statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. 1990.
- Facione, P.A. The disposition toward critical thinking: its character, measurement, and relation to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic 2000, 20, 61–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Facione, P.A.; Facione, N.C.; Giancarlo, C.A. The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: Test manual, California Academic Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 1992.
- Gillies, A. “Where are the ‘T’ and ‘E’ in STEAM education. ” Techniques 2015, 90, pp .60–61. [Google Scholar]
- Gomez, A.; Albrecht, B. True STEAM education. Technology and Engineering Teacher 2014, 73, pp .8–16. [Google Scholar]
- Gulhan, F.; Sahin, F. The effects of science technology engineering math (STEAM) integration on 5th grade students’ perceptions and attitudes towards these areas. International Journal of Human Sciences 2016, 13, pp .602–620. [Google Scholar]
- Hacıoğlu, Y.; Gülhan, F. The effects of STEAM education on the students’ critical thinking skills and STEAM perceptions. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health 2021, 7, pp. 139–155. [Google Scholar]
- İskifoğlu, G. Cross-cultural equivalency of the California critical thinking disposition inventory. Educ. Sci.: Theory Pract. 2014 14, 159–178.
- Li, Y. Six years of development in promoting identity formation of STEAM education as a distinct field. IJ STEAM Ed, 2020, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, K.Y.; Yeh, Y.F.; Hsu, Y.S; et al. STEAM education goals in the twenty-first century: Teachers’ perceptions and experiences. Int J Technol Des Educ, 2023, 33, pp. 479–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, S.; MacDonald, A.; Danaia, L.; Wang, C. An analysis of Australian STEAM education strategies. Policy Futures in Education 2019 17, pp. 122–139. [CrossRef]
- Nurwahyunani, A. Literature review: A STEAM approach to improving the quality of science learning in Indonesia. J. Edu. Gift. Young Sci. 2021, 9, pp. 11-17. [CrossRef]
- Priatna, N.; Lorenzia, S.; Widodo, S.A. STEAM education at junior high school mathematics course for improving the mathematical critical thinking skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 2020, 8, pp. 1173–1184,. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, C.; Watson, J. Does the rise of STEAM education mean the demise of sustainability education? Australian Journal of Environmental Education 2019, 35, pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stein, B.; Haynes, A.; Redding, M.; Ennis, T.; Cecil, M. Assessing critical thinking in STEAM and beyond. In: Iskander, M. (eds) Innovations in E-learning, Instruction Technology, Assessment, and Engineering Education. Springer: Dordrecht, 2007. [CrossRef]
- Sullivan, J.F. Broadening engineering’s participation-A call for K-16 engineering education. The Bridge 2006, 36, National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA.
- Syafril, S.; Aini, N.R.; Netriwati, Pahrudin, A. ; Yaumas, N.E. Spirit of mathematics critical thinking skills (CTS). Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2020, 1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tekin Poyraz, G.; Genç Kumtepe, E. An Example of STEAM Education in Turkey and Distance Education for Sustainable STEAM Learning. ENAD, 2019, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thi To Khuyen, N.; Van Bien, N.; Lin, P.-L.; Lin, J.; Chang, C.-Y. Measuring Teachers’ Perceptions to Sustain STEAM Education Development. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wendell, K.B.; Connolly, K.G.; Wright, C.G.; Jarvin, L.; Rogers, C.; Barnett, M.; Marulcu, I. Incorporating engineering design into elementary school science curricula. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, KY, 2010.
- White, D.W. What is STEAM education and why is it important? Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal 2014, 1, pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Yasin, M.; Fakhri, J.; Siswadi Faelasofi, R.; Safi’i, A.; Supriadi, N.; Syazali, M.; & Wekke, I.S. The effect of SSCS learning model on reflective thinking skills and problem solving ability. European Journal of Educational Research 2020, 9, pp. 743–752. [CrossRef]
- Yasin, M.; Jauhariyah, D.; Madiyo, M.; Rahmawati, R.; Farid, F.; Irwandani, I.; Mardana, F.F. The guided inquiry to improve students mathematical critical thinking skills using student’s worksheet. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 2019, 7, pp. 1345–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeid, I.; Chin, J.; Duggan, C.; Kamarthi, S. Engineering based learning: A paradigm shift for high school STEAM teaching. International Journal of Engineering Education 2014, 30, pp. 1-12.
- National Report of Ministry of National Education. Vision 2030 Education Strategic Plan Workshop Report, Ministry of National Education, Nicosia, North Cyprus, 2019, retrieved from https://www.google.com/search?q=google+translate&rlz=1C1GCEA_en__973__973&oq=google+translate&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEEUYOzIGCAAQRRg7Mg0IARAAGIMBGLEDGIAEMgoIAhAAGLEDGIAEMgcIAxAAGIAEMgcIBBAAGIAEMg0IBRAAGIMBGLEDGIAEMg0IBhAAGIMBGLEDGIAEMgQIBxAF0gEIMjMzMGowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.


| Question Number | I-CVI1 | KR20 |
|---|---|---|
| Question 1 | 1 | 0.85 |
| Question 2 | 0.9 | 0.89 |
| Question 3 | 0.9 | 0.85 |
| Question 4 | 0.9 | 0.88 |
| Question 5 | 0.9 | 0.87 |
| Question 6 | 1 | 0.85 |
| Question 7 | 0.9 | 0.85 |
| Question 8 | 1 | 0.85 |
| Question 9 | 1 | 0.88 |
| Question 10 | 0.9 | 0.85 |
| Question 11 | 1 | 0.86 |
| Question 12 | 1 | 0.85 |
| Question 13 | 0.9 | 0.86 |
| Question 14 | 1 | 0.85 |
| Question 15 | 0.9 | 0.89 |
| Question 16 | 0.9 | 0.85 |
| Question 17 | 0.9 | 0.85 |
| Question 18 | 0.9 | 0.88 |
| Question 19 | 1 | 0.85 |
| Question 20 | 0.9 | 0.86 |
| Question 21 | 0.9 | 0.85 |
| Question 22 | 0.9 | 0.86 |
| Question 23 | 0.9 | 0.88 |
| Question 24 | 0.9 | 0.85 |
| Question 25 | 0.9 | 0.88 |
| Variables | Design | Groups | Mean | Std. Deviation | n |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Truth-seeking | Pre-Test | Experiment 1 | 24.1795 | 4.09035 | 26 |
| Experiment 2 | 22.3077 | 4.02760 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 20.8077 | 2.19124 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 24.2692 | 3.51634 | 26 | ||
| Total | 22.8910 | 3.77422 | 104 | ||
| Post-Test | Experiment 1 | 33.7179 | 7.12285 | 26 | |
| Experiment 2 | 32.9167 | 5.43778 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 20.5769 | 2.11987 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 23.6923 | 3.56392 | 26 | ||
| Total | 27.7260 | 7.51916 | 104 | ||
| Open-mindedness | Pre-Test | Experiment 1 | 22.1538 | 2.94879 | 26 |
| Experiment 2 | 25.5000 | 2.59615 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 24.9615 | 3.97473 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 22.6538 | 4.89034 | 26 | ||
| Total | 23.8173 | 3.93334 | 104 | ||
| Post-Test | Experiment 1 | 36.3141 | 3.48148 | 26 | |
| Experiment 2 | 30.9295 | 4.25785 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 23.3846 | 4.34582 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 21.6923 | 5.34991 | 26 | ||
| Total | 28.0801 | 7.34182 | 104 | ||
| Inquisitiveness | Pre-Test | Experiment 1 | 23.1154 | 2.86115 | 26 |
| Experiment 2 | 23.0000 | 2.28035 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 21.0385 | 2.40800 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 22.5000 | 3.40881 | 26 | ||
| Total | 22.4135 | 2.85783 | 104 | ||
| Post-Test | Experiment 1 | 33.7308 | 4.37774 | 26 | |
| Experiment 2 | 31.2692 | 5.43734 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 20.1923 | 2.65359 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 21.2692 | 4.38687 | 26 | ||
| Total | 26.6154 | 7.35416 | 104 | ||
| SySTEAMaticity | Pre-Test | Experiment 1 | 22.3077 | 3.51874 | 26 |
| Experiment 2 | 23.6154 | 2.57801 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 23.6923 | 3.72848 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 20.4231 | 2.53256 | 26 | ||
| Total | 22.5096 | 3.36456 | 104 | ||
| Post-Test | Experiment 1 | 35.1748 | 4.30083 | 26 | |
| Experiment 2 | 35.0699 | 4.99370 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 20.4615 | 3.30128 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 19.6923 | 2.60414 | 26 | ||
| Total | 27.5997 | 8.48825 | 104 | ||
| Analyticity | Pre-Test | Experiment 1 | 24.1795 | 4.09035 | 26 |
| Experiment 2 | 22.3077 | 4.02760 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 20.8077 | 2.19124 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 24.2692 | 3.51634 | 26 | ||
| Total | 22.8910 | 3.77422 | 104 | ||
| Post-Test | Experiment 1 | 33.7179 | 7.12285 | 26 | |
| Experiment 2 | 32.9167 | 5.43778 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 20.5769 | 2.11987 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 23.6923 | 3.56392 | 26 | ||
| Total | 27.7260 | 7.51916 | 104 | ||
| Maturity of Judgement | Pre-Test | Experiment 1 | 23.0385 | 5.86843 | 26 |
| Experiment 2 | 19.9615 | 3.91388 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 23.4231 | 3.63509 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 23.3846 | 3.71028 | 26 | ||
| Total | 22.4519 | 4.55363 | 104 | ||
| Post-Test | Experiment 1 | 29.6538 | 7.00253 | 26 | |
| Experiment 2 | 32.1154 | 6.59289 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 20.6154 | 5.26176 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 22.8462 | 3.84388 | 26 | ||
| Total | 26.3077 | 7.43656 | 104 | ||
| CT-Self Confidence | Pre-Test | Experiment 1 | 26.1154 | 3.79818 | 26 |
| Experiment 2 | 23.0000 | 3.40588 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 23.8462 | 2.52495 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 23.3077 | 2.42931 | 26 | ||
| Total | 24.0673 | 3.28653 | 104 | ||
| Post-Test | Experiment 1 | 37.8205 | 6.17027 | 26 | |
| Experiment 2 | 36.5812 | 6.97029 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 23.3462 | 3.74104 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 23.2308 | 2.61240 | 26 | ||
| Total | 30.2447 | 8.66837 | 104 | ||
| Overall Disposition | Pre-Test | Experiment 1 | 161.5641 | 10.28171 | 26 |
| Experiment 2 | 159.0385 | 10.86455 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 159.8077 | 8.37147 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 156.4231 | 6.57372 | 26 | ||
| Total | 159.2083 | 9.23389 | 104 | ||
| Post-Test | Experiment 1 | 243.0554 | 14.79129 | 26 | |
| Experiment 2 | 233.7770 | 14.92111 | 26 | ||
| Control 1 | 148.1538 | 6.86843 | 26 | ||
| Control 2 | 151.2308 | 7.69575 | 26 | ||
| Total | 194.0542 | 46.17483 | 104 |
| Variables | Groups | df | F | Mean Difference | Std. Error | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Truth seeking | Experiment 1 | Experiment 2 | 3,100 | 32.541 | 1.3365 | .92407 | .474 |
| Control 1 | 8.2564 | .92407 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | 4.9679 | .92407 | .000 | ||||
| Experiment 2 | Experiment 1 | -1.3365 | .92407 | .474 | |||
| Control 1 | 6.9199 | .92407 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | 3.6314 | .92407 | .001 | ||||
| Control 1 | Experiment 1 | -8.2564 | .92407 | .000 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -6.9199 | .92407 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | -3.2885 | .92407 | .003 | ||||
| Control 2 | Experiment 1 | -4.9679 | .92407 | .000 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -3.6314 | .92407 | .001 | ||||
| Control 1 | 3.2885 | .92407 | .003 | ||||
| Open mindedness | Experiment 1 | Experiment 2 | 3,100 | 90.636 | 1.0192 | .99117 | .733 |
| Control 1 | 5.0609* | .99117 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | 7.0609* | .99117 | .000 | ||||
| Experiment 2 | Experiment 1 | -1.0192 | .99117 | .733 | |||
| Control 1 | 4.0417* | .99117 | .001 | ||||
| Control 2 | 6.0417* | .99117 | .000 | ||||
| Control 1 | Experiment 1 | -5.0609* | .99117 | .000 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -4.0417* | .99117 | .001 | ||||
| Control 2 | 2.0000 | .99117 | .188 | ||||
| Control 2 | Experiment 1 | -7.0609* | .99117 | .000 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -6.0417* | .99117 | .000 | ||||
| Control 1 | -2.0000 | .99117 | .188 | ||||
| Inquisitiveness | Experiment 1 | Experiment 2 | 3,100 | 42.618 | 1.2885 | .75952 | .331 |
| Control 1 | 7.8077* | .75952 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | 6.5385* | .75952 | .000 | ||||
| Experiment 2 | Experiment 1 | -1.2885 | .75952 | .331 | |||
| Control 1 | 6.5192* | .75952 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | 5.2500* | .75952 | .000 | ||||
| Control 1 | Experiment 1 | -7.8077* | .75952 | .000 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -6.5192* | .75952 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | -1.2692 | .75952 | .344 | ||||
| Control 2 | Experiment 1 | -6.5385* | .75952 | .000 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -5.2500* | .75952 | .000 | ||||
| Control 1 | 1.2692 | .75952 | .344 | ||||
| SySTEAMaticity | Experiment 1 | Experiment 2 | 3,100 | 95.069 | -.6014 | .77982 | .867 |
| Control 1 | 6.6643* | .77982 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | 8.6836* | .77982 | .000 | ||||
| Experiment 2 | Experiment 1 | .6014 | .77982 | .867 | |||
| Control 1 | 7.2657* | .77982 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | 9.2850* | .77982 | .000 | ||||
| Control 1 | Experiment 1 | -6.6643* | .77982 | .000 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -7.2657* | .77982 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | 2.0192 | .77982 | .053 | ||||
| Control 2 | Experiment 1 | -8.6836* | .77982 | .000 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -9.2850* | .77982 | .000 | ||||
| Control 1 | -2.0192 | .77982 | .053 | ||||
| Analyticity | Experiment 1 | Experiment 2 | 3,100 | 32.541 | 1.3365 | .92407 | .474 |
| Control 1 | 8.2564* | .92407 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | 4.9679* | .92407 | .000 | ||||
| Experiment 2 | Experiment 1 | -1.3365 | .92407 | .474 | |||
| Control 1 | 6.9199* | .92407 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | 3.6314* | .92407 | .001 | ||||
| Control 1 | Experiment 1 | -8.2564* | .92407 | .000 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -6.9199* | .92407 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | -3.2885* | .92407 | .003 | ||||
| Control 2 | Experiment 1 | -4.9679* | .92407 | .000 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -3.6314* | .92407 | .001 | ||||
| Control 1 | 3.2885* | .92407 | .003 | ||||
| Maturity of Judgement | Experiment 1 | Experiment 2 | 3,100 | 28.019 | .3077 | 1.09623 | .992 |
| Control 1 | 4.3269* | 1.09623 | .001 | ||||
| Control 2 | 3.2308* | 1.09623 | .020 | ||||
| Experiment 2 | Experiment 1 | -.3077 | 1.09623 | .992 | |||
| Control 1 | 4.0192* | 1.09623 | .002 | ||||
| Control 2 | 2.9231* | 1.09623 | .044 | ||||
| Control 1 | Experiment 1 | -4.3269* | 1.09623 | .001 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -4.0192* | 1.09623 | .002 | ||||
| Control 2 | -1.0962 | 1.09623 | .750 | ||||
| Control 2 | Experiment 1 | -3.2308* | 1.09623 | .020 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -2.9231* | 1.09623 | .044 | ||||
| Control 1 | 1.0962 | 1.09623 | .750 | ||||
| CT-Self Confidence | Experiment 1 | Experiment 2 | 3,100 | 43.891 | 2.1774 | .87161 | .066 |
| Control 1 | 8.3718* | .87161 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | 8.6987* | .87161 | .000 | ||||
| Experiment 2 | Experiment 1 | -2.1774 | .87161 | .066 | |||
| Control 1 | 6.1944* | .87161 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | 6.5214* | .87161 | .000 | ||||
| Control 1 | Experiment 1 | -8.3718* | .87161 | .000 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -6.1944* | .87161 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | .3269 | .87161 | .982 | ||||
| Control 2 | Experiment 1 | -8.6987* | .87161 | .000 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -6.5214* | .87161 | .000 | ||||
| Control 1 | -.3269 | .87161 | .982 | ||||
| Overall Disposition | Experiment 1 | Experiment 2 | 3,100 | 378.754 | 5.9020 | 2.27898 | .053 |
| Control 1 | 48.3290* | 2.27898 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | 48.4828* | 2.27898 | .000 | ||||
| Experiment 2 | Experiment 1 | -5.9020 | 2.27898 | .053 | |||
| Control 1 | 42.4270* | 2.27898 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | 42.5808* | 2.27898 | .000 | ||||
| Control 1 | Experiment 1 | -48.3290* | 2.27898 | .000 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -42.4270* | 2.27898 | .000 | ||||
| Control 2 | .1538 | 2.27898 | 1.000 | ||||
| Control 2 | Experiment 1 | -48.4828* | 2.27898 | .000 | |||
| Experiment 2 | -42.5808* | 2.27898 | .000 | ||||
| Control 1 | -.1538 | 2.27898 | 1.000 | ||||
| Variable | Design | Groups | Mean | Std. Deviation | n | |
| Mathematic Achievement | Pre-Test | Experiment 1 | 71.1538 | 8.16182 | 26 | |
| Experiment 2 | 74.6154 | 10.09189 | 26 | |||
| Control 1 | 72.1154 | 8.38726 | 26 | |||
| Control 2 | 71.7308 | 8.93782 | 26 | |||
| Total | 72.4038 | 8.89477 | 104 | |||
| Post-Test | Experiment 1 | 89.2308 | 6.58670 | 26 | ||
| Experiment 2 | 81.1538 | 9.72704 | 26 | |||
| Control 1 | 71.7308 | 6.62455 | 26 | |||
| Control 2 | 74.6154 | 8.35740 | 26 | |||
| Total | 79.1827 | 10.33682 | 104 | |||
| Groups | df | F | Mean Difference | Std. Error | Sig. | |
| Experiment 1 | Experiment 2 | 1,3 | 7.649+ | .3077 | 1.09623 | .992 |
| Control 1 | 4.3269 | 1.09623 | .001 | |||
| Control 2 | 3.2308 | 1.09623 | .020 | |||
| Experiment 2 | Experiment 1 | -.3077 | 1.09623 | .992 | ||
| Control 1 | 4.0192 | 1.09623 | .002 | |||
| Control 2 | 2.9231 | 1.09623 | .044 | |||
| Control 1 | Experiment 1 | -4.3269 | 1.09623 | .001 | ||
| Experiment 2 | -4.0192 | 1.09623 | .002 | |||
| Control 2 | -1.0962 | 1.09623 | .750 | |||
| Control 2 | Experiment 1 | -3.2308 | 1.09623 | .020 | ||
| Experiment 2 | -2.9231 | 1.09623 | .044 | |||
| Control 1 | 1.0962 | 1.09623 | .750 | |||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).