D.F. Wulandari, N.Y. Rustaman
SWUP
SC.143
Indicators of critical thinking skills studied used Ennis critical thinking indicators. Critical thinking skills are translated into 5 indicator, namely: 1 elementary clarification; 2
the basics support; 3 inference; 4 advanced clarification; and 5 strategies and tactics. Each stage of thinking further elaborated in more specific indicators. Indicators of critical
thinking in Ennis are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Critical thinking skills indicators according to Ennis. Critical Thinking
Sub Critical Thinking Explanation
Elementary clarification
Focusing questions Identifying formulate questions, formulate
answers criteria Analyze arguments
Identifying conclusion, the reason, the relevance, the similarities and differences
Ask and or answer questions of clarification and or challenge
Looking for structure arguments, and ask questions
The basics support
Consider the credibility of sources
Experts, there is no conflict of interest, reputation, know the risks
Investigating and or considering the observation
report. Inference
Create and or consider deduction
Group logical, logical conditions, interpretation of the statement
Create and or consider induction
Make generalizations, conclusions and hypothesis, investigation
Create and or consider the opinions of value.
Background facts, applying the principles, consequences, think of alternatives
Advanced clarification
Defining the term and or consider definitions
Shape, strategy definition and content Identifying assumptions.
The reasons stated and not stated Strategies and
tactics Determining a course of action
Identifying problems, selecting criteria, formulate alternatives, decide, reviewing and monitoring
Interact with others. Label, a logical strategy, rhetoric and
presentation strategies
2.3 Methods and research design
This study used a quasi-experimental method. Quasi experiments used to compare the increase in critical thinking skills of students using a physics learning strategy base of asking
activities and competition group. The study design used nonequivalent control group design Sugiyono, 2008. The instruments used were 1 a test of critical thinking skills in the form of
multiple choice questions, 2 a questionnaire to determine students’ and teachers’ responses. Data processing done by calculating the normalized gain scores and the two mean
difference test using SPSS, while the questionnaire data in qualitative scale was converted into a quantitative scale.
3. Results and discussion
3.1 The increase of critical thinking skill
The increase critical thinking skill were judge from preliminary and final tests score in the form of percentages. Percentage of critical thinking skills average score achieved in
preliminary tests, final test and N-gain between the experimental class and control class can be seen in Figure 1.
Implementation of asking and group competition learning strategies to improve critical thinking skill
SWUP
SC.144
Figure 1. Comparison of Critical thinking skills percentage average score of initial tests, final test and N-gain between experimental class and control class.
Based on data collected on the average score of preliminary tests, final test and N-gain had showed that the average score in preliminary test in experimental class was 33.2 from
the ideal score, while the average score in control class was 36.7 of the ideal score. Furthermore, based on data collected the average score of the final test showed that the
average score of the final test in experimental class was 77.8 of the ideal score, while in control class was 71.2 of the ideal score. N-gain Average for the experimental class was
0.38 and control class was 0.27. The average N-gain for the experimental class was in medium category while the average N-gain in control class was in lower category. Thus the average
N-gain of experiment class was higher than the average N-gain in control class.
The results showed that the acquisition of N-gain in the experimental class was highest in basic clarification indicator that was 0.53 in the medium category and the lowest occurred
in inference indicators that was 0.20 catagorized in lower category, while in the control class the highest N- gain in basic clarification indicator was 0.50 in the medium category and the
lowest occurred in inference indicators that was 0.09 catagorized in the low category. From the analysis showed an increase of N-gain students’ critical thinking average in experiment
class was higher than the control class. Comparison of N-gain critical thinking skills of each indicator can be seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Comparison of N-gain critical thinking skills of each indicator in the experimental class and control class.
D.F. Wulandari, N.Y. Rustaman
SWUP
SC.145
Normality test of critical thinking data distribution in students experiment class and control class conducted using One-Sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test. The results obtained
indicated that the distribution of data were normally on the significance of 0.128 for the experimental class and 0.194 for control class. Homogeneity test for variant critical thinking
data of students in experiment class and control class used the Levene test Test of Homogeneity of Variances, which showed that the variant of data homogeneous at 0.469
significance. After an increase in critical thinking skills data showed normally distributed and homogeneous then the next step was to do parametric statistical test t test with α = 0.005.
Independent Samples Test result showed that there were significant differences between the increase in critical thinking skills in experimental class and control class based on the value of
t = 5,738; and the significance of 0.000. Based on the analysis of t test can be concluded that the increase in critical thinking skills in experiment class was better than the increase in
critical thinking skills in control class.
3.2 Students’ responses against implementation of Physics Learning Strategy Base of Asking Activities and Group competition PLSAC
Based on student responses obtained can be concluded that the students gave positive responses to the implementation of physics learning strategy base of asking activities and
competition group, as can be seen in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of student responses to the implementation of Physics Learning Strategy Base Of Asking Activities and Group Competition PLSAC.
No Statement
Percentage of Answers
Yes
No
1 I am pleased to learn physics with PLSAC
97 2
Learning activities with PLSAC stimulate my desire to ask a lot of questions in addition to those already assigned.
82 3
Learning with PLSAC is easy to follow. 73,5
4 Learning with PLSAC encouraged me to think more critically.
76 5
Learning with PLSAC encouraged me to think more creatively. 76
6 Learning with PLSAC add my motivation to learn physic
76 7
According to my opinion studying in a group is very pleasant 94
8 I feel the task of reading, making questions and its possible answers in physic
learning process burden me. 73.5
9 I feel tournament session in physic learning encouraged me to prepare
myself more in order to be the best at that session. 76
10 I feel tournament session in physic learning burden me. 94
11 I feel studying in a group preventing me to better understand the physics topics because I need to interact with friends which takes a bit of my
learning time in class. 94
12 Learning activities with PLSAC did not encourage me to better understand the material to be studied.
82 13 Learning activities with PLSAC burden me with making other questions
change the question when my initial question has been picked earlier by someone else.
83 14 Learning with PLSAC prevent me to develop myselves in learning because we
have to argue with another student. 94
15 Learning with PLSAC is difficult to follow. 73.5
Implementation of asking and group competition learning strategies to improve critical thinking skill
SWUP
SC.146
3.3 Teacher’s responses against implementation of Physics Learning Strategy Base of Asking Activities and Group Competition PLSAC
Based on teachers’ responses obtained in the study, it can be concluded that the teacher gave a positive response to the implementation of PLSAC. The teacher said that this
learning strategy has the potential to improve the quality of physics learning process. The weakness of this strategy was, in order to be more effective, it first needed habituation to
make students familiar with this learning strategy because it was different from the usual one before and for materials that require the application of mathematical, learning in the
classroom will require more time in the phase of reflection where teachers check students comprehension and will reduce the time of class tournament. Advantages of this strategy
were; it could increased the students’ motivation to read lessons before coming to class because there was a pre learning session and they wanted to be the best in the tournament
session. This strategy can also improve students’ participation activity in the classroom.
3.4 Discussion
The positive result of this learning strategy in accordance with the objectives when the learning strategy was proposed. As Golding 2011 has taught critical thinking skills by using
Socratic questioning techniques in a inquiry community. Toledo 2006, used the approach of asking by online. Macknight 2000 reported the use of web-based communications base
on Socrates Question to improve students critical thinking abilities. From some of these studies there is a similarity of methods used to teach critical thinking skills. The similarities
described in asking activity and discussion that occurs in the forum discussion group to facilitate student’s interaction.
Craig et al. 2008 reported the use of questions on narrative in multimedia learning environments. The use of questions to support comprehension, problem solving and
reasoning. This method forces students to answer questions during the process of reading that can improve text learning. From the above it can be concluded that the use of methods
of asking can improve critical thinking skills.
The use of group define as cooperative learning can also be used to improve critical thinking skills. Qin et 1995 reported a sal.tudy to find positive effects of cooperative
learning in improving critical thinking skills. Cooperative learning is a popular model that is often used in almost all subjects. The use of cooperative learning in physics, among others,
research conducted by Heller et al. 1992 aimed to discover the effects of cooperative learning in physics problem solving performance. In a cooperative group that functions well,
students can share concepts and procedural knowledge as well as the role of the argument, asking for clarification, justification, and the elaboration of each other, so that the resulting
solution is better than working individually. Benckert Pettersson 2008 investigated the use of discussion groups in the physics learning problem solving process. Ho Boo 2007
investigated the use of cooperative learning in teaching physics. The results showed that the use of cooperative learning can improve academic achievement, helping students to
understand the concepts of physics and increase students motivation to learn.
Although reading has long been regarded as an activity of thinking, only in the last few years, learning to read comprehensively included in the activities of high-level thinking
Shook Mee, 2002. In the same book Tan Cheah proposed the use of critical questions to help students think more profound reading of the text. Furthermore Netto-Shek Shook
Mee, 2002 also showed that thinking skills can be put at some stages of the deconstruction
D.F. Wulandari, N.Y. Rustaman
SWUP
SC.147
of the text, which were reading, understanding or responding to the readings. Both competition and cooperation learning have great opportunity to influence the
performance of students in the class. After all, humans are basically like working together, debating, discussing, and always try to compete with the opponent in debate or discussion
competency Sharan, 1990. Lam et al. 2004 found that competition has positive effect on student performance results and motivation to learn in the classroom. While Parrenas
Parrenas 1993 stated that cooperative learning can facilitate students to acquire higher academic achievement. Therefore, both individual and team reward should exist in
cooperative learning environment, or reward for participation in the productivity of the team proved to be very useful Johnson et al., 1998. For that, then Wynne 1995 recommended
a synthesis of cooperation-competition teaching strategy that combines the positive aspects of cooperative learning and motivation competition between groups using competition
among team collaboration. If placed correctly in the competitive environment, cooperative learning can strengthens the contribution of each individual in achieving collective goals and
can provide a very positive influence on student learning Dyson Grineski, 2001.
Cooperation and competition are teaching strategy that combines components of cooperative learning with positive motivation aspects of competition through inter-group
competition between collaborative team, as has been reported the effectiveness of its use by Attle Baker 2007 in sports management students. As has also been reported by Tauer
Harackiewicz 2004, that in combination with group learning, cooperative inter-group competition can increase intrinsic motivation of participants consistently. The findings
concluded that the combination of cooperation and competition are able to facilitate motivation, enjoyment and performance of the participants. In the proposed learning
strategy, these structures are in the tournament session.
4. Conclusion and remarks
