Strengthening Higher-Order Thinking in Science Through Collaborative Gameplay: A Quasi-Experimental Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.06.07.09Keywords:
collaborative learning, critical thinking, game-based instruction, K–12 science curriculum, logical reasoning, science educationAbstract
The K–12 science curriculum emphasizes the development of essential 21st-century skills such as critical problem-solving, environmental literacy, innovation, and effective communication. Despite these curricular priorities, traditional lecture-based instruction often fails to cultivate higher-order thinking—particularly logical reasoning, which is foundational in science learning. This study investigates the effectiveness of Collaborative Game-Based Activities (CGBAs) as an instructional strategy to enhance students’ logical reasoning skills in science. Employing a quasi-experimental research design, the study assessed the quality of CGBA implementation, students’ baseline competency in logical reasoning, their progress across successive CGBA sessions, and overall improvement after the intervention. Grade 9 students participated in a series of CGBA sessions, with their logical reasoning abilities evaluated through pre-test and post-test assessments. Teacher rubric-based evaluations of CGBA quality revealed consistently high implementation fidelity, aligning well with instructional objectives. The findings indicated a significant improvement in students’ logical reasoning scores following CGBA exposure, with the majority advancing from “Satisfactory” to “Good” and “Very Good” performance levels. A paired-samples t-test confirmed this difference to be statistically significant (p < .001), supporting the intervention’s impact on academic performance. The study also affirmed that the assumptions required for parametric testing were met, enhancing the reliability of the findings. Overall, the study underscores the pedagogical value of integrating collaborative and game-based approaches to foster critical thinking, teamwork, and deep engagement with scientific concepts. By transforming passive instruction into active, inquiry-driven learning, CGBA offers a compelling model for strengthening logical reasoning and promoting meaningful science education.
Downloads
References
Antonio, R. P., & Prudente, M. S. (2024). Ef-fects of inquiry-based approaches on stu-dents’ higher-order thinking skills in sci-ence: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Sci-ence, and Technology, 12(1), 251–281. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.3216
Arifin, Z., Sukarmin, S., Saputro, S., & Kamari, A. (2025). The effect of inquiry-based learning on students’ critical thinking skills in science education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(3), em2592. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15988
Borge, M., Smith, B. K., & Aldemir, T. (2024). Using generative AI as a simulation to support higher-order thinking. Interna-tional Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 19, 479–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-024-09437-0
Bronkhorst, H., Roorda, G., Suhre, C., & Goedhart, M. (2021). Student develop-ment in logical reasoning: Results of an intervention guiding students through dif-ferent modes of visual and formal repre-sentation. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 21(2), 378–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-021-00148-4
Cornell, D. (2024). 63 higher-order thinking skills examples. Helpful Professor. https://helpfulprofessor.com/higher-order-thinking-skills-examples/
Di Martino, V., Pellegrini, M., Altomari, N., & Peru, A. (2024). Developing logical rea-soning in primary school: The impact of a cognitive enhancement programme. PROSPECTS, 54, 891–904. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11125-024-09709-5
Dowhen, M. (2023). Understanding logical reasoning in everyday contexts. Academ-ic Logic Press. https://www.academiclogicpress.com/understanding-logical-reasoning
Great Learning Team. (2022). Logical reason-ing: Importance and career impact. Great Learning Blog. https://www.mygreatlearning.com/blog/logical-reasoning/
Halpern, D. F. (2022). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (6th ed.). Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Thought-and-Knowledge/9781032131610
Helmenstine, A. M. (2025, June 5). The scien-tific method. Science Notes. https://sciencenotes.org/the-scientific-method/
Huseynova, F. (2023). Assessment of students’ reading comprehension skills in teaching English. In F. G. Paloma (Ed.), Teacher training and practice (pp. 1–20). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110600
Jimenez, L., & Modaffari, J. (2021). Future of testing in education: Effective and equi-table assessment systems. Center for American Progress. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED617053.pdf
Kent State University. (2023). Paired samples t-test. Kent State University Libraries. https://libguides.library.kent.edu/SPSS/PairedSamplesTTest
Killian, S. (2023). How to use concept mapping in the classroom: A complete guide. Evi-dence-Based Teaching. https://www.evidencebasedteaching.org/concept-mapping-complete-guide
Liu, H., Fu, Z., Ding, M., Ning, R., Zhang, C., Liu, X., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Logical reasoning in large language models: A survey. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.09100
Lutkevich, B. (n.d.). STEM education. Tech-Target. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/STEM-education-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics
Manalo, F. K. B., & Chua, E. N. (2020). Collabo-rative inquiry approaches and level of thinking and reasoning skills: Basis for sustainable science education. Interna-tional Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2(1), 1–12. https://ioer-imrj.com/wp-con-tent/uploads/2020/06/Collaborative-Inquiry-Approaches-and-Level-of-Thinking-and-Reasoning-Skills.pdf
Meisser, N. (2022). Authentic assessments and student self-efficacy: Enhancing confi-dence and performance in higher educa-tion. University of Illinois Chicago, Center for the Advancement of Teaching Excel-lence. https://teaching.uic.edu/cate-teaching-guides/assessment-grading-practices/authentic-assessments
Mishra, P., Pandey, C. M., Singh, U., Gupta, A., Sahu, C., & Keshri, A. (2019). Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statisti-cal data. Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia, 22(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18
Mor, E., & Erşen, R. K. (2023). Implications of current validity frameworks for class-room assessment. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 10(Special Issue), 163–172. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1417534.pdf
Morris, D. L. (2025). Rethinking science educa-tion practices: Shifting from investiga-tion-centric to comprehensive inquiry-based instruction. Education Sciences, 15(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010073
Nugroho, A. A., Sajidan, S., Suranto, S., & Masykuri, M. (2025). Enhancing students' argumentation skills through socio-scientific real-world inquiry: A quasi-experimental study in biological educa-tion. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 9(1), Article e16212. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202531979
Padayichie, K. (2023). Collaborative learning. Structural Learning. https://www.structural-learning.com/post/collaborative-learning
Padayichie, N. D. (2023). The power of collab-orative learning in the classroom. South African Journal of Education, 43(2), 189–202. https://www.structural-learning.com/post/collaborative-learning
Pan, S. C., & Carpenter, S. K. (2023). Preques-tioning and pretesting effects: A review of empirical research, theoretical perspec-tives, and implications for educational practice. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09814-5
PM Publisher. (2022). Building smart learners: The value of logical reasoning in educa-tion. https://www.pmpublisher.com/articles/logical-reasoning-education
Ravi, S. (n.d.). Constructivist learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Educa-tion, 5(6), 66–70. https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jrme/papers/Vol-5%20Issue-6/Version-1/I05616670.pdf
Shamuratovich, S. (2023). Collaborative learn-ing and skill development for educational growth of artificial intelligence: A sys-tematic review. Contemporary Educa-tional Technology, 15(3), Article ep428. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13123
Shamuratovich, U. S. (2023). Innovative ap-proaches to the development of logical thinking of students in grades 5–9 of spe-cialized schools. Science and Innovation, 2(7). https://scientists.uz/view.php?id=4997
Sharma, N. (2023). 7 key benefits of game-based education in a digital world. Hurix Digital. https://www.hurix.com/blogs/key-benefits-game-based-education
Sharma, R. (2023). Game-based learning in computer science education: A scoping literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 10, Article 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00447-2
Surur, A. M. (2020). Thorndike’s theory for improving madrasah teacher’s creative thinking and publication. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engi-neering, Technology and Social Science (ICONETOS 2020). https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125955783.pdf
UNESCO. (2019). Framework for the future: Fostering scientific thinking and critical reasoning in schools. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370275
University of Waterloo. (n.d.). Gamification and game-based learning. Centre for Teaching Excellence. https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-for-teaching-excellence/catalogs/tip-sheets/gamification-and-game-based-learning
Whitfield, B. (2025, January 23). An introduc-tion to the Shapiro–Wilk test for normali-ty. Built In. https://builtin.com/data-science/shapiro-wilk-test
Williams, A. (2024). Delivering effective stu-dent feedback in higher education: An evaluation of the challenges and best practice. International Journal of Re-search in Education and Science, 10(2), 473–501. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1426687.pdf
Yasmin, F., Farooq, M. U., & Shah, S. K. (2023). Impact of exam-oriented education sys-tem on undergraduate students’ cogni-tive, affective and psychomotor compe-tencies. International Journal of Linguis-tics and Culture, 4(1), 1–15. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/271b/9462638a384cc16b0d5315117fa945ef4d56.pdf
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Cheryl P. Oro, Peter G. Narsico, Janine Napoles, Heart Love S. Reyes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See the Effect of Open Access).
