The impact of brainstorming method on

students’ questioning and inductive thinking

skills in static fluid
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2320, 020035 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0037652
Published Online: 02 March 2021

D. S. Ayunda, A. Halim, I. Suhrawardi, et al.

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Impact of guided inquiry and problem based learning models on science process skills
AIP Conference Proceedings 2320, 020004 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0037654

The impact of the problem-based instruction model on the students’ problem solving ability
AIP Conference Proceedings 2330, 070017 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0043124

The effectiveness of project-based learning to increase science process skills in static fluids
topic
AIP Conference Proceedings 2320, 020037 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0037628

AIP Conference Proceedings 2320, 020035 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0037652 2320, 020035

© 2020 Author(s).
 The Impact of Brainstorming Method on Students’
Questioning and Inductive Thinking Skills in Static Fluid
D. S. Ayunda1,a), A. Halim2,b), I. Suhrawardi3,c), A. R. Murniati4,d), and Irwandi3,5,e)
1
Department of Science Education, Graduate School, Universitas Syiah Kuala,
Banda Aceh, Indonesia 23111
2
Department of Physics Education, Training Teacher and Education Faculty,
Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 23111
3
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science and Mathematics, Universitas Syiah Kuala,
Banda Aceh, Indonesia 23111
4
Department of Education Management, Graduate School, Universitas Syiah Kuala,
Banda Aceh, Indonesia 23111
5
The Centre of STEM Study, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh,
Indonesia 23111
a)
desy.sary@mhs.unsyiah.ac.id
b)
Corresponding author: abdul.halim@unsyiah.ac.id
c)
suhra.ilyas@unsyiah.ac.id
d)
murniati@unsyiah.ac.id
e)
irwandi@unsyiah.ac.id

Abstract. The present study aims at investigating the impact of brainstorming method on the students’ questioning and
inductive thinking skills as well as their learning outcomes. The quantitative approach, quasi-experimental method, and
Pretest-Posttest Groups Design were used in this study. A total of 2 classes were randomly selected from 4 classes, each of
which was employed as the experimental group (28 students) and control group (26 students). For data collection, the test
was utilized to obtain the learning outcome while the non-test to obtain the increased questioning and inductive thinking
skills. The descriptive statistics and N-Gain analysis were used as data analysis techniques. The results indicate a significant
increase in the learning outcomes, significant differences in the questions, and inductive thinking skills after the instruction
using a brainstorming method had been provided. An increase occurs in the questioning and inductive thinking skills
between the first and third meetings. Based on the three results obtained, it is concluded that the use of brainstorming
method in learning the Static Fluid material can extremely improve the students’ learning outcomes, and inductive thinking
and questioning skills. It is highly recommended that teachers use the brainstorming method as an alternative method in
order to enhance students’ learning outcomes, questioning, and inductive thinking.

INTRODUCTION
Physics is a universal science that underlies the development of modern technology and plays an important role in
a wide range of disciplines and advances in human thought. Nowadays, physics learning has only been limited to
providing declarative knowledge in using problem-solving formulas, as previously exemplified [1]. Most of the
students state that what makes physics are difficult to comprehend is its abstract concepts, complicated formulas, and
unclear examples [2]. In Static Fluid subject matter, specifically, so far, the material has covered the things which are
familiar to the learners since many daily events can be related to the static fluid phenomenon. Still, the tendency has
been that they are not able to explain the causality related to the phenomenon alone [3]. This is compounded by the
students’ attitude that is found to be lazy to learn, not to have a curiosity about the topic taught by the teacher as well

The 9th National Physics Seminar 2020

AIP Conf. Proc. 2320, 020035-1–020035-6; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0037652
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-4064-7/$30.00

020035-1
as not to be driven to ask some topic-related questions during the class, resulting in that some students do not
comprehend the essence of the subject matter [4].
The 2015 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) research results show that Indonesian
students have not represented a satisfactory quality of education yet. The scientific literacy aspect ranks 44 of 49
countries, with a score of 397, which is still below the international average score of 500 [5]. The results of
observations at Madrasah Aliyah in Aceh Besar reveal that the students’ midterm scores are low, with an average of
6.61 for Physics of Grade X, even semester, with a minimum completeness criteria (KKM) of 75. These data indicate
that the level of Physics subject mastery among the students of Madrasah Aliyah is still low or that most of them still
embrace a biased perspective on Physics, which then leads to their lack of interest and motivation in learning it.
In terms of the process, an instruction is said to be successful and qualified when all or at least 65% of students
are actively involved, either physically, mentally, or socially during the class, as well as strong exhibit passion, great
enthusiasm for learning, able to solve the problem [34,35] and self-confidence [6]. Meanwhile, according to Hamalik,
effective teaching is one that provides self-learning opportunities or activities, where students learn while doing their
projects because they could gain knowledge, understanding, and other aspects of behavior through working, as well
as develop meaningful skills for their life in society [7].
The end of instruction is not merely about requiring students to master certain Physics material; it is how they
draw conclusions as if they themselves are making theories so that the students’ memories become stronger and
sharper. When the existence of Physics becomes closer to the students’ life, the learning will become interesting and
more desirable to them [8].
Physics is a process that brings us to general principles describing how the physical world behaves [9]. To develop
these skills, in each subject matter to be taught, it is necessary that students be provided with some facts and problems
that will later be solved by themselves and be drawn into conclusions through theirs inductive thinking [10].
The learning process inseparable from discussion or question-and-answer activities, both between teachers and
students and students and students. Asking questions is an effective stimulus for encouraging thinking skills [11].
During the instruction, every question, either in the form of interrogative speech or imperative, which requires some
student responses, is necessary to be performed so that the students gain more knowledge and improve their thinking
skills [12]. The activity of asking questions in the field of education has a crucial role in enhancing learning
effectiveness [12] as this supports the achievement of student’s comprehension at a higher level [13,36].
All this time, the students have rarely asked questions to the teacher during the learning process. Besides, when
questions are asked to the students, almost all of them dare not raise their hands to try to answer. Similarly, when
given the opportunity to ask questions, the students rarely take advantage of the moment. They seem afraid (have no
gut) to ask questions or provide opinions about the subject matter being learned.
The teacher should make a group discussion by applying a method that each student is free to ask questions or give
opinions without worrying about his/her friend’s scorn [14,33,37]. Roestiyah states that the brainstorming method is
a way of teaching conducted by the teacher in the classroom where the teacher raises a problem, and then students
answer and express their opinions or comments; this allows the problem to develop into a new one or can be interpreted
as a way to generate many ideas from a group of people in a very short time [14]. After the discussion session, the
students can be invited to be more active and productive by requiring them to think inductively. This is based on the
process in which students generalize their previous experiences when making conclusions [15], where theories emerge
from the evidence [16].

METHOD

Approach
The quantitative approach, quasi-experimental method, and Pretest-Posttest Groups Design employed in the study.
The quantitative approach was chosen due to the discrete data collection process, meaning that not all viable
interventions from the external influences that may affect the respondent can be excluded that, therefore, the quasi-
experiment was used as the best option. Moreover, as the final goal of the study is to investigate the improvement in
learning outcomes and questioning skills, the use of pretest-posttest group design was considered most appropriate
[17,18,19]. The design and structure of the research implementation activities are described in Table 1 as follows.
TABLE 1. Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design [17]
Experimental Group R O1 X O2
Control Group R O1 C O2

020035-2
 The experimental group was taught using the brainstorming method in 3 meetings or 3 academic hours (X) while
the control group the conventional method which the teachers have used so far (C). Based on the results of the
preliminary field study, the lectures, assignments, and discussions are among the methods utilized by the teacher. Prior
to the instruction, the students of both groups were firstly provided with a set of pretest in order to measure their initial
abilities; then the learning is conducted according to the research design as shown in table 1; and, finally, the same
test in the form of the posttest was given to determine the impact of the treatment on both groups.

Population and Sample

The population covers all Grade X students of Madrasah Aliyah in the academic year of 2019/2020. The sampling
was carried out randomly, resulting in 2 classes selected, which are Class 4D, consisting of 28 students, as the
experimental group, and Class 4E, consisting of 26 students, as the control group. The determination of experimental
and control groups has fulfilled the quasi-experimental research standards or criteria, i.e., it was not the individual
respondents that should be randomized, but the students’ clusters or classes [17].

Data Collection
A total of three dependent variables exists to be further explored for the impact after the implementation of the
brainstorming learning method, namely the students’ learning outcomes in the Static Fluid material, improvement of
questioning skills, and inductive thinking skills. The data for the three variables were measured via test and non-test
instruments. The learning outcomes were determined by using the Learning Outcome Test of the Static Fluid (THFS).
Meanwhile, the students’ questioning skills were measured by using the Student Questioning Skills Observation Sheet
(LOKB). The last one, inductive thinking skills, were assessed by using the Student Inductive Thinking Skills
Observation Sheet (LOKBI). All of the three instruments were adopted from the previous researchers [20, 21].

Data Analysis
The data were analyzed through software, i.e., Excel of Windows 10.00, using the percentage equation and
normalized N-Gain formula [12, 22]. The data quantization of test results using the IHFS instrument was analyzed
using several formulas, including the difference power index, test item difficulty index, and correlation to determine
the validity of each item. For the item difficulty level, the difference power index and correlations between items were
calculated using the appropriate formula, as mentioned in reference [22]. Also, the interpretation criteria of results of
the calculation for each index referred to the criteria table contained in the reference [22].
The N-Gain formula is employed to obtain information related to the improvement of learning outcomes, following
the learning by both conventional and brainstorming methods. Meanwhile, the students’ questioning skills, which
were in the form of quantitative data and measured by the LOKB non-tests instrument, were analyzed using the
percentage formula (descriptive statistics). The results of data analysis were displayed in the percentage form,
elaborated in the Findings and Discussion section.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results can be seen in Table 2. Based on the average scores collected from the experimental and control class,
significant differences between the two groups are found. The following tables describe the comparison of the pretest,
posttest, and N-gain average scores. It is revealed that the experimental group are posed to very significant differences
in terms of learning outcomes compared to the control group after the brainstorming method was applied.
TABLE 2. Average score of pretest, posttest, and N-Gain of Learning Outcomes
Class Mean
Pretest Posttest N-Gain
Experimental 49.8 85.9 0.75
Control 46.3 56.9 0.20

The increased learning outcomes of the experimental group, as shown in Table 2 above, is relevant to some of the
results of previous studies [23,24].

020035-3
 Furthermore, the significant differences emerge in the students’ questioning skills aspect between the experimental
and control group. The significant increase in average scores based on the observations of questioning skills in the
experimental class during the first, second, and third meetings is shown in table 3. From the table, it can be stated that
the brainstorming method can significantly increase the students’ questioning skills (94.27%) compared to the control
group (32.81%). In other words, the brainstorming method can encourage almost 100% of the students to dare ask
questions to their teacher.
TABLE 3. Comparison of the average of student Questioning Skills
Class Meeting
I II III
Experimental 92.70% 93.22% 94.27%
Control 22.39% 22.91% 32.81%

Moreover, the average scores gained from the observation on students’ inductive thinking skills in the experimental
class during the first, second, and third meeting can be seen in the following table.
TABLE 4. Comparison of the average of student Inductive Thinking Skills
Class Meeting
I II III
Experimental 87.50% 91.25% 90.62%
Control 18.75% 38.12% 25.62%

The questioning skills of each student was measured by three indicators, namely gathering information (factual
and procedural), organizing information (objectives and assumptions), and expanding information (hypotheses and
speculations) [25, 26]. These three indicators are incorporated into each question item. From Table 3, it is known that
the average scores of students asking questions in the experimental class are much better than those in the control
class. This might be caused by several factors, one of which is the lack of initial knowledge possessed by the students
and, therefore, they have no idea what to ask the teacher as they become less focused or know too little about the
material. This is in line with the opinions that several reasons underlie why students are reluctant to ask questions, i.e.,
1) 1) they cannot detect the cognitive disequilibrium, 2) they can detect the cognitive disequilibrium but cannot admit
that they do not really understand, 3) they cannot ask directly, 4) they ask questions, but to their peer instead of the
teacher [27,32].
From Table 4, it can be seen that the student inductive thinking skills appear after being given the treatment. The
improvement is found in every aspect in accordance with the research indicators that applies the brainstorming method
in each classroom meeting. The method itself was aimed at building the students’ cognitive mentality, so it is very
suitable for developing thinking skills, especially inductive thinking. The increase in inductive thinking, which is
found in the experimental class, proves the effectiveness of the use of brainstorming methods in sharpening these
inductive thinking skills.
The brainstorming is a method covering activities of gathering large numbers of ideas from a group of people in a
short amount of time [28,29]. This method is exceptionally helpful in removing students’ shyness in asking questions
and expressing opinions as it is strictly forbidden to criticize other’s arguments or questions even if they are mistaken.
Eventually, the method is proven to be very well used, with a significant increase in the students’ achievement. At the
point of the pretest, many students were not able to complete the required KKM score, but after experiencing the
treatment through this method, their scores turn to be excellent. The comparison can be seen in the table below.
TABLE 5. Classification of N-Gain Scores
Class Number of Student
High Medium Low
Experimental 17 8 3
Control 0 10 14

Table 4 above represents that differences in learning outcomes exist between the control and experimental class.
In the control class, none of the students are categorized in the high level, 10 in medium, and 14 in low. Meanwhile,
for the experimental students’ scores, 17 are included in the high category, 17 in medium, and 8 in low. This indicates
that the use of the brainstorming method indirectly has a good impact on the students’ achievement in the Static Fluid
subject matter. Their questioning and inductive thinking skills are also regarded with good scores since they become

020035-4
less shy in speaking out and expressing their opinions. The Brainstorming method enables students to identify
questions, make ideas [15], solve problems [25], and, therefore, to think inductively. This is evidenced by the authentic
data, which is a significant increase in the posttest results of the experimental class [31,41].
The implementation of brainstorming in the classroom results in the students learning actively, and therefore, the
discussion runs well. This is proven by the increased student learning achievement. The percentage of students’
questioning and inductive thinking skills are categorized at a very high level. This is relevant to Roestiyah suggesting
that the advantages of brainstorming methods include that students perform active think, students are trained to think
quickly and logically, students are encouraged to argue based on the problems given by the teacher, student
participation in learning increases, the teachers and peer students provide assistance for those less active, healthy
learning competition arises, students feel happy and free when issuing their opinions, and an atmosphere of democracy
and discipline emerges [16,42].
However, several shortcomings of the brainstorming method appear when applied in the classroom. The very
obvious one can be seen from 3 students who have not been able to achieve the KKM score yet after taking the posttest.
Even of the 3 students, one achieves lower scores than before the treatment was given; the student’s pretest score is
85, while the results of the posttest turn the score to be 70. The learning process through this method sometimes feels
like a rush due to the very short period of time.
In addition to that, a few students are still unable to learn independently. This is because either they cannot detect
the cognitive disequilibrium, or they can detect it but do not want to admit their lack of understanding [25,30]. When
students own these characteristics, they can be considered lacking knowledge, and this may bring an impact on their
learning achievement. These results are in accordance with those obtained by Hosnan (2014), questioning is one of
the entrances to gaining knowledge [28]. All these findings will also have an impact on misunderstanding of concepts
in learning physics [38,39].

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings, it is suggested that the brainstorming be one of the methods that can highly potentially be
implemented in the instruction of Static Fluid materials. In other words, the brainstorming method is able to encourage
almost all students to ask questions to the teacher and their peers. The same thing also applies to inductive thinking
skills.

REFERENCES
1. S. Purwanti and S. Manurung, Pend. Fis. 4, pp. 57-62 (2015).
2. R. Zulvita, A. Halim, and Elisa, J. Ilmiah Mahasiswa 2, pp. 228-134 (2017).
3. H. Herdianto and W. Setyarsih, J. Inov. Pend. Fis. 3, pp. 154-160 (2014).
4. A. Halim, Suriana and Mursal, J. Pen. Peng. Pend. Fis. 3, pp. 1-10 (2017).
5. S. Hadi and N. Novaliyosi, In Pros. Sem. Nas. & Call For Papers (2019)
6. Roestiyah, Strategi Belajar Mengajar [Teaching and Learning Strategies], (Rineka Cipta, Jakarta, 2012), pp.
12-32.
7. A. Halim, and H. Mazlina, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1088, (2018).
8. S. L. Fithriani, A. Halim and I. Khaldun, J. Pend. Sains Indonesia 4, (2016).
9. C. Yang and R. D. Shanks, The Forward Testing Eggect: Interim testing Enhances Inductive Learning, (Eric,
New York, 2018), pp. 8-20.
10. M. Husni, Jamaluddin and P. Sedijani, IJMMU 6, pp. 234-242 (2019).
11. E. Aizikovitsh-Udi and D. Cheng, Creative Education 6, pp. 455-462 (2015).
12. J. Afriana, A. Permanasari and A. Fitriani, J. Pend. IPA Indonesia 5, pp. 261-267 (2016).
13. F. Agustini and W. Sopandi, J. Pen. Pend. 17, pp. 35-44 (2017).
14. D. N. Amin, J. Pend. Sejarah 5, pp. 1-15 (2016).
15. D. R. Sari, and Suryanti, JPSD 01, pp. 1-17 (2013).
16. Roestiyah, Strategi Belajar Mengajar [Teaching and Learning Strategies], (Rineka Cipta, Jakarta, 2008), pp.
25-37.
17. J. R. Fraenkel, N. E. Wallen and H. H. Hyun, How to design and evaluate research in education, (McGraw-Hil,
New York, 2012) pp. 345-456.
18. A. Halim, Mustafa, Nurulawati, Soewarno and N. Nanda, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., p. 1120 (2018).

020035-5
19. A. Halim, Yusrizal, Susanna and Tarmizi, J. Pend. IPA Indonesia 5, pp. 1-5 (2016).
20. Yusrizal and A. Halim, J. Pend. Malaysia 34, pp. 33–47 (2009).
21. Maidan, A. Halim, R. Safitri and E. Nurfadilla, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., p. 1460 (2020).
22. A. Sudijono, Pengantar Evaluasi Pendidikan, (Rajawali Pers, Jakarta, 2009), pp. 23-54.
23. H. Hasbullah, A. Halim and Yusrizal, J. IPA & Pembelajaran IPA 2, pp. 69–74. (2019).
24. Ariyani, E. Kasli and A. Halim, J. Ilmiah Mahasiswa 2, pp. 160–169. (2017).
25. P. A. Almeida, Procedia Soc. Behavioral Sci. 116, pp. 3781-3785, (2013).
26. Junike, Yusrizal and A. Halim, J. Pend. Sains Indonesia 4, pp. 45–55. (2016).
27. S. M. Whitver and L. S. Lo, Communications in Information Literacy 11, pp. 185-203 (2017).
28. E. Suryawati and K. Osman, Eurasia J. Math., Sci., Tech. Ed. 14, pp. 61-76 (2018).
29. N . Unina and P. Bearing, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sci. 224, pp. 605 – 612 (2016).
30. Y. N. Prilanita and Sukirno, Cakrawala Pendidikan 36, pp. 244-256, (2017).
31. D. I. Rosyada and Julianto, JPSD 5, pp. 266-475, (2017).
32. J. Shemwell, C. Chase and D. L. Schwartz, J. Res. Sci. Teaching 52, pp. 58-83, (2015).
33. A. Halim, Yusrizal, H. Mazlina, Melvina and Zainaton, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., p. 1088 (2018).
34. A. Halim, Ngadimin, Soewarno, Sabaruddin and Susanna, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., p. 1116 (2018).
35. Ernawati, A. Halim and M. Syukri, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., p. 1460 (2020).
36. Arifullah, A. Halim, M. Syukri and E. Nurfadilla, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., p. 1460 (2020).
37. Yusrizal, A.Halim, M. Daud and Saminan, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., p. 1460 (2020).
38. A. Halim, T. S. Meerah and L. Halim, J. Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran 15, pp. 107–111 (2008).
39. A. Halim, T. S. Meerah and L. Halim, Sains Malaysiana 38, pp. 75-86, (2009).
40. J. Afrida, A. Adlim and A. Halim, J. P. Sains Indonesia 3, pp. 93–106, (2015).
41. S. Fithriani, A. Halim and I. Khaldun, J. Pend. Sains Indonesia 4, pp. 45–52. (2016)
42. E. Sastriani and A. Halim, J. Pend. Sains Indonesia 4, pp. 89–95 (2016).

020035-6