Correlation Between Critical Thinking and Conceptual Understanding of Student's Learning Outcome in Mechanics Concept

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 9

Correlation between critical thinking and

conceptual understanding of student’s


learning outcome in mechanics concept
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2014, 020028 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5054432
Published Online: 21 September 2018

Ana Yuniasti Retno Wulandari

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

The application of problem based learning to improve students’ self-efficacy


AIP Conference Proceedings 2014, 020024 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5054428

Guided inquiry and PSR in overcoming students’ misconception on the context of


temperature and heat
AIP Conference Proceedings 2014, 020029 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5054433

Preface: International Conference on Science and Applied Science (ICSAS) 2018


AIP Conference Proceedings 2014, 010001 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5054403

AIP Conference Proceedings 2014, 020028 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5054432 2014, 020028

© 2018 Author(s).
Correlation Between Critical Thinking and Conceptual
Understanding of Student’s Learning Outcome in
Mechanics Concept
Ana Yuniasti Retno Wulandari1, a
1
Natural Science Education Study Program of Trunojoyo University, Jl. Raya Telang PO BOX 2 Kamal Bangkalan
Madura 69162, Indonesia
a)
Corresponding author: ana.wulandari@trunojoyo.ac.id

Abstract. The aim of this research is to know the correlation between critical thinking skill and conceptual understanding
of student’s learning outcome in mechanics concept. The sampling consists of 92 students in the first semester who are
taking the 1st basic physics course. The collecting data technique use test to measure the student’s critical thinking skill
and conceptual understanding. The data analyze use Spearman correlation. The result of this research shows: (a) there is a
correlation between student’s critical thinking skill toward student’s learning outcome with Spearman correlation
coefficient 0,730 and significance 0,000; (b) there is a correlation between student’s conceptual understanding toward
student’s learning outcome with Spearman correlation coefficient 0,885 and significance 0,000. So, it concludes that
student’s critical thinking skill and conceptual understanding had positive correlation toward student’s learning outcome
in mechanics concept.

INTRODUCTION
The first basic physics is one of the compulsory subjects in Natural Science Education Study Program which
studying the concept of mechanics, vibration, wave, and optics. Basic Physics is the basic idea that arises from the
application of the scientific method which examines the most fundamental ideas about the physical properties [1].
The concept of mechanics studied in this course is the basic mechanic’s concept before the students deepen the
concept further in the subject of science mechanics in the next semester. Therefore, understanding the basic concepts
of mechanics should be owned by every student.
Learning physics requires an understanding of the concepts learned in order to re-explain the concept and be able
to implement the concept in daily life. Conceptual understanding makes students can transform knowledge become
multiple representations and apply in daily life [2]. Conceptual understanding is the process of acting to understand
correctly about a design or an abstract idea that allows one to classify an object or event, and conceptual
understanding gained through the learning process [3]. Conceptual understanding is the ability to understand
concepts, operations and relationships in mathematics [4]. Indicators of conceptual understanding include: memorize
the concept, integrating concept with related concepts, transfer and apply the concept to solve problems, reason
analogically, reason locally and globally [5]. The concept in physics learning is an important key to understanding
and applying physics in daily life. Conceptual understanding is needed as a foundation for acquiring problem-
solving skills, critical and creative thinking.
Critical thinking is a process that challenges an individual to use reflective, reasonable, rational thinking to
gather, interpret and evaluate information in order to derive a judgment. Critical thinking is thinking that makes
sense and focused reflection to decide what should be believed or done [6]. Critical thinking ability is an important
part of educational goals because it has higher complex processes, such as analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating,
drawing conclusion and reflection [7]. Critical thinking is used in making judgments of information and explaining
the reasons for problem-solving [8]. According to Facione [9], the most basic concept of critical thinking is the

International Conference on Science and Applied Science (ICSAS) 2018


AIP Conf. Proc. 2014, 020028-1–020028-8; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5054432
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1730-4/$30.00

020028-1
ability of interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation. Critical thinking skills are
needed to analyze and solve a problem in daily life [10].
Critical thinking skills are very important to develop because students can more easily understand the concept,
sensitive to problems that occur so as to understand and solve problems, and able to apply the concept in different
situations [11]. In the 21st century, students need seven survival skills including critical thinking and problem
solving, leadership and cooperation, agility and adaptability, full of initiative and entrepreneur spirit, ability to
communicate effectively both oral and written, easy access to information and information analysis, imagination and
curiosity [12]. Critical thinking skills can bring students to see a problem with a different perspective, where the
ability to think it leads students to be able to analyze a phenomenon that occurs by looking at the strengths and
weaknesses of the circumstances. By having these critical thinking skills, students will have the courage to express
ideas, always have curiosity, flexible, open-minded, honest, cautious in making a judgment, clear-minded, organized
and traceable in solving a problem, and abstinence gives up in search for optimal results. Critical thinking should be
applied and developed in core curriculum and teaching and learning process to produce students who have quality
thinking future leaders [13].
Based on the theoretical above, conceptual understanding and critical thinking is very important to have students.
It is expected to support the success of students in learning. Therefore, this research aims to know the correlation
between critical thinking skill and conceptual understanding of student's learning outcome in mechanics concept.

RESEARCH METHOD

Sample Research
The sampling technique in this research uses purposive sampling. The sampling consists of 92 students in the
first semester who are taking the 1st basic physics course.

Data Collection Technique


The collecting data technique use essay test to measure the student’s critical thinking skill. While the conceptual
understanding data collection technique uses multiple choice test with reason.

Data Analysis Technique


The data analyze use Spearman correlation to analyze the correlation between critical thinking skill and
conceptual understanding of student’s learning outcome in mechanics concept.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


The students' critical thinking skills are measured using an essay test prepared in accordance with Facione's
critical thinking indicator of interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, and explanation [9]. Students’ conceptual
understanding is measured using multiple choice test with reason. The conceptual understanding test is constructed
using indicators such as memorizing the concept, integrating concept with related concepts, transfer and apply the
concept to solve problems [5]. The data of students’ learning outcome is obtained from middle test score of the 1st
basic physics course combined with the value of the task and attitude value.
The results data per percentage conceptual understanding indicator is presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Percentage conceptual understanding indicator

Aspect (Indicator) Concept Question Number Percentage


Memorizing the concept Accelerated uniform rectilinear motion 1 72%
Uniform rectilinear motion 4a
Integrating concept with Accelerated uniform rectilinear motion 2 68%
related concept Speed and Velocity 3
Transfer and apply the Uniform rectilinear motion 4b 60%
concept to solve problems Work 5

020028-2
Based on Table 1 it is known that there is a difference in percentage achievement of student conceptual
understanding indicator. The highest percentage of conceptual understanding indicator is in the indicator
memorizing the concept with 72%. This is because the question of the indicator only asks the students to memorize
the concept about accelerated uniform rectilinear motion and uniform rectilinear motion that has been studied
correctly. When students try to memorize the concept involves two cognitive processes that are identifying and
recalling [14]. While the lowest percentage is in indicator transfer and apply the concept to solve problems. This is
because students must transfer and apply the concept they have to solve the problem on uniform rectilinear motion
and work problem. In this case before students can transfer and apply the concept then students must understand the
concept first and then connect the concept one with another concept and then can apply the concept in solving the
problem [5].
Some examples of students ' answers to the conceptual understanding test can be seen in Fig. 1.

EN: EN:
1. Eza drives from the west at high velocity. From a 2. Two motors A and B from rest to move with
distance, there is a traffic light and he starts to reduce acceleration and for time and . If both motors
the velocity of his car regularly. If the velocity of the are moving with the same acceleration ( = ) and the
car is slowed regularly then the acceleration of the car time is greater than ( > ), then the distance
is ... between the two motors is ...
a. Constant a. The distance of motor A is greater than motor B
b. Increases b. The distance of motor A is equal to motor B
c. Zero c. The distance of motor B is greater than motor A
d. Decrease d. There is no correct answer
Reason: Reason:
From the question, it can be seen that the event For the cases can be seen by the equation:
included in the accelerated uniform rectilinear motion = + ; where the distance value depends on the
due to changes in velocity from fast to slow because
initial velocity, time, and acceleration. The initial velocity
the car brakes and accelerated uniform rectilinear
of the two motors ( ) is the same and the acceleration is
motion has the concept of motion of objects on a
the same at different times so the distance covered is also
straight path with changing velocity and constant
different. If time is getting bigger then the distance
acceleration
traveled is also bigger so when > then apply the
ratio of such value to > .
(a) (b)
FIGURE 1. The students’ answer to the conceptual understanding test (a) in indicator memorizing the concept and (b) in
indicator integrating the concept with related concepts

Figure 1 (a) is an example of a correct student answer on a conceptual understanding test with an indicator of
memorizing the concept. Most students can answer and give the reason correctly. However, there are still a few
students who answered that the car's acceleration is decreased. Though knowing that the concept of accelerated
uniform rectilinear motion is the motion of an object on a straight path, the velocity of the object is changed

020028-3
regularly and the acceleration is constant. Fig. 1 (b) is an example of a correct student answer on a conceptual
understanding test with an indicator of integrating the concept with related concepts. On this question, most students
answered correctly. But there are also students who are still wrong in giving the reason. From the question is known
that the acceleration of the two motors is the same and the initial velocity is zero. Since the time motor B is greater
than motor A so that the distance traveled by motor B is greater than the distance of the motor A.
While the sample of students' answers to critical thinking test can be seen in Fig. 2.

EN: EN:
6. A marathon athlete is practicing on a square-shaped 7. Two beetles A and B move straight with constant
square edge of 90 x 90 m. The coach gives only ten velocity v1 and v2. The position vectors of these two
minutes to run as many as 3 rounds. Help the athlete particles are r1 and r2. (a) Determine the relationship
determine the velocity and speed of running, so he between these four vectors so that the two beetles collide
does not exceed the time limit specified by the coach! and (b) make an image interpretation!
Answer: Answer:
An athlete ran on a shaped path square with a size of The two beetles collide if the direction of the unit vector
90 x 90. He ran 3 rounds. Distance traveled to 3 relative velocity and direction of the unit vector of the
rotation is (90 x 4) x 3 = 1080 m. position are the relatively opposite direction.
Displacement which he does is zero because runners ⃗ ⃗
Unit vector relative position: | ⃗ ⃗ |
= ̂
run from the starting point to the same endpoint.
⃗ ⃗
In order for the runner to get to the deep endpoint ten Unit vector relative velocity: | ⃗ ⃗ |
=
minutes, then the speed should be: The direction of the position vector is relatively
1080
= = = 18 / unidirectional with the velocity of the relative velocity if
600 ̂ = − , so:
Runners do not have velocity because the ⃗ ⃗ ⃗ ⃗
displacement is zero |⃗ ⃗ |
= −|⃗ ⃗ |
(a) (b)
FIGURE 2. The students’ answer to the critical thinking test (a) in analyze indicator and (b) in indicator interpretation and
inference

Figure 2 (a) is an example of a correct student answer on a critical thinking test with an indicator of analyzing.
On this question, most students answer the speed of the athlete correctly but there are some that are still wrong when
determining the velocity of the athlete. From the question, it is known that the displacement is zero because the
athlete runs from the starting point to the same endpoint so that the velocity is zero. Fig. 2 (b) is an example of a
correct student answer on a critical thinking test with an indicator of interpretation and inference. On this question,

020028-4
most students still have difficulty to answer the question. Students have difficulty interpreting images and making
the four vector connections for both beetles to collide. This is because students do not understand the concept that
two beetles collide if the direction of the unit vector relative velocity and direction of the unit vector of the position
are the relatively opposite direction.
The results data per percentage critical thinking indicator is presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2. Percentage critical thinking indicator

Aspect (Indicator) Concept Question Number Percentage


Analysis Speed and Velocity 6 70%
Explanation Accelerated uniform rectilinear motion 8a 81%
Interpretation Uniform rectilinear motion 7b 76%
Accelerated uniform rectilinear motion 8b
Inference Uniform rectilinear motion 7a 59%
Accelerated uniform rectilinear motion 9
Evaluation Work 10 62%

From Table 2, it can be seen that the attainment of the highest critical thinking indicator is in the indicator
explanation of 81%. In this indicator, students are asked to explain the problem with a logical reason [9]. Students
are asked to explain the problem on the concept of accelerated uniform rectilinear motion. While the achievement of
the lowest critical thinking indicator is in the indicator inference. Most students do not score well in the evaluation
and inference indicator [15]. This is because students must be able to analyze the problem first and then evaluate and
make conclusions about the concept of uniform rectilinear motion and accelerated uniform rectilinear motion. An
inference is the ability to make hypotheses or conclusions [9][16]. Therefore, a higher thinking process is required
before the student can make a conclusion.
The data of critical thinking, conceptual understanding, and students’ learning outcome that have been collected
are then categorized. The results categorization can be seen in Table 3.
TABLE 3. Percentage level of students’ critical thinking, conceptual understanding, and
learning outcome

Percentage
Category
Critical Thinking Conceptual Understanding Learning Outcome
Excellent 22,83% 16,30% 10,870%
Good 50% 60,87% 69,565%
Fair 27,17% 22,83% 19,565%
Poor 0% 0% 0%
Very Poor 0% 0% 0%

Based on the data in Table 3 it is known that the average of student’s critical thinking, conceptual understanding,
and student learning outcomes are at a good level. None of the students have the conceptual understanding, critical
thinking, and learning outcomes in the poor and very poor category. While the histogram results categorization can
be seen in Fig. 3.

020028-5
69.565
70.00 60.87
60.00 50.00

percentage
50.00
40.00 27.1722.83
30.00 22.83
16.30 19.565
20.00 10.870
10.00 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00
excellent good fair poor very poor
category

critical thinking conceptual understanding learning outcome

FIGURE 3. Histogram level of students’ critical thinking, conceptual understanding, and learning outcome
The statistical descriptive results of critical thinking, conceptual understanding, and students’ learning outcome
on mechanical concepts are presented in Table 4.
TABLE 4. Descriptive statistics
Critical Thinking Conceptual Understanding Learning Outcome
Mean 69,5199 66,7174 68,7448
Median 70,8333 67,0000 70,7500
Mode 70,83 67,00 54,15
Std. Deviation 12,41469 12,18658 9,81975
Variance 154,124 148,513 96,428
Minimum 45,83 40,00 45,80
Maximum 95,83 93,00 87,50
Sum 6395,83 6138,00 6324,52

Based on Table 4 it is known that the average critical thinking is 69,5199 with the standard deviation of
12,41469 and the minimum value is 45,83 and the maximum value is 95,83. The average of conceptual
understanding is 66.7174 with the standard deviation of 12,18658 and the minimum value 40,00 and the maximum
value 93,00. The average of students’ learning outcome is 68,7448 with the standard deviation of 9.81975 and the
minimum value 45,80 and the maximum value 87,50. So, it can be concluded that the average of critical thinking,
conceptual understanding, and students’ learning outcome almost the same.
Normality test on the data of critical thinking skill, conceptual understanding, and students’ learning outcome is
done before hypothesis testing. The test of normality uses Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The data of critical thinking,
conceptual understanding, and students’ learning outcome are not normally distributed. This is indicated because the
significance of normality test results is smaller than 0.05, ie the significance of critical thinking and conceptual
understanding is 0.003 and the significance of students’ learning outcome is 0.017.
Because the data of critical thinking, conceptual understanding, and students’ learning outcome are not normally
distributed, then the statistical test used to test the research hypothesis is Spearman correlation. The hypothesis in
this research is H0 (there is no correlation between critical thinking and conceptual understanding toward student’s
learning outcome on mechanics concept) and H1 (there is a correlation between critical thinking and conceptual
understanding toward student’s learning outcome on mechanics concept). Spearman correlation results using SPSS
20 application are presented in Table 5.

020028-6
TABLE 5. Spearman correlation

Critical Thinking Conceptual Understanding Learning Outcome


Critical Correlation Coefficient 1,000 0,689** 0,730**
thinking Sig. (2-tailed) . 0,000 0,000
N 92 92 92
Conceptual Correlation Coefficient 0,689** 1,000 0,885**
understanding Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 . 0,000
N 92 92 92
Learning Correlation Coefficient 0,730** 0,885** 1,000
outcome Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 .
N 92 92 92

Based on Table 5 it is known that the significance of Spearman correlation between critical thinking and
students’ learning outcome is 0,000 with correlation coefficient 0,730. Due to the significance of 0.000 < 0.05 then
H0 is rejected. So, it can be concluded there is a correlation between student’s critical thinking skill toward student’s
learning outcome on mechanics concept. The correlation can be seen that the higher result of student's critical
thinking then the student's learning outcomes are also getting better. Critical thinking is an important thing to
achieve learning outcome [17]. Critical thinking is a self-regulatory process of judgment that helps student how to
deal and solve problems [18]. Critical thinking was an effective means of enhancing students’ understanding of the
concepts [19]. Students can use critical thinking skills to understand and apply concepts to achieve good learning
outcomes.
The significance of Spearman correlation between conceptual understanding and students’ learning outcome is
0.000 with correlation coefficient 0,885. Due to the significance of 0.000 < 0.05 then H0 is rejected. So, it can be
concluded there is a correlation between student’s conceptual understanding toward student’s learning outcome on
mechanics concept. The higher student’s conceptual understanding then the student's learning outcomes is also
getting better. Conceptual understanding makes students can transfer and apply the concept to different situations
and solve a problem [20]. There is a relationship between students’ conceptions of learning, their learning outcomes
and academic achievements [21].
The results of this research are similar to the research that has been done by Nuryanti [22] which states that there
is a relationship between critical thinking skills positively with students' cognitive abilities. The effect of the critical
thinking skill variable on students' cognitive ability is 35.9% [22]. The result of Rachmadtullah's research [23]
showed that there was a positive correlation between Critical thinking and learning outcomes in Civic Education.
The result of Alatas's research also shows that there is a correlation of conceptual understanding with students'
critical thinking skill through Treffinger learning model on sub-subject of static fluid [3]. Conceptual understanding
is the most definitive thing towards the achievement of Physics learning goals [2]. Students should get many
opportunities to use their logical reasoning skills, training, formulating a concept and participating in solving
complex problems that need their hard effort.

CONCLUSIONS
The result of this research shows: (a) there is a correlation between student’s critical thinking skill toward
student’s learning outcome with Spearman correlation coefficient 0,730 and significance 0,000; (b) there is a
correlation between student’s conceptual understanding toward student’s learning outcome with Spearman
correlation coefficient 0,885 and significance 0,000. So, it concludes that student’s critical thinking skill and
conceptual understanding had positive correlation toward student’s learning outcome in mechanics concept.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Acknowledgments are sent to Mrs. Fatimatul Munawaroh as a partner in teaching the 1st basic physics course
which has helped in the process of data retrieval.

020028-7
REFERENCES
1. R. P. Feynman, Leighton, Sands, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 1.
Addison Wesley, 2010.
2. D. Ratnasari, S. Sukarmin, and S. Suparmi, “Effect of problem type toward students’ conceptual
understanding level on heat and temperature,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 909, no. 012054, 2017.
3. F. Alatas, “Hubungan Pemahaman Konsep Dengan Keterampilan Berpikir Kritis Melalui Model
Pembelajaran Treffinger Pada Mata Kuliah Fisika Dasar,” Edusains, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 87–96, 2014.
4. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, and B. Findell, Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press, 2001.
5. K. J. Schönborn and T. R. Anderson, “Bridging the educational research-teaching practice gap - Conceptual
understanding, part 2: Assessing and developing student knowledge,” Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., vol. 36,
no. 5, pp. 372–379, 2008.
6. A. Fisher, Critical Thinking. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
7. Sulasih, S. Suparmi, and S. Sarwanto, “Profile of student critical thinking ability on static fluid concept
Profile of student critical thinking ability on static fluid concept,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 909, no. 012060,
2017.
8. T. Thomas, “Developing first year students’ critical thinking skills,” Asian Soc. Sci., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 26–35,
2011.
9. P. A. Facione, Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. The California Academic Press. Millbrae
CA., 2011.
10. A. Y. R. Wulandari, “Pembelajaran Menggunakan Pendekatan Konstruktivisme Berbantuan Media Animasi
Komputer Untuk Meningkatkan Keterampilan Berpikir Kritis Mahasiswa,” in Seminar Nasional Pendidikan
Sains 2017, 2017, pp. 97–103.
11. S. Wardani, L. Lindawati, and S. B. W. Kusuma, “The development of inquiry by using android-system-
based chemistry board game to improve learning outcome and critical thinking ability,” J. Pendidik. IPA
Indones., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 196–205, 2017.
12. A. R. Saavedra et al., “Teaching and Learning 21st Century Skill: Lesson from the Learning Science,” Phi
Delta Kappan, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 8–13, 2012.
13. Firdaus, I. Kailani, M. N. bin Bakar, and Bakry, “Developing Critical Thinking Skills of Students in
Mathematics Learning,” J. Educ. Learn., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 226–236, 2015.
14. R. E. Mayer, “Rote versus meaningful learning,” Theory Pract., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 226–232, 2002.
15. O. Neuschmidt, J. Barth, and D. Hastedt, “Trends in gender differences in mathematics and science ( TIMSS
1995 – 2003 ),” Stud. Educ. Eval., vol. 34, pp. 56–72, 2008.
16. S. Živkovic, “A Model of Critical Thinking as an Important Attribute for Success in the 21st Century,”
Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 232, pp. 102–108, 2016.
17. N. Erceg, I. Aviani, and V. Mešić, “Probing students’ critical thinking processes by presenting ill-Defined
physics problems,” Rev. Mex. Fis. E, vol. 59, pp. 65–76, 2013.
18. A. R. Kabeel and S. A. E. M. Eisa, “The Correlation of Critical Thinking Disposition and Approaches to
Learning among Baccalaureate Nursing Students,” J. Educ. Pract., vol. 7, no. 32, pp. 91–103, 2016.
19. A. N. Chukwuyenum, “Impact of critical thinking on performance in mathematics among senior secondary
school students in Lagos State,” IOSR J. Res. Method Educ., vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 18–25, 2013.
20. A. J. Kola, “Investigating the Conceptual Understanding of Physics through an Interactive Lecture-
Engagement,” Cumhuriyet Int. J. Educ., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 82–96, 2017.
21. D. V. Marouchou, “Can students’ concept of learning influence their learning outcomes?,” High. Learn. Res.
Commun., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 18-33, 2012.
22. S. Nuryanti and D. Pursitasari, “Hubungan Gaya Belajar Dengan Keterampilan Berpikir Kritis Dan
Kemampuan Kognitif Siswa Pada Mata Pelajaran Kimia Di Kelas X SMKN 1 Bungku Tengah,” e-Jurnal
Mitra Sains, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 24–33, 2015.
23. R. Rachmadtullah, “Kemampuan Berpikir Kritis dan Konsep Diri Dengan Hasil Belajar Pendidikan
Kewarganegaraan Siswa Kelas V Sekolah Dasar,” J. Pendidik. Dasar, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 287–298, 2015.

020028-8

You might also like