CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE Introduction With the dramatic changes of educational landscape across the world
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE
With the dramatic changes of educational landscape across the world, the academic community is always abreast with the challenges for continuous improvements and developments in the instructional workforce, and that is, to respond and cater to the demands of the modern professional careers vis-à-vis global economic market.
As stipulated by Levy and Murname (2004), knowledge and skills specific to academic disciplines are important, but there is a multitude of disciplines, each evolving over time. This makes it impractical to establish broad, comparative benchmarks based on achievement in academic disciplines. The development of students’ critical-thinking skills is central to the missions of modern postsecondary institutions because of growing recognition that these skills fuel innovation and economic growth. Most colleges and universities aspire to produce graduates who think critically, who can make judgments in complex situations on the basis of sound reason, adequate evidence, and articulated values.
Thinking is a natural process, but left to itself, it is often biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, and potentially prejudiced; excellence in thought must be cultivated (Scriven and Paul, 2004). When students are thinking critically, they are intellectually engaged (Gini-Newman, 2007; Elder and Paul, 2010). Critical thinking is one of the most important concepts involved in the field of education. Enabling students to think critically is not only a primary purpose of higher education, but also facilitates the dynamics of academies and universities and helps them survive, develop and promotes scientific societies.
Currently, science educators and teachers agree that laboratory work is indispensable to the understanding of science (Cardak et al., 2007; Ottander and Grelsson, 2006; Tan, 2008). The role of laboratory work in science education has been detailed by some researchers (Lazarowitz and Tamir, 1994; Lunetta, 1998). The main purpose of laboratory work in science education is to provide students with theoretical and conceptual knowledge to help them learn scientific-technical concepts, and through scientific methods, to understand the nature of science.
Laboratory works also give students the opportunities to experience science by using scientific research procedures. In order to achieve meaningful learning, scientific theories and their application methods should be experienced by students. Moreover, laboratory works should encourage the development of analytical and critical thinking skills and encourage interest in science (Ottander and Grelsson, 2006).
Moreover, it can also provide students opportunities to improve their problem solving and investigation skills, to do appropriate generalization about salient points in science, to get scientific knowledge and to hold positive attitudes towards science (Tamir, 1997). Integration critical and creative thinking processes with the laboratory method, which is one of the most essential methods in effective science education, may contribute to science content learning and logical thinking on scientific issues.
In heighten students’ critical thinking skill is to expose them to laboratory activities as key instructional materials in order to affirm and validate the learned concepts taught in the classroom. Such given laboratory activities will facilitate the comprehension of concepts that cannot be accomplished by plain chalk talk. Laboratory activities are proven to be effective in modifying learners’ behavior and facilitate effective acquisition of knowledge and skills.
This claim is supported by Lazarowitz and Tamir (1994) and (Schwartz and others (2004), that the effectiveness of laboratory works helps students to better understand the various aspects of scientific investigation. And that teachers usually want to develop students higher order thinking skills, like critical thinking, through laboratory work; but to what extent they can achieve this is controversial (Bol and Strage, 1996; Ottander and Grelsson, 2006).
The need to fully-equipped school laboratories, Philippine Department of Education (DepEd) through the National Science Teaching Instrumentation Center (NSTIC) helps to develop affordable quality science instructional apparatus in the field of Science. Standardized apparatus was improvised into the Do-It-Yourself (DIY). It is low-cost type of instructional and laboratory materials where teachers can modify and tailor them according to the learning styles of the students. The DIY is an alternative to some of the standard science equipment and can be easily constructed since it is simple, although not comfortable to the precision. The DIY is one of the very low availability of science equipment in schools (www.nstic.net.ph/annualreport.htm).
Provided with the many contentions and considerations in the Philippine educational setting, particularly, in using DIY apparatus in science laboratory, the researchers opted to evaluate the levels of critical thinking among the DSME science majors who were enrolled in EDSC 137 (Science Instrumentation Workshop) using the adopted test questionnaire of Alefante (2012).
Statement of the Problem
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the level of critical thinking among 131 DSME college students who were enrolled in EDSC 137 (Science Instrumentation Workshop) during the Academic Year 2016-2017 of MSU-IIT, Iligan City. Hence, this study was conducted to answer the following questions:
1. What is the level of each critical thinking skills among DSME science majors who have taken EDSC 137 in terms of:
2. What is the average level of critical thinking skill of DSME science major respondents?
3. Is there a significant relationship between the course of the respondents and their level of critical thinking?
4. What critical thinking skill such as application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation was highly developed by the respondents?
Ho: There is no significant relationship between the course of respondents and their level of critical thinking.
Theoretical Framework of the Study
Educators have long been aware of the importance of critical thinking skills as an
outcome of student learning. More recently, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills has identified critical thinking as one of several learning and innovation skills necessary to prepare students for post-secondary education and the workforce. In addition, the newly created Common Core State Standards reflect critical thinking as a cross-disciplinary skill vital for college and employment. Despite widespread recognition of its importance, there is a notable lack of consensus regarding the definition of critical thinking.
The literature on critical thinking has roots in two primary academic disciplines: philosophy and psychology (Lewis and Smith, 1993). Sternberg (1986) has also noted a third critical thinking strand within the field of education. These separate academic strands have developed different approaches to defining critical thinking that reflect their respective concerns.
The writings of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and more recently, Matthew Lipman and Richard Paul, exemplify the philosophical approach. This approach focuses on the hypothetical critical thinker, enumerating the qualities and characteristics of this person rather than the behaviors or actions the critical thinker can perform (Lewis and Smith, 1993; Thayer-Bacon, 2000). Sternberg (1986) has noted that this school of thought approaches the critical thinker as an ideal type, focusing on what people are capable of doing under the best of circumstances.
Accordingly, Richard Paul (1992) discusses critical thinking in the context of “perfections of thought” (p. 9). This preoccupation with the ideal critical thinker is evident in the American Philosophical Association’s consensus portrait of the ideal critical thinker as someone who is inquisitive in nature, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded, has a desire to be well-informed, understands diverse viewpoints, and is willing to both suspend judgment and to consider other perspectives (Facione, 1990).
Those working within the philosophical tradition also emphasize qualities or standards of thought. For example, Bailin (2002) defines critical thinking as thinking of a particular quality – essentially good thinking that meets specified criteria or standards of adequacy and accuracy.
Further, the philosophical approach has traditionally focused on the application of formal rules of logic (Lewis and Smith, 1993; Sternberg, 1986). One limitation of this approach to defining critical thinking is that it does not always correspond to reality (Sternberg, 1986). By emphasizing the ideal critical thinker and what people have the capacity to do, this approach may have less to contribute to discussions about how people actually think.
The cognitive psychological approach contrasts with the philosophical perspective in two ways. First, cognitive psychologists, particularly those immersed in the behaviorist tradition and the experimental research paradigm, tend to focus on how people actually think versus how they could or should think under ideal conditions (Sternberg, 1986). Second, rather than defining critical thinking by pointing to characteristics of the ideal critical thinker or enumerating criteria or standards of “good” thought, those working in cognitive psychology tend to define critical thinking by the types of actions or behaviors critical thinkers can do. Typically, this approach to defining critical thinking includes a list of skills or procedures performed by critical thinkers (Lewis and Smith, 1993).
Philosophers have often criticized this latter aspect of the cognitive psychological
approach as being reductionist – reducing a complex orchestration of knowledge and skills into a collection of disconnected steps or procedures (Sternberg, 1986). For example, Bailin (2002) argues that it is a fundamental misconception to view critical thinking as a series of discrete steps or skills, and that this misconception stems from the behaviorist’s need to define constructs in ways that are directly observable. According to this argument, because the actual process of thought is unobservable, cognitive psychologists have tended to focus on the products of such thought – behaviors or overt skills (e.g., analysis, interpretation, formulating good questions).
Other philosophers have also cautioned against confusing the activity of critical thinking with its component skills (Facione, 1990), arguing that critical thinking is more than simply the sum of its parts (Van Gelder, 2005). Indeed, a few proponents of the philosophical tradition have pointed out that it is possible to simply “go through the motions,” or proceed through the “steps” of critical thinking without actually engaging in critical thought (Bailin, 2002).
Finally, those working in the field of education have also participated in discussions about critical thinking. Benjamin Bloom and his associates are included in this category. Their taxonomy for information processing skills (1956) is one of the most widely cited sources for educational practitioners when it comes to teaching and assessing higher-order thinking skills.
Bloom’s taxonomy is hierarchical, with “comprehension” at the bottom and “evaluation” at the top. The three highest levels (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) are frequently said to represent critical thinking (Kennedy et al., 1991).
The benefit of the educational approach is that it is based on years of classroom experience and observations of student learning, unlike both the philosophical and the psychological traditions (Sternberg, 1986). However, some have noted that the educational Finally, those working in the field of education have also participated in discussions about critical thinking. Benjamin Bloom and his associates are included in this category. Their taxonomy for information processing skills (1956) is one of the most widely cited sources for educational practitioners when it comes to teaching and assessing higher-order thinking skills.
Conceptual Framework of the Study
The research paradigm (Figure1) shows the flow of the input, process and output of the study. It shows the critical thinking skills of the students in terms of application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation which were measured based on the results using a validated critical thinking test questionnaire which contains high order thinking skills items. In addition, laboratory activities were used as intervention in order to utilize the Do-It-Yourself (DIY) instruments standardized by Jarantilla (2008). The following were laboratory activities used in this study with corresponding DIY instruments: Atmospheric pressure; Electrolyte and Non-Electrolyte; Heat Capacity of Soil and Water; Tyndall Effect; and Water and Alcohol Expansion.
34119-243600116006263697A. Demographic Profile
B. Standardized DIY Instrument and Laboratory Activities:
1. Atmospheric Pressure
2. Electrolute and Non-
3. Heat Capacity of Soil and Water
4. Tyndall Effect
5. Water and Alcohol
00A. Demographic Profile
B. Standardized DIY Instrument and Laboratory Activities:
1. Atmospheric Pressure
2. Electrolute and Non-
3. Heat Capacity of Soil and Water
4. Tyndall Effect
5. Water and Alcohol
Activities Utilizing DIY
Adaptation of Test questionnaire
Activities Utilizing DIY
Adaptation of Test questionnaire
3828197263696Level of Critical
00Level of Critical
Input Process Output
Figure 1: Schematic Diagram of the Conceptual Framework of the Study
Significance of the Study
It is important to know a snapshot view on how students are learning by utilizing DIY equipment in their science laboratories. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of critical thinking among the students from the College of Education of the Mindanao State of University-Iligan Institute of Technology who were enrolled in EDSC-137 (Science Instrumentation Workshop) during the Academic Year 2016-2017. In particular, the results of this study are beneficial to the following:
Teachers. They would be able to fully realize the importance of the science DIY apparatus in translating the scientific concepts and overcome facility deficiency. They can demonstrate to students the application of science principles and encourage them to construct more science gadgets to better facilitate enhanced instructions as well as design simple activities that tailor students’ capabilities for classroom use and usage. Furthermore, this may encourage teachers to innovate and improve teaching-learning strategies for students to perform hands-on activities in understanding science principles, develop new skills and knowledge and impart new insights to students.
Students. The results of this study can give them opportunities to learn and evaluate themselves on how far they developed their skills and their level of critical thinking. Also, this study serves as basis in identifying the critical thinking skills they are weak at and, therefore, can correct their deficiencies in the understanding of science.
School Administrators. This study would give them ideas that science DIY apparatus would be of great help to teachers in the conduct of science instructions for better understanding of the subject matter. With the results of this study, it would promote creativity in finding solutions in the enhancement of critical thinking skills between and among teachers and students. Moreover, this study benefits the curriculum, in integrating activities for a project-based or science-based curriculum that would focus on the development of the skills.
Scope and Limitation of the Study
This study focused on the 131 students of DSME science majors in College of Education who were enrolled in the Science Instrumentation, Academic Year 2016-2017 of MSU-IIT, Iligan City. The purpose of data gathering was to evaluate the level of each critical thinking skill. Hence, this study was limited on the test questionnaires adapted from Alefante (2012). The 40-item test questionnaire used in this study contains the following selected topics: Atmospheric Pressure, Electrolyte and Non- Electrolyte, Heat Capacity of soil and Water, Tyndall Effect, and Water and Alcohol Expansion. In addition, this study was limited on the questionnaire in the level of each critical thinking skill.
Definition of Terms
To have better and common understanding between the researchers and the readers, the following concepts used in the study are operationally defined.
Critical Thinking Skills. In this study, this refers to higher level thinking skill than just simply memorizing facts and information. It includes the complex level of cognitive domain application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation according to the new Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning.
Course. In this study, this refers to the DSME science majors which include BSEd Chemistry, BSEd Physics, BSEd Biology, BEEd Science and Health, and BSEd General Science.
Demographic Profile. It refers to the name, year level and age of the respondents of the study. In this study, this refers to the information about the courses of the respondents.
Do-It-Yourself (DIY) apparatus. In this study, this refers to the science apparatus created from affordable, common and readily-available household materials. It includes the Atmospheric Balloon Apparatus; Electric Conductivity Apparatus; Differential Thermoscope for Radiant Energy Absorption by Soil / Sand and Water; Tyndall Effect Apparatus and water and Alcohol Thermoscope.
EDSC 137 Science Instrumentation Workshop. In this study, this refers to the course offered by the College of Education, MSU-IIT, Iligan City that comprises of trainings in handling laboratory activities using science DIY apparatus.
Level of Critical Thinking Skills. In this study, it is described as Lower Median (LM), Median (M) and Upper Median (UM).
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter presents the various literature and related studies critically reviewed by the researchers in the course of conducting this study following this sequence.
The complex process of thinking is divided into higher order thinking and lower order thinking. Higher order thinking is used when someone relates stored and new information to solve extraordinary and difficult problems, or to obtain new ideas. Higher order thinking skills include contextualization, metacognition, creativity, insight, intelligence, problem solving and critical thinking. While the Lower order thinking is used to develop daily routines and mechanical processes. Critical thinking means to have criteria, analyze, infer, explain arguments, and develop them (King, Goodson and Rohani, 2009; Pearson, 2011).
Many authors talk about Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS). King and others (2009) traced their historical development and mentioned several key movers in this regard: Dewey explained how thinking is evoked by problems, and Bruner argued that inquiry is necessary in the learning process. Piaget clarified that these skills are needed in the last developmental stages of thinking; on the other hand, Bloom explained how HOTS require previous levels of knowledge. Gagne put HOTS in the top of his taxonomy, and Marzano situated these skills as a dimension of learning. Glaser declared HOTS are the type of thinking for problem solving, and Vygotsky affirmed that HOTS are necessary to move into the zone of proximal development. Furthermore, Haladyna sustained that HOTS are a level of mental processes, and Gardner declared HOTS are developed by our multiple intelligences (as cited in King et al., 2009). Definitely, each theory posits a different way of understanding thinking and how to develop HOTS. There are also theories about the different skills themselves. However, one of the most important skills is critical thinking, divided also into other skills such as analyzing and solving problems, as well as creating new arguments (Beyer, 1990; Pearson, 2011).
In fact, critical thinking has been studied by different sciences. Philosophers like Bailin, Ennis, Lipman, McPaul and Peck focused on what people are capable of doing under the best circumstances to get to the truth. Psychologists such as Halpern, Sternberg, and Willingham focused on how people actually think. Finally, educators like Bloom and Marzano explained critical thinking based on research about their own experience in the classroom and observation of student learning (King et al., 2009; Lewis and Smith, 1993; Pearson, 2011).
Critical thinking skills and education have been researched in different fields since the age of Socrates (Fahim, 2012). However, in the last fifteen years, majority of studies added pedagogical elements to improve these skills. Other research studies tried to identify if critical thinking is related with demographic information, cognitive aptitudes or environment. Finally, a few studies described how to demonstrate and assess critical thinking in the classroom.
Critical thinking is an important and necessary skill because it is required in the workplace; it can help people to deal with mental and spiritual questions, and it can be used to evaluate people, policies, and institutions, thereby avoiding social problems (Hatcher and Spencer, 2005). Critical thinking is considered important in the academic fields because it enables one to analyze, evaluate, explain, and restructure their thinking, thereby decreasing the risk adopting, acting on, or thinking with, a false belief. However, even with knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, mistakes can happen due to thinker’s inability to apply the methods or because of character traits such as egocentrism. Critical thinking also gives students the ability to not only understand what they have read or been shown but also to build upon that knowledge without incremental guidance. It further teaches students that knowledge is fluid and builds upon itself. It is not simply rote memorization or the ability to absorb lessons unquestioningly.
According to a review of critical thinking studies conducted by Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), attending college has a positive influence on the development of students’ critical thinking. It is important to develop students’ graduate attributes across the curriculum and across the three years of a degree. Hughes and Barry (2010) suggest that assessing these attributes is critical in ensuring that students understand their importance. Students need to grasp that it is essential for them to develop a critical approach in order to be skilled employees who are able to adapt to new situations in the workplace (Forrester, 2008). It is especially important that students develop their meta-cognitive skills in their application of critical thinking in order to be successful at university (Jones and Ratcliff, 1993; Johnson, Archibald, and Tenenbaum, 2010).
Critical thinking is a necessary skill all students need to develop in order to fully understand information presented in lessons (Lambert and Cuper, 2008). Students that fail to develop their critical thinking skills accordingly typically suffer with lower academic grades (Quitadamo, Faiola, Johnson, and Kurtz, 2008). Understanding the disconnection between the information presented and the students’ ability to deduce the information is a vital component to change teaching methods and approaches in the classroom (Dewey and Bento, 2009; Lucariello, 2012).
Duran and Sendang (2012) define that the critical thinking is based on relating and drawing conclusions on notions and events. Furthermore, these authors say it involves different cognitive processes such as implicating problem solving, reflecting and criticizing. All these are skills `necessary to live in today’s world. These authors say that thinking begins with a physical or psychological inconvenience stemming from lacking the solution for a problem whose solution becomes the objective for an individual. Higher order thinking skills, like critical thinking and problem solving are considered necessary skills for 21st century individuals. All education institutions should be using these skills. Learners need higher order thinking skills if education is to make any sense. Shannon and Bennett (2012) cite a number of authors who observed that critical thinking evolves with the following stages: (1) the application level is categorized into two sub-levels namely; giving an example and applying concepts; (2) the analysis level has six (6) sub-levels namely; interpreting data, classifying, interpreting diagrams, making comparisons, drawing conclusions and making inferences; (3) the synthesis level has five (5) sub-levels developing hypothesis, designing experiments, developing models, making predictions and using the writing process; and (4) the evaluation level is categorized into two (2) evaluating and making judgments.
Educators have long been aware of the importance of critical thinking skills as an outcome of student learning. More recently, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills has identified critical thinking as one of several learning and innovation skills necessary to prepare students for post-secondary education and the workforce.
Lewis and Smith (1993) both are wondering if there is a difference between lower-order and higher-order thinking skills. In fact, the term “higher order” thinking skills seems a misnomer in that it implies that there is another set of “lower order” skills that need to come first. Newman (1990), in order to differentiate between the two categories of skills, concludes that the lower skills require simple applications and routine steps. In contrast and according to Newman (1993) higher order thinking skills “challenge students to interpret, analyze, or manipulate information”. However, Newman argues that the terms higher and lower skills is relative, a specific subject might demand higher skills for a particular student, whereas, another one requires lower skills. Splitting thinking skills into two categories will help educators in developing activities that can be done by slow learners before they can move to skills that are more sophisticated. As well as to develop activities that can be performed by fast learners and place them in their appropriate level. Furthermore, this splitting helps educators in constructing remediation programs for slow learners consisting of drill and practice. By a process of remediation through repetition, students are expected to master the lower order level thinking skills, which will help them in further stages to master the higher order skills.
Moreover, by breaking down skills into simple skills and higher level skill will help curricula developer to design the subject’s contents according to this splitting by focusing on basic skills in lower grades and in later grades, they can build the students’ competences and higher-order thinking skills. Educators consider higher-order thinking skills as high order thinking that occurs when the student obtains new knowledge and stores it in his memory, then this knowledge is correlates, organized, or evaluated to achieve a specific purpose. These skills have to include sub-skills such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation, which are the highest levels in Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy.
In spite of efforts to better define the purposes and role of laboratory work in science education, research has shown that teachers see laboratory activities as contrived (Tan, 2008; Tobin, 1986). In general, teachers cannot see laboratory activities as conceptually integrated with theoretical science lessons. In addition, teachers fail to understand that laboratory activities may provide opportunities for students to produce new knowledge through scientific investigations. According to a research conducted by Kang and Wallace (2005), teachers perceive laboratory work solely as an activity for the purpose of verification. Researchers have also uncovered that teachers do not think of the laboratory as an environment where scientific knowledge claims are discussed.
Different reasons have been shown for the problems relating to laboratory work (Tan, 2008). According to Bencze and Hodson (1999), problems in laboratory work arise when students blindly follow the instructions of the teachers. Some researchers, on the other hand, claim that the laboratory, instead of being a place for science and experiments, has become a place where tasks set by the teacher are carried out. No attention is given to the methods or purposes during laboratory work, only the set tasks are carried out (Hart et al., 2000; Jimenez-Aleixandre et al., 2000). Wilkinson and Ward (1997a; b) have connected the problems with laboratory work to a poor evaluation of the purposes of the tasks undertaken in the laboratory.
Tobin (1990) suggested that meaningful learning is possible in the laboratory if the students are given opportunities to manipulate equipment and materials in an environment suitable for them to construct their knowledge of phenomena and related scientific concepts. This allows the students to explore the concept of science and understand it better compare to a plain discussion in the classroom. Four years later, Roth (1994) suggested that although laboratories have long been recognized for their potential to facilitate the learning of science concepts and skills, this potential has yet to be realized. Tobin (1990) wrote that “Laboratory activities appeal as a way of allowing students to learn with understanding and, at the same time, engage in a process of constructing knowledge by doing science”.
“Learning by Doing” is about the history of experimentation in science education. The teaching of science through experiments and observation is essential to the natural sciences and its pedagogy. These have been conducted as both demonstration or as student exercises. The experimental method is seen as giving the student vital competence, skills and experiences, both at the school and at the university level (Heering and Wittje. 2010).
Active learning can make the course more enjoyable for both teachers and students, and, most importantly, it can cause students to think critically. For this to happen, educators must give up the belief that students cannot learn the subject at hand unless the teacher covers it. While it is useful for students to gain some exposure to the material through pre-class readings and overview lectures, students really do not understand it until they actively do something with it and reflect on the meaning of what they are doing (Duron, et al, 2006).
Proponents and Views of Higher Thinking Skills
Jean Piaget’s View
According to Piaget, the developmental stages are the key to cognitive development. School-age and adolescent children develop operational thinking and the logical and systematic manipulation of symbols. As adolescents move into adulthood, they develop skills such as logical use of symbols related to abstract concepts, scientific reasoning, and hypothesis testing. These skills are the foundation for problem solving, self-reflection, and critical reasoning (Crowl et al., 1997; Miles, 1992). Recent research shows that children perform certain tasks earlier than Piaget claimed, vary in how rapidly they develop cognitively, and seem to be in transition longer than in the cognitive development stages (Crowl et al., 1997). However, research also shows that biological development, together with instructional techniques, affects the rate of movement from one stage of learning to the next.
Jerome Bruner’s View
According to Bruner, learning processes involve active inquiry and discovery, inductive reasoning, and intrinsic motivation. Stages of cognitive development are not linear; they may occur simultaneously. Bruner introduced the “spiral curriculum” in which learners return to previously covered topics within the context of new information learned. Both Piaget and Bruner focus on active learning, active inquiry and discovery, inductive reasoning, intrinsic motivation, and linkage of previously learned concepts and information to new learning. Stages include enactive (hands-on participation), iconic (visual representations), and symbolic (symbols, including math and science symbols) (Crowl et al., 1997).
Benjamin Bloom’s View
In each of Bloom’s three taxonomies (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor), lower levels provide a base for higher levels of learning (Bloom, 1956; Kauchak and Eggen, 1998). Comprehension and application form linkages to higher order skills; here, the learner uses meaningful information such as abstractions, formulas, equations, or algorithms in new applications in new situations. Higher order skills include analysis, synthesis, and evaluation and require mastery of previous levels, such as applying routine rules to familiar or novel problems (McDavitt, 1993). Higher order thinking involves breaking down complex material into parts, detecting relationships, combining new and familiar information creatively within limits set by the context, and combining and using all previous levels in evaluating or making judgments. There also appears to be some interaction across taxonomies. For example, the highest level of the psychomotor taxonomy involves the use of our body’s psychomotor, affective, and cognitive skills to express feelings or ideas as in the planning and execution of a dance performance or song designed to convey a particular message.
Robert Gagné’s View
According to Gagné, intellectual skills begin with establishing a hierarchy according to skill complexity. Within this structure, discriminations are prerequisites for concrete and defined concepts, simple rules, complex higher order rules, and then problem solving. Cognitive strategies may be simple or complex (Gagné, 1985; Briggs and Wager, 1981; Gagné, Briggs, and Wager, 1988). Attitudes and motor skills, related varieties of learning, may involve lower as well as higher order thinking – spanning from a simple application of a tool to a complex systems analysis and evaluation. Bloom (1956) and Gagné and Briggs (1974) allow for greater possibilities of teaching complex skills to younger learners and the possibility that learners can be “young” at any age, starting at lower levels and connecting to higher levels of thinking. This variation for learning capabilities does not fit as well in Piaget’s and Bruner’s frameworks.
Robert Marzano’s View
To Marzano, the dimensions of thinking feed into dimensions of learning, both of which build upon contributions from other scholars and researchers (Marzano et al., 1988). For example, Gagné refers to the generalizations that describe relationships between or among concepts as “rules” (Gagné, 1974; Gagné, Briggs, and Wager, 1988), while Marzano calls them “principles” (Marzano et al., 1988, p. 37). The book Dimensions of Thinking has been designed as a practical handbook with definitions, examples, and classroom applications.
Lev Vygotsky’s View
Vygotsky (cited in Crowl et al., 1997) seems to have consolidated major concepts of cognitive development. Cognitive development progresses as children learn; biological maturity accounts for “elementary processes” such as reflexive responses. When learning a specific skill, students also perceive the underlying principles. Social interaction and social culture play major roles in learning and cognitive development; children internalize knowledge most efficiently when others, such as teachers, parents, or peers, guide and assist them; significant people in an individual’s life contribute to the development of “higher mental functions”; people’s cognitive processes function differently when working on their own versus working in groups. Everyone has a “zone of proximal development,” and asking certain questions or giving suggestions will move the individual toward potentially higher levels; such support helps students in solving problems until they can solve them independently and may include hints, questions, behavior modeling, rewards, feedback, information giving, self-talk, or peer tutoring (pp. 69–71).
Thomas Haladyna’s View
Haladyna (1997) expressed the complexity of thinking and learning dimensions by classifying four levels of mental processes (understanding, problem solving, critical thinking, and creativity) that can be applied to four types of content (facts, concepts, principles, and procedures). Applying a set of skills across dimensions of content fits well with the actual complex, recursive, and systemic processes of higher order thinking.
Howard Gardner ‘s View
According to Gardner (1983), multiple intelligences form a major part of an individual’s dispositions and abilities. These intelligences are independent of each other and account for the spectrum of abilities used in different fields of work, such as teaching, surgery, athletics, dancing, art, or psychotherapy. Gardner’s theory, which regards intelligence as having seven dimensions, has been receiving recent attention related to teaching (Kauchak and Eggen, 1998). Schools are shifting curricula and teaching methods to accommodate the diverse abilities and talents of students (Crowl et al., 1997). Teachers may have a greater impact by creating lessons that “use the various types of intelligence in classroom activities” (p. 187).
Although Gardner is commonly credited with theories related to multiple intelligences, others also have developed models of thinking that reflect the multifaceted nature of intelligence.
Certain components of models or theories of intelligence are similar to factors identified in models and theories of learning. For example, Guilford’s products (cited in Crowl et al., 1997, p. 184) resemble the learning outcomes described by Gagné, Briggs, and Wager (1988). “Units” are like the lower levels of discriminations and verbal information, “classes” are like the classification of concepts, “relations” are like the rules formed by relating one concept to another, and “systems” are like the systems of rules integrated into problem-solving strategies.
Similarly, Guilford’s “content areas” are ways of receiving and perceiving information and instruction, and Guilford’s “operations” parallel the mental processes that teaching strategies attempt to influence. There also are parallels with the notion of learning capabilities, in that Gagné and Briggs refer to stating, classifying, demonstrating, generating, and originating as the functions associated with different learning outcomes (i.e., stating verbal information, classifying concepts, demonstrating rules, generating problem solving, and originating cognitive strategies). These functional terms guide instructional designers in their specification of learning strategies and test items and have meanings that are similar to Guilford’s terms of cognition, memory retention, memory recording, and divergent and convergent production.
Atmospheric Pressure as Demonstrated in Atmospheric Pressure Apparatus
Atmospheric pressure is defined as the force per unit area exerted against a surface by the weight of the air above that surface. Atmospheric pressure in high altitude area is lesser than the atmospheric pressure at sea level. Atmospheric pressure is measured quantitatively with an instrument called “barometer”, which is why atmospheric pressure is also referred to as barometric pressure (Jarantilla, 2008).
Electrolytes and Non-Electrolytes as Demonstrated in the Electric Conductivity Apparatus
Electrolyte and Non-electrolyte solutes that exist as dissociated ions in aqueous solutions are called electrolytes. Solutes that are present as neutral molecules and not as ions in solutions are called nonelectrolytes. Electrolytes conduct electrolytes electricity and non-electrolytes do not conduct electricity. The solid state of ions will not be able to conduct electricity because it locked in to position in their crystal structure and is not able to move (Jarantilla, 2008).
Radiant Energy Absorption by Soil/Sand and Water as Demonstrated in Differential Thermoscope
Heat Capacity of Soil and Water all bodies are continually radiating energy and are also continually absorbing radiant energy. If a body is radiating more energy than it is absorbing, its temperature does decrease; but if a body is absorbing more energy than it is emitting its temperature increase. A body that is warmer than its surroundings emits more energy than it receives and therefore cools; a body colder than its surroundings is a net gainer of energy and its temperature therefore increases. A receives none, it will radiate away all of its available energy, and its temperature will approach absolute zero. The rate at which the body radiates or absorbs radiant energy depends on the nature of the body and the difference between its temperature and the surrounding temperature. Emission and absorption take place at the surface of a body. A rough surface is therefore a better absorber and emitter since microscopically it has more surface area. If the surface area is hotter than the surrounding air, it becomes a net radiator and cools (Hewitt, 1977).
Tyndall Effect as Demonstrated by the Tyndall Effect Apparatus
Tyndall Effect unlike solutions, colloidal suspension exhibits light scattering. A beam of light or laser, invisible in a clear air or pure water will trace the visible path through a genuine colloidal suspension, e.g. a headlight on a car shining through fog. This is known as Tyndall Effect (after its discoverer, the 19th century British physicists John Tyndall), and is a special instance of diffraction. This effect is often used as a measure of existence of a colloid. It is visible in colloids as will 0.1 ppm (parts per million). However, there are exceptions. For example, the effect cannot be seen with milk, which is a colloid.
Tyndall scattering occurs when the dimensions of the particles that caused the scattering are larger than the wavelength of the radiation that is scattered. It is caused by reflection by the incident radiation from the surfaces of the particles, reflection from the interior walls of the particles, and refraction and diffraction as it passes through the particles (Jarantilla, 2008).
Thermal Expansion of Liquids as Demonstrated in Water and Alcohol Thermoscope
Water and Alcohol Thermoscope when the temperature of the substance is increase, its molecules is made to jiggle faster. The more energetic the collision between molecules the more force to move them further apart, resulting in an expansion of the substance. All forms of matter- solids, liquids, gas and plasma generally expand when heated an contract when they are called (Hewitt, 1997). The most famous exception is water, which contracts as it is warmed from 0 ?C to 4 ?C. This is actually a good thing, because as freezing weather sets in, the coldest water, which is about to freeze, is less dense than slightly warmer water (Fowler, 2006).
Vast related studies show that student teachers are not aware of the benefits of laboratory work on the students facing their own misconceptions. These results support the results of Ottander and Grelsson (2006). The scientific discussions held during the laboratory work help to define the misconceptions entertained by the students. Furthermore, laboratory work provides concrete experiences and opportunities for students to face their own misconceptions (Lazarowitz and Tamir, 1994). As a matter of fact, it has been shown that students positive attitude towards science increases with laboratory work (Freedman, 1997). According to Kang and Wallace (2005), it is likely that teachers with naive epistemological beliefs will prefer the delivery of information as the prime teaching goal.
Hofstein and Naaman (2007) reviewed and reported several studies conducted in various countries about laboratory applications. In their evaluation, they stated that laboratory applications aimed to enhance students’ science process and problem-solving skills and their interest in and attitudes toward scientific approaches in accordance with the objectives of basic science education. Garnett and Hackling (1995) argued that laboratories will contribute to improving students’ conceptual understanding, application skills and techniques, and ability to analyze inter-variable relationships and chemical analyses-syntheses. The study aimed to demonstrate the importance of laboratory work in chemistry education for chemistry instructors. The authors highlighted the need to use student-active laboratory approaches so as to enhance students’ research skills including problem analysis, research plans, research management, data recording, and interpretation of the findings.
A careful study reported by Reif and St. John (1979) showed that students in a college-level physics laboratory course based on inquiry training developed high level skills more successfully than did students in a conventional physics laboratory course. The students in this laboratory course used instructional materials that presented information in a carefully organized way and incorporated specific features stimulating students to think independently.
Another research tendency is to understand which demographic factors are related with critical thinking skill. In these kinds of studies, researchers analyze significant numbers of participants from different schools that are chosen following specific characteristics. Edman, Robey, and Bart (2002) selected a sample of 232 Colleges and University students, Mahiroglu (2007) studied a sample of 134 schools from Turkish provinces, and Yang and Lin (2004) selected 1119 male senior high school students from military schools. The study sought to determine if these demographic elements isolated from others generate a disposition for critical thinking skill by tests specially designed to identify disposition of critical reasoning, such as the Minnesota Test of Critical Thinking II, a demographic information sheet, or a general survey mode. Demographic studies have been carried out in the United States (Edman, Robey, and Bart, 2002), Taiwan (Yang and Lin, 2004), and Turkey (Mahiroglu, 2007). They found that demographic differences as gender, age, region, school, class, grades or parent’s education level are related significantly with critical thinking disposition.
Ramasamy (2011), on the other hand, considered the age, discipline, program, grade point average, and number of reading hours of the participants. LaPoint-O’Brien (2013) analyzed understanding and reasoning. Findings of these studies sustain only that disciplines, programs and age directly influence results of Critical Thinking Skill Tests positively. In fact, Ramasamy (2011) concludes that age is an essential part of developing critical thinking. According to her, this is because age is related with maturity and only maturity helps making critical and complex judgments.
A study by the University of Arkansas also discovered that field trips contribute to the development of student’s critical thinking skills and increase their knowledge of Art and culture. According to Greene and others (2013), it says that enriching field trips contribute to the development of students into civilized young men and women who possess more knowledge about art, have stronger critical-thinking skills, exhibit increased historical empathy, display higher levels of tolerance, and have a greater taste for consuming art and culture.
Patrick (2010), proposed that field trips should be weaved into the teaching schedule as this will provide an opportunity for students to view information for themselves and use their own senses to touch, or feel materials that they had previously only heard about. Patrick’s study considered the effects of field experiences on students’ knowledge in relation to their science achievement, in particular biology. Patrick found that there was a significant difference in test scores between the students that had participated in field trip experiences and those who were not included on field trips. Patrick concluded that these field trip experiences significantly improved the students’ understanding of science and also improved their motivation/attitude towards the subject. This subsequently influenced and increased their overall achievement in biology (Patrick, 2010).
The environment also provides a valuable asset to be considered when teaching critical thinking. A study conducted by Nelson Laird (2005) identified that students exposed to diversity and other various interactions demonstrate greater propensity toward critical thinking. Those students typically are found to be more open-minded, and therefore willing to exhibit greater flexibility when solving problems or understanding larger aspects of complex skills. Ernst and Monroe (2006) conducted a similar study on how the environment affects critical thinking skills and dispositions, and they arrived at a similar conclusion.
Critical Thinking is a process in which it helps us to conceptualize, apply, analyze, and synthesize. And also evaluate information gathered from or generated by observation, experiences, reflection, reasoning, or communication as a guide belief and action. Laboratory activities play a vital role in improving the critical thinking skills. It aimed to enhance students’ process and understanding towards science education. Also, it improves students’ conceptual understanding and cognitive skills. Students have different level of critical thinking skills as they go along the process of learning in the school environment. Field trips also contribute to developed students’ critical thinking skills. And also improved their motivation/attitude towards the subject and influenced and increase their overall achievement especially in biology.
Science instruments are instrument used for scientific purposes. Instruments were used for better understanding of the students in terms of the science concepts. Science DIY Instruments are homemade materials used to replace the apparatus which are not available in the science laboratory for science activities or experiments. These devices are less costly but they exactly work the same as the laboratory apparatuses. Evaluating the critical thinking of the respondents in utilizing Do-It-Yourself equipment and laboratory activities was essential in order to determine if the DIY apparatuses can really help the respondents in developing their critical thinking skills to be able to know what to improve about the apparatuses and if it is effective to use inside the classroom.
This chapter describes in detail the methods and procedures that the researchers used in this study. It includes the research design, locale of the study, respondents, instrument used, data gathering procedure, and statistical tools.
This study used quantitative research design that tends to evaluate the level of critical thinking of the students with the help of test questionnaire. A 40-item test questionnaire developed by Alefante (2012) was adapted in this study. Moreover, an item analysis on the critical thinking skills of the respondents utilizing the DIY apparatus in their laboratory activities was conducted and the results was analyzed and interpreted.
Locale of the Study
The study was conducted at the College of Education, Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology specifically to students enrolled in EDSC 137 (Science Instrumentation Workshop) during Academic Year 2016-2017. The university offers the quality education needed by the students to meet competitive global standard. The university has nine (9) colleges in addition to the high school and the graduate’s study which they could choose to suit individual talents and passion. College of Education is one of the nine colleges and it houses the Department of Technology Teacher Education (DTTE), Department of Physical Education (DPE), Department of Professional Education (DPRE) and Department of Science and Mathematics Education (DSME). It is equipped with various facilities to compliment research and enhance the students, and learning experiences. The Department of Science and Mathematics Education has also six (6) programs which are BSEd Biology, BSEd Chemistry, BSEd General Science, BSEd Physics, and BEEd Science and Health (http://www.msuiit.edu.ph).
Figure 2. Map of Iligan City and the Sampling Site ()
Respondents of the Study
In the study, there were 131 CED students of MSU-IIT who were enrolled in EDSC 137 (Science Instrumentation Workshop) during the Academic Year 2016-2017. However, only 131 students were able to answer the test questionnaire because some of them took leave of absence during the data gathering. The respondents were sophomore, junior and senior college students from the Department of Science and Mathematics Education (DSME) across the department curricula such as Bachelor of Secondary Education major in Chemistry, Physics, Biology, General Science, and Bachelor of Elementary Education major in Science and Health.
The instrument used in this study was an adapted questionnaire developed by Alefante (2012). The designed 40-item test questionnaire with the following five (5) topics: Atmospheric Pressure, Electrolyte and Non-Electrolyte, Heat Capacity of Soil and Water, Tyndall Effect and Water Alcohol Expansion was conducted to assess the level of critical thinking of the students. Moreover, a DIY apparatus was already used in EDSC137 class in performing an activity for the selected topics.
The said questionnaire contains eight (8) questions per topic. Table 1 shows the table of specification of the questionnaire. The questions per topic were distributed in the particular item numbers.
Table 1. Table of Specification of the Questionnaire
Topic Level of Critical Thinking Skill
Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation Total
Atmospheric Pressure 1,6 11, 16 21, 26 31, 36 8
Electrolytes and Non-electrolytes 2,7 12, 17 22, 27 32, 37 8
Heat Capacity of soil and water 3,8 13, 18 23, 28 33, 38 8
Tyndall Effect 4,9 14, 19 24, 29 34, 39 8
Water and Alcohol Expansion 5,10 15,20 25, 30 35, 40 8
Total 10 10 10 10 40
As shown in Table 1, every topic corresponds with four (4) critical thinking skills such as application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. The application skill is categorized into two (2) sub-levels namely: giving an example and applying concepts. The analysis skill has six (6) sub-levels namely: interpreting data, classifying, interpreting diagrams, making comparisons, drawing conclusions and making inferences. The synthesis skill has five (5) sub-levels developing hypothesis, designing experiments, developing models, making predictions, and using the writing process. The evaluation skill is categorized into two (2) evaluating and making judgments.
Data Gathering Procedure
The following are the steps taken in gathering the data for the research study:
Two (2) different letters were prepared for the respondents. The first letter was for the College Dean asking permission to generate list of name of respondents to serve as respondents. The second letter is for the respondents to secure permission to answer the adapted questionnaire. The first and the second letters signed by the researchers were both noted by the undergraduate thesis adviser and also the second letter was signed by the researchers, noted by the thesis adviser and approved by the College Dean;
The questionnaire was distributed to the selected 131 respondents who have taken EDSC 137 (Science Instrumentation Workshop) during Academic Year 2016-2017.
The questionnaires that were distributed to the respondents were retrieved;
After retrieving the questionnaires, the responses were tabulated and analyzed as well as their implications interpreted to draw.
Statistical Tools Used
The following statistical tools were used in the analysis of data.
1. Percentage Distribution. This is to assign the level of critical thinking of the respondents based on their scores. This distribution was obtained through the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 11.5 for Windows.
Table 2. Percentage of Distribution and Classification of the Level of
Score (Percentage) Level of Critical Thinking
67-100 Upper Median
1-33 Lower Median
Program Used: Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 11.5 for Windows
Percentage= (Raw Score / Total No. of Items) x 100.
Adopted from: “Effects of Interactive Approach on the Development of Critical Thinking Schools in Learning
Genetics among Sophomore Students of St. Michael’s College” (Escalante, 2011)
Table 2 is adopted from by Theodor Seuss Geisel. It presents the particular skills the respondents should show from the test questions, keywords and the sample questions.
2. Chi-Square test procedure is used to test the hypothesis of independence between the respondent’s level of critical thinking and their Year Level and Course.
3. The Friedman test is a non-parametric statistical test used to detect differences among respondent’s level of critical thinking skills. The procedure involves ranking each row (or block) together, then considering the values of ranks by columns.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter presents, discusses and analyze the data gathered among DSME science majors of College of Education, Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology (CED, MSU-IIT). The flow of the presentation, discussion and analysis of data follows the pattern of the study’s statement of the problem.
Table 3 shows the level of each critical thinking skill in terms of year level of the respondents. Based on the data, each year level of the respondents had different level in each critical thinking skills (Appendix C).
Table 3. Summary of the Different Levels of Critical Thinking Skills among the Year Level DSME Science Major-Respondents Enrolled in EDSC 137
Year Level Level of Each Critical Thinking Skills
Application Skill Analysis Skill Synthesis Skill Evaluation Skill
Level % Level % Level % Level %
2nd Year Median 68.6 Upper Median 80.0 Median 68.6 Median 80.0
3rd Year Upper Median 49.1 Upper Median 68.4 Median 52.7 Median 75.4
4th Year Upper Median 56.4 Upper Median 92.3 Upper Median 59.0 Upper Median 66.7
Noticeably, the second year respondents are found to be in median level in the three skills 68.6% (application); 68.6% (synthesis); and 80% (evaluation) except for the analysis skill (80%) which is upper median. For the third year respondents, they got 49.1% (application) and 68.4% (analysis) which are upper median level while 52.7% (synthesis) and 75.4% (evaluation) as median level. Meanwhile, the fourth year respondents are found to be in upper median level in all the skills, namely; application (56.4%); analysis (92.3%); synthesis (59%); and evaluation (66.7%). In general, categorizing the levels obtained according to the different critical thinking skills, the fourth year respondents excel in all critical thinking skills, thus, indicating on higher level of critical thinking.
As cited in Crowl and others (1997), Vygotsky seems to have consolidated major concepts of cognitive development. Cognitive development progresses as children learn; biological maturity accounts for “elementary processes” such as reflexive responses. When learning a specific skill, students also perceive the underlying principles. Social interaction and social culture play major roles in learning and cognitive development; children internalize knowledge most efficiently when others, such as teachers, parents, or peers, guide and assist them; significant people in an individual’s life contribute to the development of “higher mental functions”; people’s cognitive processes function differently when working on their own versus working in groups. Everyone has a “zone of proximal development,” and asking certain questions or giving suggestions will move the individual toward potentially higher levels; such support helps students in solving problems until they can solve them independently and may include hints, questions, behavior modeling, rewards, feedback, information giving, self-talk, or peer tutoring (pp. 69–71).
Supported with the same results, the study of Nan Bahr (2010) claimed that considering with the year level, higher year level was generally confident in their ability to think critically and to clearly identify activities in their coursework that demanded critical thinking.
Ramasamy (2011), on the other hand, considered the age, discipline, program, grade point average, and number of reading hours of the participants. In fact, in her study, result had shown that age is an essential part of developing critical thinking because it is related with maturity and only maturity helps making critical and complex judgments. As we go to higher year level in our education, we also became matured enough to think critically which implies that the higher year level, the higher the level of our critical thinking skills.
Figure 3 shows the level of application skill by course of the respondents. Moreover, it presents the percentage obtained in upper median level.
Figure 3. Level of Application Skill by Course
As revealed in Figure 3, the BSEd Biology got 75% as the highest percentage compared to the BEEd Science and Health with 30.6%; BSEd Physics with 33.3%; BSEd General Science with 43.3%, and BSEd Chemistry with 47.4%, respectively.
The BSEd Biology respondents got the highest percentage among all the courses. This suggests that most of their subjects required field trips in dealing with environments where they learn to apply the scientific methods in setting up experiments and in using scientific equipment. Secondary courses such as BSEd Biology requires higher critical thinking skills compared with the BEEd Science and Health which focuses on the basic science concepts.
According to the study of Patrick (2010), there was a significant difference in test scores between the students that had participated in field trip experiences and those who were not included on field trips. It was concluded in the study that these field trip experiences significantly improved students’ understanding of science and their motivation / attitude towards the subject. Since they were exposed to field study in their field trips, they had given the chance and opportunity to apply what they have learned inside the classroom.
Moreover, in Bloom’s three taxonomies lower levels provide a base for higher levels of learning (Bloom, 1956; Kauchak and Eggen, 1998). Comprehension and application form linkages to higher order skills; here, the learner uses meaningful information such as abstractions, formulas, equations, or algorithms in new applications in new situations. Higher order skills include analysis, synthesis, and evaluation and require mastery of previous levels, such as applying routine rules to familiar or novel problems (McDavitt, 1993). execution of a dance performance or song designed to convey a particular message.
Figure 4 shows the level of analysis skill by course. Moreover, it presents the percentage obtained by the respondents in upper median level.
Figure 4. Level of Analysis Skill by Course
In general, BSEd Chemistry respondents got 94.7% as the highest percentage which was followed by BSEd Biology with 92.9%; BSEd General Science with 86.7%; BEEd Science and Health with 66.7%, and BSEd physics with 50% which got the lowest percentage. Furthermore, it reveals that BSEd Chemistry and BSEd Biology were closely of the same percentage.
This implies that the BSEd Chemistry respondents got (94.7%) as the highest percentage in analysis skill because their chemistry majors require critical analysis in understanding and synthesizing chemical information. In addition, the chemistry majors become adept with laboratory works and data analyses, and apply the principles of chemistry in solving qualitative and quantitative problems. On the contrary, despite the BSED Chemistry and BSEd Physics perform laboratory activities in their subject area, they still differ in their level of critical thinking skills. Result shows that BSEd Physics got 50% as the lowest percentage, it does not mean that they lack the analysis skill but maybe because they did not do well in answering the questions.
Figure 5 presents the level of synthesis skill by course. Moreover, it presents the percentage obtained by the respondents in upper median level
Figure 5. Level of Synthesis Skill by Course
As reflected in Figure 5, the BSEd Biology respondents got 64.3% as the highest synthesis skill which was followed by BSEd Physics with 55.6%; BSEd General Science with 46.7%; BSEd Chemistry with 42.1%; and BEED- Science and Health with 30.6% as the lowest percentage.
It is interesting to note that the BSEd Biology respondents still got the highest percentage same with the results in the application skill. In addition, BSEd Biology subjects contain more laboratory class and hands-on activities compared to BEEd Science and Health subjects which deals more on lectures and discussions. Wheatley (1975) reported on a research study in college biology that the students who were provided with special laboratory activities showed an increase in student’s performance. It implies that students who were exposed to the diversity and various interactions demonstrate greater propensity toward critical thinking.
In addition, the researchers found out that majority of BEEd Science and Health enrolled EDSC-135 during first semester Academic Year 2016-2017 and the gathering of data was conducted last November 2017. They have poor performance maybe because they forgot the lessons related to the test questions.
Figure 6 shows the level of evaluation skill by course. Additionally, it presents the percentage obtained by the respondents in upper median level.
Figure 6. Level of Evaluation Skill by Course
As shown in the figure, it reveals that all courses really needs improvement in evaluation skill because all courses were below 50% based on the results of the gathered data. The BSEd Physics got 44.4% as the highest percentage which is followed by BSEd Chemistry with 26.3%; BSEd Biology with 21.4%; BEEd Science and Health with 16.7%; and BSEd General Science with 6.7% as the lowest among the courses.
Based on the profile of the respondents (Appendix D), most of the BSEd General Science respondents were in second year level compared to other courses while most of the BSEd Physics respondents were third and fourth year levels. Learning is a lifelong process and has stages appropriate to the level depending on how that stage affects the development of learning. This implies that as we go to higher year level in our education, we also became matured enough to think critically.
Figure 7 reflects the cross tabulation between level of critical thinking and courses of the respondents. Additionally, it presents the average result in all critical thinking skills.
N=131 Chi-square = 15.069 df = 4 p-value = 0.005 (Significant)
Note: if p value is less than 0.05 then there is a significant relationship, otherwise not significant
Figure 7. Significant Relationship Between the Course of the Respondents and Their
Level of Critical Thinking Skill
Generally, majority of the respondents got median level with 62.6% while 37.4% got upper median level. Moreover, it shows that BSEd Biology students got highest percentage in upper median level followed by BSEd Chemistry, General Science, BEEd Science and Health and lastly the BSEd Physics who got the lowest percentage.
The results in both Figures 3 and 5 show that BSEd Biology got the highest level in application and synthesis skill. In addition, based on their program prospectus they were more exposed to science laboratory compared to other courses, thus it is expected that they would obtain higher critical thinking skills.
To find out if there is a relationship between the course of the respondents and the level of critical thinking skill a Chi-square test was done on these variables of 0.005 is less than the 0.05 level of significance which leads to the rejection of the hypothesis. Thus, there is a significant relationship between the course of the respondents and their level of critical thinking skills. This implies that the utilization of do-it-yourself (DIY) equipment and laboratory activities are effective tools to improve their critical thinking skills such as analysis skill. The result further strengthened the statement of Gray (2005) that “constructivist teaching fosters critical thinking and creates motivated and independent learners.”
In Table 4, a Friedman signed rank test was used in ranking each row together. It shows what critical thinking skill was highly developed by the respondents.
Table 4. Critical Thinking Skills Highly Developed by the Respondents
Critical Thinking Skills Sample (N) Mean Std. Deviation Rank
Application 131 6.19 1.36 3
Analysis 131 7.35 1.20 1
Synthesis 131 6.41 1.31 2
Evaluation 131 5.43 1.31 4
As depicted in Table 4, the DIY and laboratory activities have remarkably improved the respondent’s analysis skill and the evaluation was least achieved. Also in the same table, the analysis skill of the respondents was highly developed and their evaluation skill needed improvement. Based on the test questionnaire, the questions under evaluation skill were more complex compared to the other questions which may be the reason why evaluation skill got the lowest rank among the four (4) critical thinking skills.
Similar study was conducted by Alefante (2012) on what level of critical thinking among 44 high school students and come up with the same conclusion. In addition, the study of Pito and Sorongon (2004) also agrees that analytical skill was likely developed among high school students.
This result implies that the use of DIY equipment and laboratory activities have improved the critical thinking skill of the respondents. They reached analysis level which is the first level of critical thinking in the cognitive domain according to Bloom (1956).
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations based on the results of the data gathered and interpreted.
Summary of Findings
The analysed data revealed the level of critical thinking and each critical thinking skill by the course of the respondents.
The study revealed that the 4th year respondents excel in all critical thinking skills. This means that as we go to higher year level in our education, we also became matured enough to think critically which implies that the higher year level, the higher the level of our critical thinking skills.
BSEd Biology got the highest percentage among all the courses. Since they were exposed to field study in their field trips, they have given the chance and opportunity to apply what they have learned. This implies that field trip has a great help in developing the critical thinking skills.
BSEd Chemistry got the highest percentage in analysis skill compared to BSEd Physics. This implies that even though BSED Chemistry and BSEd Physics perform laboratory activities in their subject area, they still differ in the level of critical thinking skills.
BSEd Biology got the highest percentage in synthesis skill, same with the results in application skill. Moreover, BSEd Biology subjects contain more laboratory class and hands-on activities compared to BEEd Science and Health subjects deals more on lectures and discussions. It implies that students who were exposed to the divers interactions demonstrate greater propensity toward critical thinking.
BSEd Physics got the highest percentage in evaluation skill compared to BSEd General Science who got the lowest. Based on the profile of the respondents, most of the BSEd General Science respondents were 2nd year level while most of the BSEd Physics respondents were 3rd and 4th year. This implies that as we go to higher year level in our education, we also became matured enough to think critically.
BSEd Biology got the highest level in application and synthesis skill. In addition, based on their program prospectus they were more exposed to science laboratory compared to other courses, thus it is expected that they would obtain higher critical thinking skills.
Generally, the level of critical thinking among 131 respondents is in median level with 62.6% and only 37.4% got upper median.
Result also shows that analysis skill was highly developed by the respondents and evaluation skill needs improvement. This implies that the use of DIY equipment and laboratory activities have improved the critical thinking skill of the respondents.
Based on the findings, the following conclusion is made:
It was revealed that the p-value obtained was 0.005, less than the 0.05 level of significance which means that there is a significant relationship between the courses of the 131 DSME student-respondents across department-curricula and their levels of critical thinking skills. Thus, the hypothesis is rejected since there is no enough evidence to accept the null hypothesis since, learning as perceived is a life-long and continuous process which, in turn, that in order to develop high level of critical thinking, one should get acquainted with the academic and non-academic facets of learning.
Based on the results and analysis of this study, the following recommendation is advised:
Since DIY apparatus develops the student’s critical thinking, students may use DIY apparatus in science laboratory classroom.
There should be readily-available, developed and innovative science apparatus for every student so that he/she can freely discover it and can think critically.
Teachers should develop more DIY science apparatuses and instructional materials and activities based on the K+12 curriculum that the students can easily understand the concepts and theories.
Future researchers may come up with the best strategies that will fit to the DIY science instruments so that students would not have any hesitations in coping with the lessons.
Other possible related topics in science as well as with other DSME courses should be replicated to validate the results obtained in the study as well as to expound other possible areas of interest.