Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills in Plant Growth and Development at Cinta Rakyat 3 Private Junior High School, Pematangsiantar
DOI:
10.29303/jipp.v11i4.4762Published:
2026-11-07Downloads
Abstract
Critical thinking and problem-solving skills are essential for understanding biological processes and developing scientific reasoning. This study aimed to analyze these skills among ninth-grade students studying plant growth and development at Cinta Rakyat 3 Private Junior High School, Pematangsiantar, Indonesia. A descriptive cross-sectional design was employed involving 96 students from three classes, with 32 students per class. Data were collected using essay-based assessments and analyzed through descriptive statistics and indicator-level comparisons. Of the 20 initial assessment items, 10 were classified as valid, while the initial instrument demonstrated a Cronbach's alpha of 0.830. Mean critical thinking scores were 86.67, 76.67, and 75.05 for classes IX-A, IX-B, and IX-C, respectively. Corresponding problem-solving scores were 87.19, 74.45, and 82.81. Indicator-level analysis revealed variations in critical thinking performance across classes. Problem comprehension consistently achieved the highest scores, whereas planning and implementing solutions showed relatively lower performance. These findings highlight differences in students' cognitive skills and the importance of targeted instructional support. Further assessment is needed to strengthen instrument reliability and evaluate instructional effectiveness.
Keywords:
critical thinking, junior high school, plant growth and development, problem-solving skills, science education.References
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063
Artino, A. R., Jr., La Rochelle, J. S., Dezee, K. J., & Gehlbach, H. (2014). Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE Guide No. 87. Medical Teacher, 36(6), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.889814
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cook, D. A., & Beckman, T. J. (2006). Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: Theory and application. The American Journal of Medicine, 119(2), 166.e7–166.e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.036
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7
Downing, S. M. (2003). Validity: On the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Medical Education, 37(9), 830–837. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Erdem, C. (2024). A comparative meta-analysis of the effects of problem-based learning model on K-12 students’ cognitive outputs. Educational Studies, 50(6), 1498–1519. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2022.2103650
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Hu, X., & Bi, H. (2025). Exploring and validating the componential model of students’ scientific critical thinking in science education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 55, 101695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101695
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
Levin, K. A. (2006). Study design III: Cross-sectional studies. Evidence-Based Dentistry, 7, 24–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400375
Marmaroti, P., & Galanopoulou, D. (2006). Pupils’ understanding of photosynthesis: A questionnaire for the simultaneous assessment of all aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500277805
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031
Messig, D., & Groß, J. (2018). Understanding plant nutrition—The genesis of students’ conceptions and the implications for teaching photosynthesis. Education Sciences, 8(3), 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030132
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
Özay, E., & Öztaş, H. (2003). Secondary students’ interpretations of photosynthesis and plant nutrition. Journal of Biological Education, 37(2), 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2003.9655853
Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002
Parker, J. M., Anderson, C. W., Heidemann, M., Merrill, J., Merritt, B., Richmond, G., & Urban-Lurain, M. (2012). Exploring undergraduates’ understanding of photosynthesis using diagnostic question clusters. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0054
Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
Rattanachaithada, R., Kwangmuang, P., Vongtathum, P., Gamlunglert, R., & Srikoon, S. (2025). A confirmatory factor analysis of scientific critical thinking in secondary school. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2467508. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2467508
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8
Setia, M. S. (2016). Methodology series module 3: Cross-sectional studies. Indian Journal of Dermatology, 61(3), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.182410
Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach's alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
Svandova, K. (2014). Secondary school students’ misconceptions about photosynthesis and plant respiration: Preliminary results. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1018a
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of M Abrami et al. (2015)
Tiruneh, D. T., De Cock, M., & Elen, J. (2018). Designing learning environments for critical thinking: Examining effective instructional approaches. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 1065–1089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9829-z
Tiruneh, D. T., Weldeslassie, A. G., Kassa, A., Tefera, Z., De Cock, M., & Elen, J. (2016). Systematic design of a learning environment for domain-specific and domain-general critical thinking skills. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64, 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9417-2
Wind, S. A., & Gale, J. D. (2015). Diagnostic opportunities using Rasch measurement in the context of a misconceptions-based physical science assessment. Science Education, 99(4), 721–741. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21172
Wynn, A. N., Pan, I. L., Rueschhoff, E. E., Herman, M. A. B., & Archer, E. K. (2017). Student misconceptions about plants—A first step in building a teaching resource. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1253
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Christin Ruth D. Sipahutar, Winarto Silaban, Gunaria Siagian
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
