Developing an Interdisciplinary Hypothetical Inquiry learning model to enhance students' higher-order thinking and computational thinking skills

Riko Septiantoko; Saliman Saliman; Sudrajat Sudrajat; Yumi Hartati; Primanisa Inayati Azizah

doi:10.21831/jipsindo.v12i1.83566

Developing an Interdisciplinary Hypothetical Inquiry learning model to enhance students' higher-order thinking and computational thinking skills

Riko Septiantoko, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Saliman Saliman, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Sudrajat Sudrajat, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Yumi Hartati, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Primanisa Inayati Azizah, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia

10.21831/jipsindo.v12i1.83566

Abstract

This study aims to develop an Interdisciplinary Hypothetical Inquiry (IHI) learning model that is (1) feasible and practical, and (2) determine the effectiveness of this model in improving undergraduate students' higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) and computational thinking skills (CTS) in solving social problems in social science (IPS) education study programs. This research uses a design and development research approach which includes six stages: (1) problem identification, (2) goal description, (3) product design and development, (4) product testing, (5) evaluation of test results, and (6) communication of results. The development of the IHI learning model was tested through (1) feasibility tests by expert lecturers in the field of education, evaluation experts, and social science experts; (2) practicality test through observation of learning implementation and responses from lecturers and student users; and (3) effectiveness test using a quasi-experimental method with a sample of undergraduate students in Social Sciences Education, Yogyakarta State University. The research instruments include expert lecturer review and assessment sheets, HOT and CT test questions, observation sheets on the implementation of the IHI model, and user response questionnaires. The research results show that the IHI learning model (1) is feasible based on the assessment of expert lecturers; (2) practical with an implementation score of 4.54 (very practical), a lecturer response score of 3.9 (very practical), and a student response score of 4.5 (very practical); and (3) potentially effective based on the higher N-Gain HOTS and CTS values in the experimental class (0.63 and 0.56) compared to the control class (0.59 and 0.15), as well as the t-test results with significance value 0.00 (p < 0.05). The student-centered IHI learning model encourages collaboration and democratic learning through the stages: 1) problem orientation, (2) hypothesis brainstorming, (3) hypothesis development, (4) investigation design, (5) investigation data collection, (6) interpretation of investigation data, (7) reporting and communication of results. This research concludes that the IHI learning model is feasible, practical, and effective for increasing HOTS and CTS for students in the social studies education study program.

Keywords

Pendidikan;IPS; IHI; HOT; Berpikir Komputasi

Full Text:

PDF

References

Ahern-Rindell, A. J. (2015). An intentional and facilitative student-centered approach to enhance inquiry-based learning through authentic, hypothesis-driven research. In Inquiry-based learning for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) programs: a conceptual and practical resource for educators (Vol. 4, pp. 113–134). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120150000004008

Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2005). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman

Aisyah, A., Salehuddin, K., Aman, I., Yasin, R. M., & Mimiko, N. (2019). Eliciting elements of higher order thinking skills in the higher secondary examination question structure in Japan and Malaysia. In Proceedings of the Regional Conference on Science, Technology and Social Sciences (RCSTSS 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0203-9_42

Bruner, J. S. (2020). The act of discovery. In In Search of Pedagogy Volume I. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203088609-13

García, E. (2015). Inequalities at the starting gate cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between 2010–2011 Kindergarten Classmates. Economic Policy Institute.

Haolader, F. A., Ali, M. R., & Foysol, K. M. (2015). The taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: Current practices at polytechnics in Bangladesh and its effects in developing students’ competencies. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.13152/IJRVET.2.2.9

Heer, R. (2012). A model of learning objectives -based on A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Contemporary Theories of Learning, Iowa State University.

Herczog, M. (2010). Using the NCSS national curriculum standards for social studies: A framework for teaching, learning, and assessment to meet state social studies standards. Social Education, 74(4).

Janzen, K. J., Perry, B., & Edwards, M. (2011). Aligning the quantum perspective of learning to instructional design: Exploring the seven definitive questions. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7 Special Issue). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i7.1038

Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2016). Models of teaching (ninth edition). Learning Library.

Lee, T. Y., Mauriello, M. L., Ingraham, J., Sopan, A., Ahn, J., & Bederson, B. B. (2012). CTArcade: Learning computational thinking while training virtual characters through gameplay. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 2012-January. https://doi.org/10.1145/2212776.2223794

Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2020). Computational thinking is more about thinking than computing. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00030-2

Masigno, R. M. (2014). Enhancing higher order thinking skills in a marine biology class through problem-based learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(5).

Miller, J. P., Karsten, S., Denton, D., Orr, D., & Kates, I. C. (2005). Holistic learning and spirituality in education: Breaking new ground. In Holistic Learning and Spirituality in Education: Breaking New Ground.

Ngang, T. K., Chan, T. C., & Vetriveilmany, U. D. a/p. (2015). Critical issues of soft skills development in teaching professional training: Educators’ perspectives. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.09.039

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2).

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3). https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302

Soedijarto, S. (2006). Professional ability of teachers and academic ability of lecturers in the effort to improve the relevance and quality of national education. Educational Science Perspective, 13(VII). https://doi.org/10.21009/pip.131.7

Spivey, G. (2007). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing digital logic design. Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2007.4417846

Voskoglou, M. Gr., & Buckley, S. (2012). Problem-solving and computational thinking in a learning environment. Arxiv,36(4), 28–46. http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0750

Wenning, C. J. (2010). The Levels of inquiry model of science teaching for explications of real-world applications component of the Inquiry Spectrum. A Levels of Inquiry Redux. J. Phys. Tchr. Educ. Online, 6(2).

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (expanded 2nd ed.). In Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wilson, K. (2016). Critical reading, critical thinking: Delicate scaffolding in English for Academic Purposes (EAP). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.10.002

Wing, J. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. IPDPS Miami 2008 - Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, Program and CD-ROM. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPDPS.2008.4536091

Wing, J. M. (2010). Computational Thinking: What and Why? The link - The Magazine of the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science, March 2006.

You, H. S. (2017). Why teach science with an interdisciplinary approach: history, trends, and conceptual frameworks. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n4p66

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/jipsindo.v12i1.83566