JPII 5 (1) (2016) 69-74

Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia

[Link]

SCIENTIFIC REASONING ABILITY OF PROSPECTIVE STUDENT

TEACHER IN THE EXCELLENCE PROGRAM OF MATHEMATICS AND
SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION IN UNIVERSITY OF MATARAM

A. W. Jufri*, D. Setiadi, Sripatmi

University of Mataram Lombok, Indonesia

DOI: 10.15294/jpii.v5i1.5792

Accepted: 18 January 2016. Approved: 27 March 2016. Published: April 2016

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to investigate the scientific reasoning ability of the prospective student teacher, and
to analyze the difference in scientific reasoning ability between students in the study programs. The sample set
consisted of 179 students joining the Excellence Program of Mathematics and Science Teacher Education in the
Faculty of Teacher Education (FTE) in the University of Mataram. The Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning
(CTSR) was translated into Indonesian language and used to measure the student scientific reasoning ability. The
results of this study revealed that 95.5% students had low reasoning ability and were categorized as concrete and
transitional reasoner. Only few students (4.5%) reached the category of formal operational reasoner. In addition,
significant differences of the students reasoning ability emerged among the third and the fifth semester students,
as well as students in the four study programs.

© 2016 Science Education Study Program FMIPA UNNES Semarang

Keywords: concrete, CTSR, formal operational scientific reasoning, transition

INTRODUCTION theories of science (Zimmerman, 2005; Piraksa et

al. 2011). It is manifested as a strategy of making
One of teaching goals in Sience, Technolo- conclusion based on scientific evidences (Lee &
gy, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) edu- She, 2010), and closely related to cognitive pro-
cation is fostering student s’ content knowledge cesses in relation to the way of making decisions
and developing general scientific abilities (Bao and the results of academic learning (Kuhn &
et al. 2009), and one of the abilities is scientific Dean, 2004; Bao et al. 2009).
reasoning. It is a part of cognitive skills required Scientific reasoning consists of some aspects
to evaluate scientific information and resolve that are interconnected as proportions of arguments
complex problems (Bao, et al. 2009; Lee & She, about probability, relation between two or more va-
2010; Piraksa, et al. 2014). It involves the abilities riables, and social process to seek the truth based on
which have long-term impact accompaniment on the theory and scientific evidence (Lawson, 2000;
student’s academic achievement. Kuhn, 2004). Several research studies indicate
The ability to reason scientifically is a that scientific reasoning ability is necessary for
reflection of a person’s thinking skills about the students as to be able to compete in the global era.
processes of inquiry which include designing Therefore, students’ performance on scientific
experiments, analyzing scientific evidences, in- reasoning is important to be developed in scien-
ferencing, evaluating the results of investigation, ce teaching and learning process (Chen & Klahr,
and understanding the concepts and the complex 1999; Bao et al. 2009) from elementary through
college level of education.
*Alamat korespondensi:
Email: awahabjufri@[Link]
Scientific reasoning skills can be developed
70 A. W. Jufri, D. Setiadi, Sripatmi / JPII 5 (1) (2016) 69-74

through training and transferred in the supporting mal operational thinking abilities in secondary
academic environment (Bao et al., 2009; Piraksa level and higher education (Lawson, 2000; Bao,
et al., 2011). Training in scientific reasoning has et al. 2009, Piraksa, et al. 2014). This test serves
a long term impact on student academic achieve- to measure student’s ability to reason and to think
ments. Therefore, the STEM education commu- proportionally, probabilistically, correlationally
nity considers that transferable general abilities and hypothetico-deductively. The reliability of
are at least as important for students to learn as is the test items is 0.78. Data were analyzed with
the content knowledge (Bao et al. 2009). Under- the One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) by
graduate students and science teachers in secon- SPSS computer program.
dary schools should have the valuable attributes
of scientific reasoning (Tajuddin et al., 2012). RESULT AND DISCUSSION
However, the majority of undergraduates are
lack of advanced reasoning patterns, which are The average score of students’ scientific
necessary for significant achievement in college reasoning ability ranged from 22.45 to 38.25. The
science courses (Deamfle, 2006). Science teach- lowest average scores (Mean 22.45) obtained by
ers and prospective student teachers in college the students of the third semester of Biology Edu-
should have the strategies to train and transfer cation Study Program and the highest average
scientific reasoning skills to students (Johnson & scores (Mean: 38.25) obtained by the fifth semes-
Lawson, 1998). Mathematics and science teach- ter students of Mathematics Education. In detail,
ers should develop scientific reasoning ability of the average scores of student scientific reasoning
middle school students as a component of the 21 st ability are presented in Table 1 and the student
century skills (Annetta et al., 2010; Piraksa et al., distributions based on their level of reasoning ab-
2014). To support the that process, prospective lity are shown in Table 2.
student teachers in college especially in the facul- Referring to the average score of students
ty of teacher education (FTE) in the University reasoning ability as shown in Table 2, it can be
of Mataram must be facilitated to develop their stated that most of the students of the EPMSTE
reasoning ability. The purposes of the research University of Mataram is still in the category of
are to: (1) identify the scientific reasoning ability concrete operational and transitional thinking
of prospective student teacher who were in the (95.70%), and only 4.30% students reached the
Excellence Program of Mathematics and Science formal operational thinking. This condition in-
Teacher Education (EPMSTE) in the FTE, Uni- dicates the weakness of the prospective student
versity of Mataram, and (2) to analyze the diffe- teachers reasoning ability. According to Lawson
rences of scientific reasoning ability of third and (2004), based on their reasoning ability, learners
fifth students semester as well as in the four Study can be classified as concrete operational reasoner
Programs in the academic year 2012/2013. (score 0-30), transitional reasoner (score 30- 70),
and reflective or formal operational reasoner
METHOD (score 80 - 120).
Moore & Rubbo (2011) stated that the stu-
The research was conducted during Sep- dents classified as mostly concrete operational
tember to November 2013/2014 in the Depart- reasoner are characterized by their appropriate
ment of Mathematics and Science Education use of logic. However, they struggle with sol-
of FTE in University of Mataram. The subjects ving problems outside of a concrete context, de-
of the research consisted of 179 prospective stu- monstrating significant difficulty with abstract
dent teachers in the third and fifth semester. The concepts and hypothetical tasks. Formal opera-
instrument used to collect the data of this study is tional reasoner begins to think abstractly, reason
the test of scientific reasoning which is translated logically, and draw conclusions from available in-
from the Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning formation. Unlike the concrete operational reaso-
(CTSR) developed by Anton E. Lawson (2000). ners, the formal operational reasoners are able to
The test consists of 24 items or 12 pairs of items apply appropriate logic to hypothetical situations
with four alternative answers. Odd-numbered in most contexts. In this way, formal operational
test items contain the statement about the cause reasoner can begin to think like a scientist, and
of an event/natural phenomenon and the even- specifically develops srong hypothetico-deductive
numbered test items are the alternative reasons’ reasoning. Transitional reasoner falls between the
arguments which support the answer chosen. other two classifications where they find success
The CTSR has been used worldwide and proven with hypothetical tasks in some contexts. Formal
to be able to measure student’s concrete and for- operational thinking skill develops gradually bet-
 A. W. Jufri, D. Setiadi, Sripatmi / JPII 5 (1) (2016) 69-74 71

Table 1. Distribution of Mean Scores of Students Scientific Reasoning

Study program/semester
Biology Chemistry Physics Mathematics
3rd 5th 3rd 5th 3rd 5th 3rd 5th
N 22 22 25 21 19 22 27 20
Mean 22.45 26.54 27 23.54 30 28.95 32.44 38.25
Min 8.00 8,00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 16.00 8.00
Max 4.,00 58.. 58.00 50.00 50.00 58.00 66.00 66.00
StDev 11.42 14.67 14.54 14.83 10.13 15.17 13.05 13.72

Table 2. Student Distributions According to Their Levels of Reasoning Abilities

Study N Percentage of Students in each Level of
Programs Reasoning Ability
Total Percentage
COR TR FOR
Biology 44 12.3 12,3 0.5 25.1
Chemistry 47 9.4 15 1.3 25.7
Physic 41 4.2 17 1,4 22.6
Mathematics 47 3.2 22,3 1,1 26.6
29.10 66.60 4.30 100
Note: COR: concrete operational reasoner, TR: transitional reasoner, FOR: formal operational rea-
sonerv

ween 11-18 years of age and results in a refine- ter Chemistry Education Program and in both
ment or perfection of operations developed at the semester of student in the Physics Education
concrete stage (Valanides, 1997). The third and Program. The difference in scores of reasoning
fifth semester of college students should have ability between other groups of students was not
developed the skill, in fact this study shows the significant (p> 0.05).
contradictive reality. This fact should become a The results of this study are consistent with
valuable condition to evaluate and improve the the statement of Piraksa, et al., (2014) who found
model of teaching and learning process, especial- that university students in Thailand mostly think
ly in the Department of Mathematics and Scien- unscientifically. The scientific reasoning ability of
ce Education of FTE in University of Mataram. the prospective student teachers in University of
The students’ scientific reasoning scores Mataram really needs attention to be developed
differ significantly between semesters and the stu- through the improvement of the quality of teach-
dy programs (p <0.05) as shown in Table 3. Data ing and learning processes. This is in line with the
regarding the difference in the average scores as opinions of Piraksa, et al. (2014) which suggested
well as the level of significance of differences bet- that teaching plans should be designed to support
ween study program and semester are presented the development of the students scientific reaso-
in Table 4. ning ability. Some relevant models of learning
The data in Table 4 show the differences include discovery, inquiry-based, problem-based,
in the level of reasoning ability between groups and computer-based learning models (Lawson,
and between semesters. The reasoning ability of 2004; Bao et al. 2009; Tajuddin, et al. 2012;
the 3rd semester students in the Biology Educa- Piraksa, et al. 2014). Bao, et al. (2009) quoted
tion Program differs significantly from that of the statements of Benford & Lawson, (2001) and
the students in the Physics Education Program Gerber, et al. (2001) that scientific reasoning abi-
and Mathematics as well as the 5 th semester. The lities of students in any level of education can be
5th semester studens of Biology only differs sig- developed through the implementation of inqui-
nificantly from the students in the Mathematics ry-based learning. Johnson and Lawson (2004)
Education Program, and the students of the 5 th found that the scientific reasoning and prior kno-
semester in the same study program also signifi- wledge of students taught by inquiry model were
cantly differ from the students in the third semes- higher than those of students taught by exposi-
72 A. W. Jufri, D. Setiadi, Sripatmi / JPII 5 (1) (2016) 69-74

Table 3. ANOVA Test Results for the Scientific Reasoning Ability Mean Scores of Student Teacher
Candidates based on the Sudy Programs

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 3874.042 7 553.435 3.123 0.004
Within Groups 29768.180 168 177.192
Total 33642.222 175

Table 4. The Difference of Students’ Scientific Reasoning Ability within Study Programs

I (SP-SMT) J (SP-SMT) Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.

Biology smt 3 Physics smt 3 -8.65072* 4.16894 .040
Physics smt 5 -8.32806 *
3.96965 .037
Mathematics smt 3 -11.98990 *
3.82319 .002
Mathematics smt 5 -17.79545 *
4.11263 .000
Biology smt 5 Mathematics smt 5 -11.70455 *
4.11263 .005
Chemistry smt 3 Mathematics smt 5 -10.12500* 4.03021 .013
Chemistry smt 5 Mathematics smt 5 -11.40789 *
4.26444 .008
Physics smt 3 Biology smt 3 8.65072 *
4.16894 .040
Mathematics smt 5 -9.14474 *
4.26444 .033

tory approach. In this regard, Jufri (2007) found important to support other aspects of higher or-
that inquiry-based learning model can improve der thinking skills. Lawson (2004) states that the
students’ critical thinking skills. Through these scientific arguments are hypothetico-deductive
models of teaching and learning, students can in structure and consist f some aspects that are
involve in the process of scientific observation, interconnected including the proportion of ar-
actively provide explanations, and test their ide- guments, control of variables, arguments about
as based on scientific evidences accompanied by probability and arguments regarding correlation
logical arguments and positive interaction with between variables.
their colleagues (Lawson, 2004). An ultimate goal of higher education is to
Bao, et al. (2009) proved that the middle prepare our future workers with needed knowled-
school students in China who learned Physics ge and skills. This includes cultivating students to
with training (drill) methods can improve their become proficient reasoner who can utilize pro-
ability in problem solving, but the same methods per scientific reasoning to devise causal inferences
does not give significant effect on students scien- from observations (Ding et al. 2014). Reasoning
tific reasoning ability. Chin & Osborne (2010) ability of students should be the main purpose of
found that there is a positive correlation between the college curriculum that focuses more on the
the number and the quality of questions, and the development of learners mathematics and scien-
quality of written arguments raised by students ce literacy (Piraksa, et al. 2011). Supposedly, un-
whose mastery concepts of the subject matter. dergraduate or college level students should have
Therefore, facilitating the development of scien- been able to reason scientifically and to think ref-
tific reasoning ability in science teacher training lectively with hipotetico-deductive pattern. Ho-
program is quite urgent to give the opportunity wever, the results of this study shows that most
for future teachers to build their own tools that students in the Department of Mathematics and
permit them to promote reasoning skills for their Science Education of the FTE in University of
students (Archila, 2014). Mataram are still possessed low reasoning ability.
Even though the reasoning abilities of stu- This condition relates to the findings of Jufri &
dents tested with CTSR look simple for experts, Hikmawati (2012) which show that many science
in fact this is a fundamental component that is teachers in Lombok have low reasoning ability
quite crucial to support the development of other and also low scientific literacy. These facts are of
capabilities that are more vital and more comp- considerable concern and need to be addressed
lex (Bao et., 2009). The ability to reason is very seriously. If the student teacher reasoning ability
 A. W. Jufri, D. Setiadi, Sripatmi / JPII 5 (1) (2016) 69-74 73

is low, then of course and it will closely linked ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

to their pattern of teaching if one day become a
teacher. The authors wish to acknowledge the Ex-
Based on the findings of this study, it is sug- cellence Program of Mathematics and Science
gested that the pedagogy of learning science for Teacher Education, theFaculty of Education,
prospective student teachers should be directed Mataram University, Indonesia, for a financial
to the learning patterns of (1) how to construct support and opportunities in conducting the rese-
reason based on hypotheses and scientific eviden- arch and presenting this paper.
ce, (2) how to design a good science experiments,
and (3) how to determine the correlation between REFERENCES
target variables in order to support the develop-
ment of student scientific reasoning capabilities. Annetta, L.A., Cheng, M. T. & Holmes, S. (2010). As-
In other words, the faculty has to offer continuo- sessing Twenty-first Century Skills through a
us reform to promote education quality. Educa- Teacher Created Video Game for High School
Biology Students. Research in Science & Techno-
tion reform should be interpreted as an effort to
logical Education, 28 (2), 101–114.
create programs that focus on improving teaching Archila, P. A. (2014). Are Science Teachers Prepared
and learning practices, not solely focused on de- to Promote Argumentation? A Case Study with
signing a class with a teacher-proof curriculum. Pre-service Teachers in Bogotá city. Asia-Pacific Fo-
Thus, teaching practices actually intend to avoid rum on Science Learning and Teaching, 15 (1). Re-
the problems faced by students in the learning trieved from: [Link]
process. Learning practices can be developed download/v15_issue1_files/[Link].
through the evaluation and development of te- Bao, L., Cai, T., Koenig, K., Fang, K., Han, J., Wang,
achers’ mastery of the subject matter and the way J., Liu, Q., Ding, L., Cui, L., Lou, Y., Wang,
Y., Li, L. & Wu, N. (2009). Learning and Sci-
teachers learning to pack and carry the lesson. To
entific Reasoning. SCIENCE, 323 (1), 586-587.
that end, it is necessary for teachers’ professional Chen, Y. & Khlar, D. (1999). All Other Thing being
development program to provide opportunities Equal: Acquisition and Transfer of the Control
to learn how to learn some vital lessons (learning of Variable Strategy. Child Development, 70 (5),
how to learn), and learn how to teach (learning 1098-1120.
about teaching). Thus, it is essential to get the at- Chin. C. & Osborne, J. (2010). Students’ Questions
tention of the faculty staffs especially lecturers in and Discursive Interaction: Their Impact on
order to facilitate the development of student abi- Argumentation during Collaborative Group
lity to reason and skills in science literacy (Schen, Discussion in Science. Journal of Research in Sci-
ence Teaching, 47 (7), 883-908.
2008). In order to develop the capability of pros-
Deampfle, P. A. (2006). The Effects of Instructional Ap-
pective student teachers, the teaching and lear- proaches on the Improvement of Reasoning in In-
ning processes in the faculty should be directed to troductory College Biology: A Quantitative Review
deliver students to have scientific reasoning skills of Research. Retrieved from: [Link]
to supports scientific literacy. Of course, lecturers [Link]/ fulltext/[Link].
within the FTE in the University of Mataram Ding, L., Xin, W. & Katherine, M. (2014). Does High-
need to design and to implement teaching models er Education Improve Student Scientific Rea-
that challenge students to think critically and cre- soning Skills? International Journal of Science and
atively such as inquiry-based, project based, and Mathematics Education. Retrieved from: http://
link. [Link]/article/10.1007%2Fs10763-
problem based learning models.
014-9597-y
Johnson, M. A. & Lawson, A. E. (1998). What are the
CONCLUSION Relative Effects of Reasoning Ability and Prior
Knowledge on Biology Achievement inExposi-
Based on the results of research and discus- tory and Inquiry classes? Journal of Research in
sion above, it can be concluded that: (1) the scien- Science Teaching, 35 (1), 89-103.
tific reasoning ability of the prospective student’s Jufri, A.W. (2007). Pengaruh Implementasi Perangkat
teacher in the FTE of University of Mataram is Pembelajaran Berbasis Inkuiri Melalui Strategi Ko-
categorized as low. More than 90% students are operatif Terhadap Keterampilan Berpikir Kritis, Si-
kap, dan hasil Belajar Kognitif Siswa SMA di Kota
classified as concrete and transitional reasoners.
Mataram. Disertasi), Malang: Program Pascasa-
Only 4.3% students reached the formal opera- rjana Universitas Negeri Malang.
tional phase of thinking; and (2) there is a sig- Jufri, A.W. & Hikmawati. (2012). Analisis Kemelekan
nificant difference in the aspects of the student’s Sains (Science literacy) dan Kemelekan Inkuiri
scientific reasoning ability within semester and (Inquiry literacy) Guru Pelajaran IPA di Lombok.
within study programs. Laporan Penelitian Strategis Nasional.
74 A. W. Jufri, D. Setiadi, Sripatmi / JPII 5 (1) (2016) 69-74

Kuhn, D. (2004). “What is Scientific Thinking and How ment: September 9-10. KKU, Thailand.
does it Develop?” In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook Piraksa, C., Niwat, S. & Rekha, K. (2014). Effect of
of Childhood Cognitive Development (Black- Gender on Students’ Scientific Reasoning Abil-
well) (2nd ed., 2010). Retrieved from: http:// ity : A CaseStudy in Thailand. Procedia-Social
www.dk100/faculty-profile/files/10_whatiss- and Behavioral Sciences, 116 (1), 486 – 491.
[Link]. Schen, M. (2008). Scientific Reasoning Skills Develop-
Kuhn, D. & Dean, D. (2004). Metacognition: A Bridge ment in An Introductory Biology Course Sequence
Between Cognitive Psychology and Education- for Undergraduates, Paper at the NARST Annual
al Practice. Theory Into Practice, 43 (4), 268-273. Conference Baltimore, MD, Macrh 30 – April
Lawson, Anton E. (2004). The Nature and Develop- 2: 2008.
ment of Scientific Reasoning: a synthetic view. Tajuddin, M. N., Noorshah, S., Nurulhuda A. R.,
International Journal of Science and Math- Asmayati Y., Hasimah A., Dollah, M. U. &
ematics Education. 2 (1), 307-338. Retrieved Karim, M.M. (2012). Mapping the Level of
from: [Link] com/article/10.100 Scientific Reasoning Skills to Instructional
7%2Fs10763-004-3224-2#/page-1 Methodologies among Sciences, Mathematics
Lee, C. & She, H. (2010). Facilitating Students’ Con- and Engineering Undergraduates. International
ceptual Change and Scientific Reasoning In- Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(3),
volving the Unit of Combustion. Research in 5-11.
Science Education, 40 (1), 479–504. Valanides, N. (1997). Formal Reasoning Abilities and
Moore, J. C. & Rubbo, L. J. (2011). Scientific reasoning School Achievement. Studies in Educational
abilities of non-science majors in physics-basedcours- Evaluation, 23 (2), 169-185.
es. Retrieved from: arXiv:1110.2764v1 [physics. Zimmermann, C. (2005). The development of Scientific
ed-ph]. On 2 August 2015. Reasoning Skills: What Psychologist Contribute to
Piraksa, C., Peempond, P., Romklao, A. & Niwat, an Understanding of Elementary Science Learn-
S. (2011). Exploring Scientific Reasoning Abil- ing. Retrieved from: [Link]
ity in Thai University Students: A CaseStudy of [Link]/cs/ groups/dbassesite/documents/
KhonKaen University, Thailand. ICER 2011: webpage/dbasse_080105.pdf
Learning Community for Sustainable Develop-