Modelling the effect of Bing Chat integrated instruction with analogies on students' computational thinking: A structural approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21067/mpej.v10i1.13935Keywords:
Bing chat, Computational Thinking, Teaching with analogyAbstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of implementing Bing Chat in the Teaching with Analogies (TWA) model on students' computational thinking skills. This study used a quasi-experimental research method with a non-equivalent control group design. This study was conducted at Yasmida Ambarawa High School in August 2024. The research sample consisted of 65 students, consisting of 33 students of class X.1 as the experimental class and 32 students of class X.2 as the control class, using cluster random sampling. The instrument used was a computational thinking ability test consisting of 10 essay questions. Based on the results of hypothesis testing using statistical tests, namely the independent sample t-test with the help of Jamovi software, the results of the independent sample t-test showed a p-value of 0.001, which means a significance value <0.05, so H1 was accepted. This indicates that there is a significant difference between the average Computational Thinking skills of students in the control class and the experimental class after being given different treatments.
Downloads
References
Ali, A., Maniboey, L. C., Megawati, R., Djarwo, C. F., & Listiani, H. (2024). Interactive learning media: Comprehensive theory and development of interactive learning media in elementary schools. PT Sonpedia Publishing Indonesia.
Azmi, M. P. (2017). Developing mathematical analogy skills. Cendekia: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 1(1), 100–111.
Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer.
Bower, M., Torrington, J., Lai, J. W. M., Petocz, P., & Alfano, M. (2024). How should we change teaching and assessment in response to increasingly powerful generative artificial intelligence? Outcomes of the ChatGPT teacher survey. Education and Information Technologies, 29(12), 15403–15439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12551-1
Deissenroth, M., Klein, M., Nienhaus, K., & Reeg, M. (2017). Assessing the plurality of actors and policy interactions: Agent-based modeling of renewable energy market integration. Complexity, 2017, Article 7494313. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7494313
Diani, R., Asyhari, A., & Julia, O. N. (2018). The influence of the RMS (reading, mind mapping and sharing) model on students' higher-order thinking skills on the topic of impulse and momentum. Edutama Education Journal, 5(1), 31–44.
Diani, R., & Hartati, N. S. (2018). Islamic literacy-based flipbook: Development of physics learning media with professional 3D pageflip. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan IPA, 4(2), 234–244.
Diani, R., Herliantari, H., Irwandani, I., Saregar, A., & Umam, R. (2019). Search, solve, create, and share (SSCS) learning model: The impact on students' creative problem-solving ability on the concept of substance pressure. Jurnal Penelitian & Pengembangan Pendidikan Fisika, 9(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.21009/1.09107
Diani, R., Saregar, A., & Ifana, A. (2016). Comparison of problem-based learning and guided inquiry models on students' critical thinking skills. Jurnal Penelitian Pembelajaran Fisika, 7(2), 125–135.
Diani, R., Yuberti, Y., & Syafitri, S. (2016). Testing the effect size of the scramble learning model with video media on the physics learning outcomes of class X students at MAN 1 Pesisir Barat. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni, 5(2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.24042/jpifalbiruni.v5i2.126
Duit, R., Roth, W.-M., Komorek, M., & Wilbers, J. (2001). Fostering conceptual change by analogies—Between Scylla and Charybdis. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00034-7
Ekstrand, J., Westergren, A., Årestedt, K., Hellström, A., & Hagell, P. (2022). Transformation of Rasch model logits for enhanced interpretability. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22, Article 145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01816-1
Fuadi, H., Robbia, A. Z., Jamaluddin, J., & Jufri, A. W. (2020). Analysis of factors causing low scientific literacy skills of students. Jurnal Ilmiah Profesi Pendidikan, 5(2), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.29303/jipp.v5i2.122
Glynn, P. W. (1991). Coral reef bleaching in the 1980s and possible connections with global warming. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 6(6), 175–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(91)90056-J
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Teaching and learning with analogies: Friend or foe? In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 11–24). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3830-5_2
Hoerunnisa, M., & Fauziah, S. R. (2023). Utilization of technology in science learning as an effort to improve learning outcomes. Journal of Science Education Studies, 3(2), 272–278.
Kim, T. K., & Park, J. (2019). More about the basic assumptions of t-test: Normality and sample size. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 72(4), 331–335. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.d.18.00292
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportunities & openness. The Education Arcade, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kumar, S., Kumar, V., Chaudhuri, R., Chatterjee, S., & Vrontis, D. (2025). AI capability and environmental sustainability performance: Moderating role of green knowledge management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, Article 102870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102870
Lai, J. W. M., & Bower, M. (2020). Evaluation of technology use in education: Findings from a critical analysis of systematic literature reviews. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(3), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12391
Laliyo, L. A. R., Sumintono, B., & Panigoro, C. (2022). Measuring changes in hydrolysis concept of students taught by inquiry model: Stacking and racking analysis techniques in Rasch model. Heliyon, 8(3), Article e09001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09001
Leung, Y.-Y., Thumboo, J., Yeo, S., Wylde, V., & Tannant, A. (2022). Validation and interval scale transformation of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) in patients undergoing knee arthroplasty, using the Rasch model. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open, 4, Article 100322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocarto.2022.100322
Linacre, J. (2009). Unidimensional models in a multidimensional world. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 23(3), 1224–1227.
Linacre, J. M. (2012). Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program user's guide. Winsteps.com.
Maskur, M. M., Anwar, M. K., & Trianah, T. T. (2021). Implementation of blended learning in MI. MAGISTRA: Media Pengembangan Ilmu Pendidikan Dasar dan Keislaman, 12(2), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.31942/mgs.v12i2.5506
Mawarni, T. A. T. (2019). Mathematical analogy reasoning ability through hands-on mathematics learning model with concrete object media reviewed from visualizer and verbalizer cognitive styles. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan dan Pengajaran Matematika, 5(1), 1–10.
Mulyono, M., Hayat, M. S., & Roshayanti, F. (2025). Analysis of junior high school students' computational thinking and science reasoning abilities on motion and force. Didaktika: Jurnal Kependidikan, 14(3), 5827–5838.
Nursafitri, M., Santoso, A., & Sumari, S. (2021). The effect of the 5E learning cycle learning model with analogy on students' conceptual understanding of reaction rate material [Master's thesis, Universitas Negeri Malang].
Planinic, M., Boone, W. J., Sušac, A., & Ivanjek, L. (2019). Rasch analysis in physics education research: Why measurement matters. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), Article 020111. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020111
Rahman, N. F., Yasiron, A. M., Roziqi, M. A., & Ilmiani, A. M. (2019). Computer assisted language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(8), 827–877.
Richland, L. E., & Simms, N. (2015). Analogy, higher order thinking, and education. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1336
Rudianto, R., Diani, R., Subandi, S., & Widiawati, N. (2022). Development of assessment instruments 4C skills (critical thinking, collaboration, communication, and creativity) on parabolic motion materials. Journal of Advanced Sciences and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 65–79.
Saregar, A., Irwandani, I., Abdurrahman, A., Parmin, P., Septiana, S., Diani, R., & Sagala, R. (2018). Temperature and heat learning through SSCS model with scaffolding: Impact on students' critical thinking ability. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(3), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.2018.80
Saregar, A., Putra, F. G., Diani, R., Anugrah, A., Misbah, M., & Umam, R. (2025). Innovative integrated disaster education in physics learning: An effort to enhance students' disaster literacy skills. Indonesian Journal of Science Education, 14(2).
Setiawan, A., Widyasari, M., & Aprinastuti, C. (2023). Application of computational thinking with simple experiments on temperature and heat material for grade V. PEDADIDAKTIKA: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar, 10(3), 392–403.
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
Sumintono, B., & Widhiarso, W. (2015). Aplikasi pemodelan Rasch pada assessment pendidikan. Trim Komunikata.
Susskind, J. (2018). Future politics: Living together in a world transformed by technology. Oxford University Press.
Tesio, L., Caronni, A., Kumbhare, D., & Scarano, S. (2023). Interpreting results from Rasch analysis 1. The “most likely” measures coming from the model. Disability and Rehabilitation, 46, 591–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2023.2169771
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Wulandari, D. T., Diani, R., & Noperi, H. (2025). Development of diagnostic instruments for critical thinking skills of students in physics learning on socio-scientific issues (SSI). Journal Corner of Education, Linguistics, and Literature, 5(1), 94–112.
Yunita, Y., Diani, R., Noperi, H., & Velina, Y. (2024). Development of interactive e-modules with STEM approach using Canva application to improve students' critical thinking ability in physics learning. JINoP (Jurnal Inovasi Pembelajaran), 10(2), 192–210.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Momentum: Physics Education Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
