Next Article in Journal
A Study on the Influence of the Affective Domain on the Attitudes of Middle School Students toward Mathematics from a Gender Perspective
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancing Active Learning through a Holistic Approach: A Case Study of Primary Education in Lithuania
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/educsci14060593
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Inquiry vs. Inquiry-Creative: Emphasizing Critical Thinking Skills of Prospective STEM Teachers in the Context of STEM Learning in Indonesia

by
Saiful Prayogi
1,*,
Muhammad Roil Bilad
1,2,
Ni Nyoman Sri Putu Verawati
3 and
Muhammad Asy’ari
4
1
Science Education Department, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika, Mataram 83126, Indonesia
2
Faculty of Integrated Technologies, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong BE1410, Brunei
3
Physics Education Department, Universitas Mataram, Mataram 83125, Indonesia
4
Physics Education Department, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika, Mataram 83126, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(6), 593; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060593
Submission received: 13 April 2024 / Revised: 24 May 2024 / Accepted: 29 May 2024 / Published: 30 May 2024
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In an evolving perspective, lecturers consider that inquiry is one of the best forms of learning to drill critical thinking. This study assesses the practice of inquiry to develop the critical thinking skills of prospective science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers in Indonesia, which is a suitable way to address the problems in the country. Through the experimental design, three groups were formed, which were intervened with inquiry learning, inquiry-creative, and traditional teaching. The learning intervention was carried out within one month using a pre-validated instrument. The critical thinking data were analyzed descriptively based on the pre-test and post-test mean parameters and n-gain on critical thinking indicators, as well as individual critical thinking performance. Statistical analyses (paired-t test, ANOVA, and least significant difference test) were employed to provide confidence in the differences in critical thinking skills across the three learning treatments (p < 0.05). The prospective STEM teachers’ critical thinking skills showed varied performances among the three groups. The inquiry-creative group had the strongest impact, followed by inquiry and traditional teaching, all differing significantly. In summary, the findings suggest that current teaching practices in STEM education need to be reconsidered, showing the advantage of the inquiry-creative model in developing the critical thinking skills essential for future teachers and creators in the STEM fields.

1. Introduction

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education has been gaining increasing attention in recent decades, as it is often associated with a culture of innovation and excellence [1,2]. Future economic growth also relies on the capacity and quality of STEM education delivery [2]. This situation requires skillful independent thinkers, who can develop their abilities by studying STEM. The mastery of the STEM field is highly relevant to the students’ future education and work careers [3,4]. At all levels of education in Indonesia, STEM is taught in the form of integrated science, in which all subjects are taught simultaneously without segregating based on the object of the study (i.e., chemistry, biology, physics, math). In the context of achieving STEM learning performance, Indonesian students still face serious problems. This is evidenced in the results of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study Indonesia, which was conducted from 1999 to 2015 and showed poor results (Figure 1) [5], indicating that urgent intervention is required [6].
Policies in Indonesia have been set to build an ecosystem that can increase the quality of education and learning performance, relying on the role of teachers as a determinant factor for students’ low achievement. The achievements indicated in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study of Indonesia have been associated with students’ reasoning abilities. Poor results correspond to weak reasoning, or vice versa [7]. An earlier report claimed that only learning required an innovative design to effectively encourage critical thinking competencies [8], exemplified by the top performances of Singaporeans. Singapore imposes policies by considering critical thinking as a major competency for learning achievement at all education levels, including STEM education. Reasoning is a fundamental concept strongly associated with critical thinking, often identified as reflective or reasonable thinking [9,10].
Practicing critical thinking in STEM education and learning is essential. Unfortunately, an effective learning framework or a design to train it has still not been well-established widely [11]. Nonetheless, critical thinking training can be started for prospective teachers, so in their professional career, they can train their students effectively. However, a recent study showed concern about the poor critical thinking performance of prospective science teachers [12]. For sustainable development, effective teaching innovations need to be implemented. This is in line with previous studies [13,14], in which effective learning models, methods, or strategies need to be implemented if teachers want to make progress in their learning.
The aim of STEM education is to foster critical thinking skills, but the way to develop critical thinking in STEM students requires more investigation [15]. One of the effective and interactive learning models showing the potential to support the progress of students’ critical thinking is inquiry learning [16]. This model is considered interesting in science education, and its application is increasingly affiliated with the STEM field [17]. Therefore, teaching inquiry to prospective STEM teachers is important and beneficial for developing their capacity for STEM understanding [18].
Inquiry is a learning method that has many forms, but the common idea is that it focuses on student-centered learning activities, where students explore, make knowledge claims, and develop problem-solving skills through the exploration process [19,20,21,22]. However, another study [23] highlighted inquiry learning weaknesses, including low student performance in thinking. Teacher guidance is thus crucial for students as they explore or experiment. Moreover, the difficulty of inquiry is often not well understood [21]. Another study shows that students’ critical thinking habits are not directly proportional to inquiry learning carried out by teachers [24].
Nonetheless, the criticism of inquiry does not discourage researchers by demonstrating that modification of inquiry method had a positive impact on critical thinking training [25]. One of the modified forms of inquiry is achieved by integrating it with scientific creativity, further referred to as inquiry-creative learning [26]. This method allows STEM students to improve their critical thinking skills. Scientific creativity is a feature of STEM education; and fostering student creativity has proven effective to influence thinking ability [27]. Yet, empirically, the inquiry-creative learning model requires systematic investigation for its effectiveness in training the critical thinking of prospective STEM teachers.
Exploration-based learning approaches such as inquiry and discovery learning are recognized for their strong potential in cultivating students’ critical thinking skills [28]. This is supported by previous research [29], which showed the positive impact of discovery learning on the critical thinking abilities of secondary science students. Empirical evidence also needs to be established, in particular on the effectiveness of explorative learning methods like inquiry and inquiry-creative in training critical thinking skills, particularly among prospective STEM teachers. The impacts of inquiry and inquiry-creative are crucial since they determine whether these methods are effective in developing essential critical thinking skills for future STEM educators. Prospective STEM teachers require these skills to facilitate the development and implementation of teaching approaches.
This study evaluates the impact of inquiry and inquiry-creative learning in relation to conventional teaching methods in advancing the critical thinking skills of aspiring STEM teachers. It examines the research question on how well both inquiry and inquiry-creative learning models work in boosting the critical thinking skills of aspiring STEM teachers in the setting of STEM learning in Indonesia.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Critical Thinking for STEM Education

A new paradigm of teaching and learning emphasizes thinking activities, from learning to know to learning to think [30]. Critical thinking is considered dominant in upgrading STEM education [31]. The role of critical thinking is important because it can support other competencies needed in STEM education [32].
Educators define critical thinking in various perspectives. A classic definition of critical thinking by Ennis [33] is widely accepted and employed, which described critical thinking as reflective reasoned thinking that allows for knowing what to believe and what to do. Another study went as far as to call critical thinking a form of evaluative thinking, and this was categorized as a high-order cognitive skill [30].
The critical thinking framework is built based on the characteristics or tendencies of critical thinking actors. It is specified as an indicator of critical thinking. Those who think critically are capable and skilled at analyzing, explaining, evaluating, interpreting, and self-regulating [34]. It allows a learner to build arguments on the principles of science [35,36,37] using claims supported by evidence and analysis based on deep thought, dictating their decision-making [16]. Critical thinking in math is also emphasized explicitly in the conception of mathematics reasoning, ways of deep thinking, analysis, and evaluation [38]. Critical thinking is used by engineers and specialists, supporting them in solving problems in their work [39]. It leads engineering students to make the right decisions [40].
The framework of critical thinking has been established on various arguments and reasons. There are four main indicators of critical thinking, namely analysis, inference, evaluation, and decision making [16,41]. They were employed in the current study as indicators to measure critical thinking skills in STEM students.

2.2. Inquiry Learning

Inquiry-based learning has recently been shown to be effective for better science learning achievements. For this reason, inquiry pedagogy has been widely used in the field of learning [20], including in the field of social science [42]. Exploration and investigation in inquiry at least train two components as pillars of teaching science: training thinking and process skills [43]. Inquiry is adopted in various ways, and is accepted as a learning method that focuses on learning activities or student-centered learning to explore, build knowledge claims, and develop analytical skills to solve problems through the exploration process [19,20,21,22].
The benefits and advantages of using inquiry to optimize learning outcomes have been well documented [20,44]. Not only can it optimize learning outcomes, but inquiry learning has also long been identified as an activity that can increase learners’ interest and positive attitudes [45], better their understanding of concepts [46], and authentically describe scientific concepts through the exploration process [47]. The advantages of inquiry learning certainly cannot be separated from several criticisms. The complexity of inquiry is often so poorly understood that it affects its activities [21]. A previous study highlighted that inquiry is strongly influenced by beliefs and perceptions about inquiry, where teachers who are accustomed to teacher-centered learning patterns are more resistant to the method [48]. Another challenge to employing inquiry is classroom management and authentic assessment [49,50].
Dealing with its potential to train critical thinking, inquiry learning is recognized as a way to train critical thinking. Recent development showed a modification of inquiry learning used to train critical thinking. Ones modified inquiry learning and integrated it with scientific creativity [26], cognitive conflict strategy [25], and suppression of reflection processes [51]. Interestingly, the integration of scientific creativity in inquiry-creativity was found to be encouraging in training the critical thinking skills of prospective science teachers [26].

2.3. Inquiry-Creative Learning

Creative pedagogy is the teaching path that is most relevant to STEM learning [52]. Its earlier implementation is required, otherwise it can be hard to change [53]. A previous study found that students’ cognitive development and knowledge construction can be achieved by optimizing scientific creativity pedagogy [54]. Another study highlighted the importance of developing higher-order thinking skills through creative pedagogy [52].
Practicing scientific creativity pedagogy in experiments has been explored [55], suggesting its ability to train students’ responsibility and creativity [55]. However, to the best of our knowledge, the pedagogy of creativity in inquiry models has not been studied sufficiently to optimize critical thinking. Scientific creativity is a distinctive feature of STEM instruction. STEM and creativity are inseparable and mutually reinforcing concepts [56]. Student creativity has an effect on thinking aspects [27], especially to achieve good critical thinking [26]. Creativity is seen as a fundamental and important aspect to be acquired in teaching.
The inquiry-creative learning model consists of five simultaneous stages. These are as follows: (a) problem finding (identifying and finding authentic problems in an authentic environment); (b) creating hypotheses (formulating hypotheses as a preliminary plan for authentic problem solving); (c) creative experiment design (designing creative experiments to find more than one best solution to solve problems); (d) scientific creative problem solving (solving problems creatively by finding more than one solution to the problems that have been posed); and (e) creative product design (creating product designs with multiple creative problem solving) [26]. The inquiry-creative model, which is still at the initial testing stage (early field testing), seems promising for teaching critical thinking. However, more rigorous research is needed to show that the inquiry-creative model can improve critical thinking skills.

3. Material and Methods

3.1. Design of Research

This study employed an experimental research methodology utilizing a randomized pre-test and post-test control group design. The participants were organized into three groups, each at the same semester level, through purposive randomization. Group I (further referred to as experimental group I) received instruction through the inquiry learning model (X1), which was a student-centered approach that encourages exploration, knowledge construction, and analytical skill development through guided exploration and questioning. Group II (further referred to as experimental group II) was treated with the inquiry-creative model (X2), which integrated the exploratory essence of inquiry learning with scientific creativity, focusing on creative experimental design and innovative problem-solving. Group III (further referred to as control group, X3) underwent traditional teaching, which was a teacher-centered method emphasizing direct information transmission from the teacher to the students, primarily through lectures and rote memorization. Furthermore, observations (O) of critical thinking skills of the three groups were carried out pre-test (O1) and post-test (O2). The design of this study is summarized as follows.
Experimental Group-I R O1 X1 O2
Experimental Group-II R O1 X2 O2
Control Group R O1 X3 O2
Bias between groups often occurs in experimental studies which can affect the internal validity of the study. To avoid this, those three learnings were carried out simultaneously and delivered by professional lecturers. The pre-test and post-test were also carried out simultaneously. The number of lessons was four, each was conducted across 100 min. The total duration for conducting the research was one month. Learning was carried out for the fundamental physics course on the topic of momentum and impulse.

3.2. Sample/Participant

The research samples were prospective STEM teachers at Mandalika University of Education (UNDIKMA), Indonesia. They were randomized purposively per class by the population of first-year students taking a fundamental physics course. The total participants in Group I, Group II, and Control were 28, 29 and 26 students, respectively. The sample demographics are presented in Table 1. This study was approved by Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC), Research Institutions and Community Service of UNDIKMA (approval code: 16082023).

3.3. Research Instruments and Data Collection

Critical thinking skills were measured by employing four indicators: analysis, inference, evaluation, and decision making. They were broken down into eight essay test items which were then used as instruments to collect data on the critical thinking skills of STEM students. They were multi-level scored with five scales according to Ennis and Weir [57]. The range of scores were +4 (highest score) to 0 (lowest score). The scoring rubric is presented in Table 2.
Before use, the test instrument was validated on respondents (N = 41) at other universities who did not participate in this research. Instrument validity data were analyzed using the Pearson correlation test. The instrument was declared valid if the results of the analysis (r count) > r table (rn41 = 0.308) and/or the value of p < 0.05. The results of the validity test are shown in Table 3.
The results in Table 3 show that the test instrument had valid criteria. Furthermore, the collection of critical thinking data (as a pre-test and post-test) was carried out by giving a valid test instrument to students who were members of the three sample groups.

3.4. Data Analysis

Critical thinking data were analyzed according to the STEM students’ critical thinking performance parameters descriptively and statistically in the pre-test and post-test for all groups. The calculation was based on the critical thinking performance of each indicator (CTi) and individuals (CTs). The CTi and CTs scores measured different parameters, in which 0 < CTi < +4 and 0 < CTs < 32 (multiplied by the eight items test of CTi), as adapted from earlier studies [16,29,32], and summarized in Table 4.
Descriptively, Hake’s formulation [58] was employed to calculate the increase in score (n-gain) of critical thinking skills from pre-test to post-test for all groups. The differences in the critical thinking scores of the three groups was statistically analyzed. Parametric statistical tests at least met the assumption of data normality (p > 0.05) in all groups. The effects of the three learning treatments (X1, X2, X3) on critical thinking skills were analyzed by paired t-test, and the difference between the three groups was analyzed using ANOVA (p < 0.05) and further assessed using least significant difference (LSD, p < 0.05).

4. Results

The results of the CTi analysis for the experimental group I (inquiry learning), experimental group-II (inquiry-creative), and control group (traditional learning) are presented in Table 5. It shows that all groups on the pre-test had a CTi score in the less critical criteria. After different treatments, the post-test results were better than the pre-test. The experimental group II outperformed the experimental I and control groups regarding CTi score. The experimental group I obtained better CTi scores than the control, but both were still in the low category. The average CTi post-test score for the experimental group II (inquiry-creative) was 3.19 with critical criteria, followed by the experimental group I (inquiry) with a CTi score of 1.87 (quite critical), and lastly the control group (traditional teaching) with a score of 1.37 (less critical). The findings shown in Table 5 confirm that CTi was the highest in experimental II (inquiry-creative) with an n-gain (an increase in score) of 0.70 (moderate criteria), followed by inquiry learning (n-gain = 0.17, low criteria), and traditional teaching (n-gain = 0.09, low criteria).
The average scores of critical thinking are summarized in Table 6. The average pre-test score of the experimental group I (N = 28) was 11.39 ± 1.81, falling into the less critical criteria (6.41 < CTs ≤ 12.80), and after intervention of inquiry learning, the scores increased to quite critical (in the post-test) with a CTs score of 14.96 ± 1.62 (quite critical, 12.80 < CTs ≤ 19.20). The highest improvement was found in the experimental group II (N = 29), in the pre-test to post-test. They increased from 10.41 ± 2.00 (less critical) to 25.55 ± 1.63 (critical). The achievement of CTs was found to be lowest in the control group, in both the pre-test and the post-test, which remained in the less critical category.
Table 6 details the results of CTs in the three study groups. The pre-test results were in the less critical area (criteria), while for the post-test area the performance of CTs was found to be varied. In the post-test, the experimental group II was the highest in terms of the critical area, followed by the experimental group I and the control group in the criteria of moderately critical and less critical, respectively.
The results of the normality and paired t-test are presented in Table 7 and Table 8, respectively. Differences in critical thinking skills for the three groups were tested statistically (preceded by the normality test). The three test groups showed normal distribution (meeting the requirements for parametric statistical tests). The results of the paired t-test indicated that there were differences in students’ critical thinking skills (pre- vs. post-test) in the three treatment groups (p < 0.05).
The difference between three groups on the critical thinking skills improvements (post-test parameters) was analyzed by ANOVA (Table 9). The ANOVA results showed that the students’ critical thinking skills were significantly different in the three sample groups (p < 0.05).
The LSD test was carried out to determine the location of the differences between the study sample groups (cross difference) (Table 10). The results of the analysis showed that the critical thinking skills of STEM students were significantly different in all groups (p < 0.05).
Table 10 reveals significant differences in critical thinking skills among three groups: inquiry learning, inquiry-creative learning, and traditional teaching. The LSD test results showed that the inquiry-creative group outperformed both the inquiry and traditional teaching groups significantly. Specifically, students in the inquiry-creative group showed substantially higher critical thinking skills than those in the inquiry group, with a mean difference of 10.59, and even more so compared to the traditional teaching group, with a mean difference of 14.59. Conversely, the inquiry group also showed superior critical thinking skills compared to the traditional teaching group, with a mean difference of 4.00. These results underscore the effectiveness of the inquiry-creative approach in enhancing critical thinking skills among prospective STEM teachers, significantly more than either inquiry or traditional methods.

5. Discussion

The overall findings indicate that the pre-test scores (CTi) in all treatment groups have less critical criteria. This is due to previous learning experience of all participants not working towards the development of critical thinking. This finding was similar to the one reported by an earlier work [59] which stated that routine pedagogical practices at the university level do not support improvement in students’ critical thinking performance. Similar results were found elsewhere [60] from an initial measurement of the critical thinking skills of engineering students, consistent with the finding in Table 5.
In-depth knowledge in STEM must be supported by the critical thinking of students. In the present research, the opportunity to train and improve critical thinking in STEM students is widely taken by intervening with an inquiry model, found to be the most effective way to train critical thinking. The CTi was proven to be the most effective method in inquiry-creative learning, followed by inquiry learning, with almost no increase in CTi (n-gain 0.09) for the traditional teaching method.
In the inquiry-creative group (Group II), each critical thinking indicator increased. Critical thinking in the aspect of analysis experienced a high increase, while critical thinking in the aspects of inference, evaluation, and decision-making increased in the moderate level criteria. This finding of increased critical thinking in each component was also consistent with earlier report [32]. It revealed an advantage in the analytical aspects of STEM students when exposed by the pedagogy of the scientific literacy process. Another report [26] revealed that the pedagogy of scientific creativity in inquiry tends to strengthen the analytical aspects of prospective teachers in addition to aspects of inference, evaluation, and decision making. On the other hand, a descriptive analysis of the CTi parameter showed a moderate increase in the score on inquiry learning, while the n-gains for all CTi variables were under the low criteria. This proves the claims of previous studies [61,62] that the evaluation and inference aspects of critical thinking are difficult to train with inquiry learning. However, when inquiry is compared to traditional or conventional teaching, the inquiry pedagogy is better. In the context of training critical thinking, inquiry is more effective than traditional teaching, as found in a previous study [63]. When comparing inquiry vs. traditional instruction, there are benefits and advantages of inquiry in optimizing learning outcomes [20,44].
There is little discussion among researchers about the drawbacks of inquiry, because it is hard to find any sources that say this model is ineffective for teaching critical thinking, and many studies have shown that inquiry can indeed develop and enhance students’ critical thinking skills [64,65,66]. Our claim is that inquiry learning alone is not enough to teach STEM students critical thinking skills, and that scientific creativity interventions or inquiry-creative models are better. We support our claim with the CTi parameters and the critical thinking performance of individual STEM students (CTs) (see Table 6). The CTs of STEM students improved from the pre-test to the post-test in all treatment groups except for the traditional teaching group, which showed no change. The inquiry-creative group had the highest post-test CTs, reaching critical criteria, while the inquiry learning group had moderate CTs, and the traditional teaching group had low CTs. The statistical analysis showed significant differences in CT skills among the three sample groups (see Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10). The best performance of the inquiry-creative model suggests that combining creativity with inquiry methods creates a more dynamic and engaging learning environment that promotes deeper cognitive processing and innovation, which are key for problem-solving in STEM fields. The findings agree with the educational theories that recommend pedagogies that are not only active but also encourage creative expression and critical analysis, leading to a more holistic development of learners’ abilities.
Previous researchers [26] have initiated inquiry-creative models, but have not yet tested them on a large scale. Inquiry learning based on the inquiry teaching step was popularized by Arends [43], while traditional teaching is identified with expository instruction [67]. Inquiry learning boosts STEM students’ critical thinking skills more than traditional teaching. The assessment of the inquiry learning phase revealed some reasons. First, a problem or discrepant event in the orientation phase can make students think deeply about the phenomena. Discrepant events in the teaching of science and mathematics are widely applied as a strategy to activate thinking [68]. The discrepant event is the first step in the students’ conceptual change process, usually interpretations of the mind will arise with this stimulus [69]. The technical step for implementing discrepant events is by presenting anomalous information, its integration in inquiry learning has been explored and reported to be able to improve students’ critical thinking skills [25]. Second, formulating hypotheses and testing them through an experimental process is a knowledge construction process and has an impact on critical thinking. It does look simple, students hypothesize then experiment to test it, but this is a good rule for building scientific reasoning [70]. Third, when students are able to formulate explanations based on learning experiences through experiments, they can directly train them in critical thinking. Explanation skills are an indication of a learner’s critical thinking [71]. Fourth, closing the inquiry activity is followed by reflection. The reflection process is an arrangement of students’ cognitive processes on the learning experiences they have obtained. It has a positive impact on the progress of students’ critical thinking [72]. From the four reasons supporting the improvement in STEM students’ critical thinking, none of them were found in traditional teaching. Therefore, it is natural that the inquiry model is better in training STEM students’ critical thinking compared to the expository.
The contrast in performance between the inquiry and traditional teaching groups highlights an important trend in educational practices. Traditional methods, often characterized by rote memorization and passive learning, are not sufficient in the modern educational landscape where critical thinking and problem-solving abilities are increasingly valued. This shift suggests a pressing need to reevaluate and redesign educational strategies within STEM education to incorporate methods that promote active learning and critical engagement with content. The inquiry-creative model, with its dual emphasis on exploration and creative problem-solving, provides a compelling framework for such a redesign. These findings should encourage educators, curriculum developers, and policy makers to consider more integrative and innovative approaches to teaching that prepare students more effectively for the challenges of contemporary and future scientific and technological landscapes.

6. Conclusions

Overall results demonstrated that the inquiry-creative learning model had the most substantial impact on enhancing these skills, surpassing both the inquiry and traditional teaching models. This finding corroborates the previous research [26,32] which suggest that integrating creative elements into inquiry-based learning not only engages students more deeply but also facilitates more robust cognitive processing essential for critical thinking. While inquiry learning led to improvements in critical thinking, the addition of creative components appeared to amplify these effects significantly, suggesting that creativity acts synergistically with inquiry-based methods to enhance critical thinking outcomes. In contrast, the traditional teaching approach, which often relies more on rote memorization and less on active engagement, was found to be the least effective in fostering critical thinking skills.
The implications of these findings are significant for educational policy and practice in STEM education. They align with the perspectives of scholars [2,31], who argue that critical thinking should occupy a central role in educational reform efforts, particularly in STEM fields where the ability to innovate and solve complex problems is highly valued. This study contributes to the argument for a shift towards educational models that not only emphasize knowledge acquisition but also prioritize the development of critical thinking. Further research is encouraged to explore the long-term effects of these teaching approaches and to expand the study to various educational contexts to broaden the applicability and relevance of the findings. Overall, the results advocate for a re-evaluation of current teaching practices in STEM education, highlighting the superiority of the inquiry-creative model in cultivating the critical thinking skills that are crucial for future educators and innovators in the STEM fields.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.P.; methodology, S.P. and M.R.B.; formal analysis, N.N.S.P.V. and M.A.; data curation, M.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.P.; writing—review and editing, M.R.B.; project administration, N.N.S.P.V. and M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) from Research Institutions and Community Service of UNDIKMA in August 2023 (approval code: 16082023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This study is a collaborative study between higher educations, independently funded by the research teams. Finally, the researcher would like to thank those who have contributed and supported the accomplishment of this study, especially the Mandalika University of Education which has given permission for the study, and all respondents involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Montgomery, C.; Fernández-Cárdenas, J.M. Teaching STEM Education through Dialogue and Transformative Learning: Global Significance and Local Interactions in Mexico and the UK. J. Educ. Teach. 2018, 44, 2–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Smith, K.; Maynard, N.; Berry, A.; Stephenson, T.; Spiteri, T.; Corrigan, D.; Mansfield, J.; Ellerton, P.; Smith, T. Principles of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in STEM Education: Using Expert Wisdom and Research to Frame Educational Practice. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Onion, A.J. What Use Is Maths to Me? A Report on the Outcomes from Student Focus Groups. Teach. Math. Its Appl. 2004, 23, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abina, A.; Temeljotov Salaj, A.; Cestnik, B.; Karalič, A.; Ogrinc, M.; Kovačič Lukman, R.; Zidanšek, A. Challenging 21st-Century Competencies for STEM Students: Companies’ Vision in Slovenia and Norway in the Light of Global Initiatives for Competencies Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mullis, I.V.S.; Martin, M.O.; Foy, P.; Kelly, D.L.; Fishbein, B. TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science; TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College: Chestnut Hill, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  6. Prastyo, H. Kemampuan Matematika Siswa Indonesia Berdasarkan TIMSS. J. Padegogik 2020, 3, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hwang, J.; Runnalls, C.; Bhansali, S.; Navaandamba, K.; Choi, K.M. “Can I Do Well in Mathematics Reasoning?” Comparing US and Finnish Students’ Attitude and Reasoning via TIMSS 2011. Educ. Res. Eval. 2017, 23, 328–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tan, L.S.; Koh, E.; Lee, S.S.; Ponnusamy, L.D.; Tan, K.C.K. The Complexities in Fostering Critical Thinking through School-Based Curriculum Innovation: Research Evidence from Singapore. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 2017, 37, 517–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dewey, J. How We Think; D.C. Heath & Co.: Boston, MA, USA, 1910. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ennis, R. Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision. Topoi 2018, 37, 165–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chan, M.-N.; Nagatomo, D. Study of STEM for Sustainability in Design Education: Framework for Student Learning and Outcomes with Design for a Disaster Project. Sustainability 2022, 14, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kanwal, A.; Butt, I.H. Impact of Critical Thinking Skills on Prospective Teachers’ Academic Achievement. Rev. Appl. Manag. Soc. Sci. 2021, 4, 773–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pendlington, S. Mathematics Is Not Easy: The Importance of Teaching Children to Struggle. Res. Math. Educ. 2005, 7, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Susetyarini, E.; Nurohman, E.; Husamah, H. Analysis of Students’ Collaborative, Communication, Critical Thinking, and Creative Abilities through Problem-Based Learning. J. Penelit. Dan Pengkaj. Ilmu Pendidik. E-Saintika 2022, 6, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mater, N.R.; Haj Hussein, M.J.; Salha, S.H.; Draidi, F.R.; Shaqour, A.Z.; Qatanani, N.; Affouneh, S. The Effect of the Integration of STEM on Critical Thinking and Technology Acceptance Model. Educ. Stud. 2022, 48, 642–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Prayogi, S.; Yuanita, L.; Wasis. Critical Inquiry Based Learning: A Model of Learning to Promote Critical Thinking among Prospective Teachers of Physic. J. Turk. Sci. Educ. 2018, 15, 43–56. [Google Scholar]
  17. Crippen, K.J.; Archambault, L. Scaffolded Inquiry-Based Instruction with Technology: A Signature Pedagogy for STEM Education. Comput. Sch. 2012, 29, 157–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Newton, X.A.; Tonelli, E.P. Building Undergraduate STEM Majors’ Capacity for Delivering Inquiry-Based Mathematics and Science Lessons: An Exploratory Evaluation Study. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2020, 64, 100833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Keselman, A. Supporting Inquiry Learning by Promoting Normative Understanding of Multivariable Causality. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2003, 40, 898–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Khalaf, B.K. Traditional and Inquiry-Based Learning Pedagogy: A Systematic Critical Review. Int. J. Instr. 2018, 11, 545–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kidman, G.; Casinader, N. Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning across Disciplines Comparative Theory and Practice in Schools; Palgrave Pivot: London, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-1-137-53463-7. [Google Scholar]
  22. Pedaste, M.; Mäeots, M.; Siiman, L.A.; de Jong, T.; van Riesen, S.A.N.; Kamp, E.T.; Manoli, C.C.; Zacharia, Z.C.; Tsourlidaki, E. Phases of Inquiry-Based Learning: Definitions and the Inquiry Cycle. Educ. Res. Rev. 2015, 14, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mutmainah, M.; Taruh, E.; Abbas, N.; Umar, M.K. The Influence of Blended Learning-Based Guided Inquiry Learning Model and Self Efficacy on Students’ Scientific Literacy. Eur. J. Educ. Stud. 2019, 6, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Uiterwijk-Luijk, L.; Krüger, M.; Zijlstra, B.; Volman, M. Teachers’ Role in Stimulating Students’ Inquiry Habit of Mind in Primary Schools. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2019, 86, 102894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Prayogi, S.; Verawati, N.N.S.P. The Effect of Conflict Cognitive Strategy in Inquiry-Based Learning on Preservice Teachers’ Critical Thinking Ability. J. Educ. Cult. Psychol. Stud. ECPS J. 2020, 8, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wahyudi, P.; Verawati, N.N.S.; Ayub, S.; Prayogi, S. Development of Inquiry-Creative-Process Learning Model to Promote Critical Thinking Ability of Physics Prospective Teachers. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 1108, 012005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Iskandar; Sastradika, D.; Jumadi; Pujianto; Defrianti, D. Development of Creative Thinking Skills through STEM-Based Instruction in Senior High School Student. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1567, 042043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wartono, W.; Hudha, M.N.; Batlolona, J.R. How Are The Physics Critical Thinking Skills of The Students Taught by Using Inquiry-Discovery Through Empirical and Theorethical Overview? EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2018, 14, 691–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ekayanti, B.H.; Prayogi, S.; Gummah, S. Efforts to Drill the Critical Thinking Skills on Momentum and Impulse Phenomena Using Discovery Learning Model. Int. J. Essent. Competencies Educ. 2022, 1, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zoller, U.; Nahum, T.L. From Teaching to KNOW to Learning to THINK in Science Education. In Second International Handbook of Science Education; Fraser, B.J., Tobin, K., McRobbie, C.J., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 209–229. ISBN 978-1-4020-9040-0. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jang, H. Identifying 21st Century STEM Competencies Using Workplace Data. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2016, 25, 284–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bilad, M.R.; Doyan, A.; Susilawati, S. Analyzing STEM Students’ Critical Thinking Performance: Literacy Study on the Polymer Film Fabrication Process Irradiated with Gamma Rays. Int. J. Essent. Competencies Educ. 2022, 1, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ennis, R.H. A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities. In Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice; Series of Books in Psychology; W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1987; pp. 9–26. ISBN 978-0-7167-1789-8. [Google Scholar]
  34. Facione, P.A. Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts; Measured Reasons LCC: Hermosa Beach, CA, USA, 2020; ISBN 978-1-891557-07-1. [Google Scholar]
  35. Fishman, E.J.; Borko, H.; Osborne, J.; Gomez, F.; Rafanelli, S.; Reigh, E.; Tseng, A.; Million, S.; Berson, E. A Practice-Based Professional Development Program to Support Scientific Argumentation From Evidence in the Elementary Classroom. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2017, 28, 222–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. García-Carmona, A.; Acevedo-Díaz, J.A. The Nature of Scientific Practice and Science Education: Rationale of a Set of Essential Pedagogical Principles. Sci. Educ. 2018, 27, 435–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kuhn, D.; Arvidsson, T.S.; Lesperance, R.; Corprew, R. Can Engaging in Science Practices Promote Deep Understanding of Them?: SCIENCE PRACTICES. Sci. Educ. 2017, 101, 232–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dolapcioglu, S.; Doğanay, A. Development of Critical Thinking in Mathematics Classes via Authentic Learning: An Action Research. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 53, 1363–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ivleva, N.V. Teaching Critical Thinking to Engineering Students through Reading Profession-Oriented Texts. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016, 155, 012022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Douglas, E.P. Defining and Measuring Critical Thinking in Engineering. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 56, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fitriani, H.; Samsuri, T.; Rachmadiarti, F.; Raharjo, R.; Mantlana, C.D. Development of Evaluative-Process Learning Tools Integrated with Conceptual-Problem-Based Learning Models: Study of Its Validity and Effectiveness to Train Critical Thinking. Int. J. Essent. Competencies Educ. 2022, 1, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yang, P. Interpreting Inquiry Learning in Social Studies: Singapore Secondary School Teachers’ Understandings of “Issue Investigation”—A Preliminary Study. Pedagog. Int. J. 2023, 18, 26–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Arends, R. Learning to Teach; Connect, Learn, Succeed, 9th ed.; McGraw-Hill: Dubuque, Iowa, 2012; ISBN 978-0-07-802432-0. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lazonder, A.W.; Harmsen, R. Meta-Analysis of Inquiry-Based Learning: Effects of Guidance. Rev. Educ. Res. 2016, 86, 681–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gibson, H.L.; Chase, C. Longitudinal Impact of an Inquiry-Based Science Program on Middle School Students’ Attitudes toward Science. Sci. Educ. 2002, 86, 693–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Van Hook, S.J.; Huziak-Clark, T.L. Lift, Squeeze, Stretch, and Twist: Research-Based Inquiry Physics Experiences (RIPE) of Energy for Kindergartners. J. Elem. Sci. Educ. 2008, 20, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gormally, C.; Brickman, P.; Hallar, B.; Armstrong, N. Effects of Inquiry-Based Learning on Students’ Science Literacy Skills and Confidence. Int. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 2009, 3, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Voet, M.; De Wever, B. Effects of Immersion in Inquiry-Based Learning on Student Teachers’ Educational Beliefs. Instr. Sci. 2018, 46, 383–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Santau, A.O.; Ritter, J.K. What to Teach and How to Teach It: Elementary Teachers’ Views on Teaching Inquiry-Based, Interdisciplinary Science and Social Studies in Urban Settings. New Educ. 2013, 9, 255–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Talbot, D.; Hayes, D. Teachers’ Experiences of Re-Engaging Disenfranchised Young People in Learning through Inquiry-Based Pedagogies: A Phenomenographic Study. Int. J. Child Youth Fam. Stud. 2016, 7, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Akpur, U. Critical, Reflective, Creative Thinking and Their Reflections on Academic Achievement. Think. Skills Creat. 2020, 37, 100683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Prahani, B.K.; Suprapto, N.; Rachmadiarti, F.; Sholahuddin, A.; Mahtari, S.; Suyidno; Siswanto, J. Online Scientific Creativity Learning (OSCL) in Science Education to Improve Students’ Scientific Creativity in COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Turk. Sci. Educ. 2021, 18, 14. [Google Scholar]
  53. Zainuddin, Z.; Suyidno, S.; Dewantara, D.; Mahtari, S.; Nur, M.; Yuanita, L.; Sunarti, T. The Correlation of Scientific Knowledge-Science Process Skills and Scientific Creativity in Creative Responsibility Based Learning. Int. J. Instr. 2020, 13, 307–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Suyidno, M.; Dewantara, D.; Nur, M.; Yuanita, L. Maximizing Students’ Scientific Process Skill within Creative Product Design: Creative Responsibility Based Learning. In Proceedings of the 5th SEA-DR (South East Asia Development Research) International Conference 2017 (SEADRIC 2017), Banjarmasin, Indonesia, 3–4 May 2017. [Google Scholar]
  55. Suyidno, S.; Susilowati, E.; Arifuddin, M.; Misbah, M.; Sunarti, T.; Dwikoranto, D. Increasing Students’ Responsibility and Scientific Creativity through Creative Responsibility Based Learning. J. Penelit. Fis. Apl. JPFA 2019, 9, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Üret, A.; Ceylan, R. Exploring the Effectiveness of STEM Education on the Creativity of 5-Year-Old Kindergarten Children. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 2021, 29, 842–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ennis, R.H.; Weir, E. The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test; Midwest Publication: Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 1985; ISBN 0-89455-290-2. [Google Scholar]
  58. Hake, R.R. Interactive-Engagement versus Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. Am. J. Phys. 1998, 66, 64–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fikriyati, A.; Agustini, R.; Suyatno, S. Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Critical Thinking Dispositions and Critical Thinking Skills. In Proceedings of the Eighth Southeast Asia Design Research (SEA-DR) & the Second Science, Technology, Education, Arts, Culture, and Humanity (STEACH) International Conference (SEADR-STEACH 2021), Surabaya, Indonesia, 19 October 2021. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hsu, Y.-C. An Action Research in Critical Thinking Concept Designed Curriculum Based on Collaborative Learning for Engineering Ethics Course. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Miri, B.; David, B.-C.; Uri, Z. Purposely Teaching for the Promotion of Higher-Order Thinking Skills: A Case of Critical Thinking. Res. Sci. Educ. 2007, 37, 353–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Qing, Z.; Jing, G.; Yan, W. Promoting Preservice Teachers’ Critical Thinking Skills by Inquiry-Based Chemical Experiment. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 2, 4597–4603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Abu Khurma, O.; El Zein, F. Inquiry Skills Teaching and Its Relationship with UAE Secondary School Students’ Critical Thinking: Systematic Review of Science Teachers’ Perspectives. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2024, 20, em2397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Ananda, Y.Y.T.; Nazriati, N.; Dasna, I.W. Inquiry Learning with a STEM Approach to Increase Critical Thinking Skills in Terms of Students’ Initial Abilities. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (Icomse) 2020: Innovative Research in Science and Mathematics Education in the Disruptive Era, Malang, Indonesia, 25–26 August 2020; p. 020039. [Google Scholar]
  65. Octafianellis, D.F.; Sudarmin, S.; Wijayanti, N.; Panca, H. Analysis of Student’s Critical Thinking Skills and Creativity after Problem-Based Learning with STEM Integration. J. Sci. Educ. Res. 2021, 5, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pursitasari, I.D.; Suhardi, E.; Putra, A.P.; Rachman, I. Enhancement of Student’s Critical Thinking Skill through Science Context-Based Inquiry Learning. J. Pendidik. IPA Indones. 2020, 9, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Suweta, I.M. Model Pembelajaran Ekspository Sebagai Upaya Untuk Meningkatkan Prestasi Belajar Kepariwisataan. J. Educ. Action Res. 2020, 4, 467–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Longfield, J. Discrepant Teaching Events: Using an Inquiry Stance to Address Students’ Misconceptions. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 2009, 21, 266–271. [Google Scholar]
  69. Anggoro, S.; Widodo, A.; Suhandi, A.; Treagust, D.F. Using a Discrepant Event to Facilitate Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Conceptual Change about Force and Motion. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2019, 15, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Bicak, B.E.; Borchert, C.E.; Höner, K. Measuring and Fostering Preservice Chemistry Teachers’ Scientific Reasoning Competency. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Indrašienė, V.; Jegelevičienė, V.; Merfeldaitė, O.; Penkauskienė, D.; Pivorienė, J.; Railienė, A.; Sadauskas, J.; Valavičienė, N. The Value of Critical Thinking in Higher Education and the Labour Market: The Voice of Stakeholders. Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lithoxoidou, A.; Georgiadou, T. Critical Thinking in Teacher Education: Course Design and Teaching Practicum. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 14 00593 g001
Figure 1. Scores of Indonesia’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study in the range of 1999–2015.
Figure 1. Scores of Indonesia’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study in the range of 1999–2015.
Education 14 00593 g001
Table 1. Demographics of the samples/participants.
Table 1. Demographics of the samples/participants.
NoCharacteristicsExperimental Group I, N = 28Experimental Group II, N = 29Control Group, N = 26
Total%Total%Total%
1.Gender
Male1657.01552.01350.0
Female1243.01448.01350.0
2.Age (Year)
<18414.326.9311.5
18–192278.62482.82284.6
>1927.1310.313.8
Table 2. Rubric for scoring each test item of critical thinking.
Table 2. Rubric for scoring each test item of critical thinking.
ScoreDescription
+4The answer was correct, and a strong argument supported each critical thinking skill indicator with the laws, concepts, and facts.
+3The answer was correct, and each critical thinking skill indicator was sufficiently supported by arguments based on the laws, concepts, and facts.
+2The answer was correct, but each critical thinking skill indicator was not supported by strong arguments based on the laws, concepts, and facts.
+1The answer was incorrect with incorrect arguments, not supported by laws, concepts, and facts.
0No answer was provided.
Table 3. The results of the test instrument validity using the Pearson correlation (N = 41).
Table 3. The results of the test instrument validity using the Pearson correlation (N = 41).
Item1 (Ana)2 (Inf)3 (Eva)4 (Dec)5 (Ana)6 (Inf)7 (Eva)8 (Dec)
1Pearson Corr.
Sig. (2-tailed)
2Pearson Corr.0.070
Sig. (2-tailed)0.663
3Pearson Corr.0.2190.367 *
Sig. (2-tailed)0.1690.018
4Pearson Corr.0.512 **0.1690.317 *
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0010.2910.044
5Pearson Corr.−0.0240.227−0.024−0.121
Sig. (2-tailed)0.8830.1530.8830.449
6Pearson Corr.0.488 **0.2780.698 **0.384 *−0.069
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0010.0790.0000.0130.668
7Pearson Corr.0.1690.2970.268−0.0290.0290.278
Sig. (2-tailed)0.2910.0600.0900.8570.8570.079
8Pearson Corr.0.516 **−0.111−0.1690.222−0.0260.2130.186
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0010.4880.2900.1630.8710.1820.243
Total ScorePearson Corr.0.693 **0.532 **0.418 **0.518 **0.333 *0.688 **0.430 **0.373 *
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0000.0000.0070.0010.0340.0000.0050.016
AnnotationValidValidValidValidValidValidValidValid
Note: (**), correlation is significant at the 0.01 level; (*), correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 4. Category and interval scores for CTi and CTs based on [16,29,32].
Table 4. Category and interval scores for CTi and CTs based on [16,29,32].
NoCategoryScore Interval
CTiCTs
1Very criticalCTi > 3.21CTs > 25.60
2Critical2.40 < CTi ≤ 3.2119.20 < CTs ≤ 25.60
3Quite critical1.60 < CTi ≤ 2.4012.80 < CTs ≤ 19.20
4Less critical0.80 < CTi ≤ 1.606.41 < CTs ≤ 12.80
5Not criticalCTi ≤ 0.80CTs ≤ 6.41
Table 5. The results of CTi measurements in the experimental I, experimental II, and control groups.
Table 5. The results of CTi measurements in the experimental I, experimental II, and control groups.
GroupsNAssessmentCritical Thinking Skill IndicatorAverage
AnalysisInferencesEvaluationDec.-Making
Experimental I28Pre-test1.461.361.431.451.42
Post-test1.931.931.711.911.87
n-gain0.180.220.110.180.17
(Low)(Low)(Low)(Low)(Low)
Experimental II29Pre-test1.221.171.341.471.30
Post-test3.333.143.123.193.19
n-gain0.760.700.670.680.70
(High)(Moderate)(Moderate)(Moderate)(Moderate)
Control26Pre-test1.121.061.131.151.12
Post-test1.351.441.371.331.37
n-gain0.080.130.080.060.09
(Low)(Low)(Low)(Low)(Low)
Table 6. The results of CTs measurements in the experimental I, experimental II, and control groups.
Table 6. The results of CTs measurements in the experimental I, experimental II, and control groups.
GroupsCTs Mean Score and CriteriaN-Gain, Criteria
Pre-Test (±SD), CriteriaPost-Test (±SD), Criteria
Experimental I11.39 ± 1.8114.96 ± 1.620.17
(Less critical)(Quite critical)(Low)
Experimental II10.41 ± 2.0025.55 ± 1.630.70
(Less critical)(Critical)(Moderate)
Control8.92 ± 1.9510.96 ± 1.280.09
(Less critical)(Less critical)(Low)
Table 7. The results of the normality test in the experimental I (inquiry), experimental II (inquiry-creative), and control (traditional teaching) groups, p > 0.05.
Table 7. The results of the normality test in the experimental I (inquiry), experimental II (inquiry-creative), and control (traditional teaching) groups, p > 0.05.
GroupsTestMeanStd. Devp.Normality
Experimental IPre-test11.39±1.760.066Normal distribution
Post-test14.96
Experimental II Pre-test10.41±1.990.200Normal distribution
Post-test25.55
ControlPre-test8.92±1.770.200Normal distribution
Post-test10.96
Table 8. Paired t-test results for the experimental I (inquiry), experimental II (inquiry-creative), and control (traditional teaching) groups, p < 0.05.
Table 8. Paired t-test results for the experimental I (inquiry), experimental II (inquiry-creative), and control (traditional teaching) groups, p < 0.05.
GroupMeanStd. Devdftp.
Experimental IPre-test11.39±1.8127−8.930.000
Post-test14.96±1.62
Experimental IIPre-test10.41±2.0128−33.740.000
Post-test25.55±1.64
ControlPre-test8.92±1.9625−5.710.000
Post-test10.96±1.28
Table 9. The results of ANOVA test in the three sample groups, p < 0.05.
Table 9. The results of ANOVA test in the three sample groups, p < 0.05.
Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFp.
Between Groups3170.9721585.49677.930.000
Within Groups187.09802.34
Total3358.0782
Table 10. The results of LSD analysis in the three sample groups, p < 0.05.
Table 10. The results of LSD analysis in the three sample groups, p < 0.05.
(I) Group(J) GroupMean Diff. (I-J)Std. ErrorSig.95% Conf. Interval
Lower B.Upper B.
Inquiry Inquiry-creative−10.59 *0.410.000−11.39−9.78
Traditional teaching4.00 *0.420.0003.174.83
Inquiry-creativeInquiry10.59 *0.410.0009.7811.39
Traditional teaching14.59 *0.410.00013.7715.41
Traditional teachingInquiry-creative−14.59 *0.410.000−15.41−13.77
Inquiry−4.00 *0.420.000−4.83−3.17
Note: (*) The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Prayogi, S.; Bilad, M.R.; Verawati, N.N.S.P.; Asy’ari, M. Inquiry vs. Inquiry-Creative: Emphasizing Critical Thinking Skills of Prospective STEM Teachers in the Context of STEM Learning in Indonesia. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 593. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060593

AMA Style

Prayogi S, Bilad MR, Verawati NNSP, Asy’ari M. Inquiry vs. Inquiry-Creative: Emphasizing Critical Thinking Skills of Prospective STEM Teachers in the Context of STEM Learning in Indonesia. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(6):593. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060593

Chicago/Turabian Style

Prayogi, Saiful, Muhammad Roil Bilad, Ni Nyoman Sri Putu Verawati, and Muhammad Asy’ari. 2024. "Inquiry vs. Inquiry-Creative: Emphasizing Critical Thinking Skills of Prospective STEM Teachers in the Context of STEM Learning in Indonesia" Education Sciences 14, no. 6: 593. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060593

APA Style

Prayogi, S., Bilad, M. R., Verawati, N. N. S. P., & Asy’ari, M. (2024). Inquiry vs. Inquiry-Creative: Emphasizing Critical Thinking Skills of Prospective STEM Teachers in the Context of STEM Learning in Indonesia. Education Sciences, 14(6), 593. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060593

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop