Identifying the Student’s Critical Thinking Ability of PGSD in Accomplishing the Energy Material Problems

Murwani Dewi Wijayanti, Sentot Budi Raharjo, Sulistyo Saputro, Sri Mulyani


The development of science and technology in educational world becomes one of center of
interest because of its quality enhancement efforts. One effort to improve the quality of education
is by focusing the learning model used. Beside, educational world asks human ability to filter the
information. Therefore, human must think critically. In the education world, thinking critically can
be taught through natural science because it is a thinking tool that is able to develop analitical and
logical thinking. There are many ways to lead students in thinking critically. One of them is by
doing the natural science problems, especially related to energy materials that needs critical
thinking. By doing that way, it is hoped that student will be skillful in accomplishing problems
logically and sistematically. The objective of this research is to describe the critical thinking
ability level of students. The subject of the research is students of PGSD from 3 level universities
which consist of 103 students. The students given critical thinking test then will be categorized into
level 4 (critical), level 3 (moderate critical), level 2 (less critical), and level 1 (no critical). The
result shows that the students at level 4 consist of 14 students (4%), level 3 consist of 16 students
(16%), level 2 consist of 36 students (35%), and level 1 consist of 47 (45%). Instead of the level of
critical thinking, it is needed to categorize the consistency level of students critical thinking ability.
The consistency level of students’ critical thinking ability only relates to something they know
at their tasks; Sebelas Maret University at 56.5%, State University of Yogyakarta at 62.2%, and
Univet at 64.50%. The students’ weakness in their consistency may indicate that material learning
technique about energy has less focus on critical thinking ability. In doing their tasks, students tend
to answer without considering the right analysis. Oneway to improve the critical thinking ability
of the students is by implementing a structural inquiry learning model.

Full Text:



Abidin, Zainal D.K. Dina, Rif’ati. Yushardi. (2013). Pengaruh Bentuk Benda dan

Kedalaman Terhadap Gaya Angkat ke Atas (Fa) pada Fluida Statis. Not


Ainsworth. (2006). A Conceptual Framework for Considering Learning with

Multiple Representations. A Framework for Learning with Multiple

Representations. [online]. Available online at search. aspx?q=ainsworth+

considering+learning+with+multiple+representations. (08 juli 2016).

Alfiani.(2015). Analisis Profil Miskonsepsi dan Konsistensi Konsepsi Siswa SMA

pada Topik Suhu dan Kalor.Prosiding Seminar Nasional Energi (E-Journal)

SNF 2015 volume iv,

oktober 2015.

Arends, R.I. (1997).Teaching and Learning. Geography. USA: Routledge.

Borg, W. R. and Gall, M. D. ( 1983). Educational Research and Introduction.

New York: Longman.

Brinkmann, Astrid. (2003). Graphical Knowledge Display – Mind Mapping and

Concept Mapping as Efficient Tools in Mathematics Education. Mathematics

Education Review, (16): 35 -48.

Bruner, J. (1999). The Proccess of Education. United Statesof America: President

and Fellows of Harvard College.

Chambers,P. (2008). Teaching Mathematics (Developing as a Reflective Secondary

Teacher). London: SAGE Publications.

Chen,Jian-Yu and Hwang Sheng-Jye. (2012). Investigation of Adhesion

Phenomena in Thermoplastic Polyurethane Injection Molding Process.

Polymer Engineering and Science Volume 52, Issue 7 July 2012 Pages 1571–

Chin, Clkark A. and Malhotra, Betina A. (2001). Epistemologically Authentic

Inquiry in Schools: A Theoretical Framework for Evaluating Inquiry Tasks.

Department of Educational Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New

Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.

Collins, S. R. (2008). Enhanced Student Learning Through Applied Constructivist

Theory. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal, 2(2): 1 9.










S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into Argumentation:

Developments in The Application of Toulmin‟S Argument Pattern for

Studying Science Discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.

Fascione, P. A. (2010). Critical Thinking: What It is and Why I Counts. California:

California Academic Press.

Howe, C., Mcwilliams, D., & Cross, G. (2005). Chance Favours The Prepared

Mind: Incubation and The Delayed Effects of Peer Collaboration. British

journal of psychology, 97, 67-93.

Jia,Q. (2010). A Brief Study on the Implication of Constructivism Teaching Theory.

Internatonal Education Studies on Classroom Teaching Reform in Basic

Education, 3(2), 197 – 199.

Joice, B., Weil, M., and Calhoun, E. ( 2011). Models of Teaching Model-model

Pengajaran. Translated by A Fawaid and Ateila Mirza. Yogyakarta: Pustaka


Lati, W., Supasorn, S., and Promarak, V. (2012). Enhancement of Learning

Achievement and Integrated Science Process Skills Using Science Inquiry

Learning Activities of Chemical Reaction Rates. Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 46. 4471-4475.

Laz, H. A., and Shafei, K. E. (2014). The Effectiveness of Constructivist Leaning

Model in the Teaching of Mathematics. Journal of Applied and Industrial

Science., 2(3), 106-109.

Loverude, Michael E., Kautz, Christian H., & Heron, Paula R. L.(2003).Helping

Students Develop an Understanding of Archimedes’ Principle. I. Research on

Student Understanding. American Journal of Physics 71, 1178 (2003); doi:


Norris, S., &Phillips, l. (2003). How Literacy in Its Fundamental Sense is Central

to Scientific Literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.

Novak, J. D. and Canas, A. J. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps

and How to Construct and Use Them. Technical Report IHMC Cmap

Tools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine

Cognition, aveilable at: http://cmap.ihmc.uc/Publications/ResearchPaper/


Ozdemir, Omer faruk. ( 2015). A Qualitative Inquiry about Students’

Conceptualizations of Force Concept interms of Ontological Categories.

Journal of Turkish Science Education Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2015.

Padila, Michael J. (1990). The Science Process Skills. University of Georgia,

Athens, GA: Research Matters - to the Science Teacher No. 9004 March 1,

Patrick, A. O. (2011). Concept Mapping As a Study Skill: Effets on Students

Achievent in Biology. Int. J. Edu Sci, 3 (1): 49-57.

Polya, G. (1973). How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method, 3rd

ed.Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Santiago, H. C. (2011). Visual Mapping to Enhance Learning and Critical

Thinking Skills. Optometric Education, 36 (3): 125 – 139.

Sriraman, B. & English, L. (2010). Theories of Mathematics Education. Verlag

Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

Stapleton, Paul., Wu, Yanming. (2015). Assessing the Quality of Arguments in

Students' Persuasive Writing: A Case Study Analyzing the Relationship

Between Surface Structure and Substance. Journal of English for Academic

Purposes 17 (2015) 12-23.

Subekti, Sri. (2013). Komparasi Keefektifan Pendekatan Open-Ended dan GI

Ditinjau dari Komunikasi, Pemecahan Masalah Matematis dan Motivasi

Belajar. Pythagoras: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Volume 8 – Nomor 2,

Desember 2013, (204-212) Available online at:


Sugihartono, dkk. (2007). Psikologi Dosenan. Yogyakarta: UNY Press.

Sugiyono. (2010). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R dan D. Bandung:


Thiyagu, K. (2015). Models of Teaching. In M. Thammishetty, Educational

Technologi. Solapur: Laxmi Book Publication.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University


Ultanir, E. (2012). An Epistemological Glance at the Constructivist Approach:

Constructivist Learning in Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori. International

Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 195 – 212.


  • There are currently no refbacks.