Identifying the Student’s Critical Thinking Ability of PGSD in Accomplishing the Energy Material Problems
Abstract
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:
PDFReferences
Abidin, Zainal D.K. Dina, Rif’ati. Yushardi. (2013). Pengaruh Bentuk Benda dan
Kedalaman Terhadap Gaya Angkat ke Atas (Fa) pada Fluida Statis. Not
Published. library.unej.ac.id/client/search/asset/571.
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 http://snf-unj.ac.id/kumpulan-prosiding/snf2015/ 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.
Ennis,
R.H.
Critical
Thinking.
USA:
Prentice
Hall,
Inc.
Erduran,
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
Pelajar.
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:
1119/1.1607335.
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/
TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.
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: http://journal.uny.ac.id/
index.php/pythagoras.
Sugihartono, dkk. (2007). Psikologi Dosenan. Yogyakarta: UNY Press.
Sugiyono. (2010). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R dan D. Bandung:
Alfabeta.
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
Press.
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.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
