Mastering Reasoning Skills In Learning Differentiation Using The

Marzano’s Strategy

Mohamad Nizam Arshad a and Norhapidah Mohd Saadb

a,
SM Sains Sultan Hj. Ahmad Shah Kuantan, Malaysia b, SM Astana Kuantan, Malaysia
Abstract: Reasoning skills, due to their significance, were stipulated as one of the major
components of the Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in the Malaysian Education
Development Plan (2013-2025), to be mastered by students. The study involved a total of 31
purposively-sampled students from a secondary boarding school in Johor. It aimed at improving
their level of reasoning skills in Differentiation, one of the topics in Additional Mathematics.
This study used a pre-experimental, one-group pre-test-post-test design and a single group time-
series design. A pre-test was given to the participants in advance, followed by several repetition
tests, prior to the post-test assessment. The data for this study was collected using a set of
Reasoning Test Questions on Differentiation (RTQD) and 10 sets of learning activities on
Differentiation, based on a modified Marzano Rubric for Specific Task of Situations (1992). The
data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics to get the mean, range, maximum
and minimum value, paired sample t-test and ANOVA at a significant level of 0.05. Overall, it
was found from the study that, the Differentiation Reasoning Level (DRL) of the students
showed a significant difference after learning, using Differentiation Reasoning Learning
Strategies (DRLS), compared to learning without the approach (t=-27.47; p < 0.05). The mean
scores (M) for all the four components of DRL, namely, comparing, classifying, inductive and
deductive improved tremendously from 2.32, 2.65, 2.65 and 2.39, respectively to 3.37, 3.56, 3.70
and 3.39 in the same order. The results of t-test also showed a significant difference in the four
components of DRL, due to the intervention, their values being [(31) = - 22.097, p <0.05], [(31)
= - 32.416, p <0.05], [(31) = - 38.325, p <0.05] and [(31) = - 26.843, p <0.05], in the same order
as above. Lastly, repeated measure by One-Way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) test also
showed significant differences in the students’ reasoning level of the four component of DRL.
In conclusion, the Marzano Model of Dimensional Learning (1992) is a thinking skill model that
can help improve students' reasoning skills. The findings also implied that, the processes of
teaching and learning play an important role in ensuring students’ capability to emphasize on the
implementation process of reasoning skills.
Keywords: Reasoning skills, Differentiation, Dimensional Model of Expanding and Enhancing
Knowledge, Comparing, Classifying, Inductive and Deductive, Differentiation Topic

1
 Introduction
The main focus of the Secondary School Standard Curriculum (SSM) which will be fully
implemented in 2017 is to foster higher order thinking skills (HOTS) among students so that
they are able to demonstrate their own abilities through reasoning skills1. HOTS encompasses
creative thinking, critical thinking and logical thinking skills2.
In general, Mathematics forms the most important basis of the knowledge of Science and
Technology in getting the students ready to make critical thinking a culture 3. Additional
Mathematics is an extended knowledge of Mathematics, often considered difficult and
challenging by most students who are only able to understand it procedurally, whereas the main
focus of Teaching and Learning (TNL) in secondary schools is on conceptual understanding to
boost the potential of students to a higher level 4. According to a study conducted by 5, 6, 7,
students in Malaysia, both at the school and tertiary levels, were less capable of reasoning skills,
especially in solving complex problems. Similarly, a study conducted by 8 to identify the mastery
of critical thinking skills among Form Four students who were taking Additional Mathematics,
which components included making inferences, scrutinizing assumptions and interpretations, and
evaluating students’ arguments, found that, the TNL should give emphasis on the thinking skills
application process, so that students could improve their mastery of critical thinking skills,
especially in solving Additional Mathematics problems.
Differentiation is one of the analytical mathematical concepts which requires students to
think before making a decision, by reasoning to solve problems, and needs them to have a good
level of conceptual understanding to do the above task. As such, reasoning skills should be
incorporated into the TNL process, to enable the students to have their thinking ability triggered,
idea generated, mind controlled and good solutions achieved 9,10.
Earlier studies to identify the students’ level of reasoning via Reasoning Test Questions on
Differentiation (RTQD) conducted by 11 proved that, the requirement for the students to master
mathematical reasoning was at a sufficient level, but the context grew wider when they learned
analytical mathematical concepts, such as Calculus (Differentiation, Integration and others).
Learning dimension introduced by Marzano (1992) could also be used to diversify and increase
the TNL activities that would enhance students' reasoning skills, a major element in HOTS 12, 13.
All of the above findings showed the importance of mastering Calculus among students
undertaking critical courses in the university, which basis should be developed earlier while in
the secondary school.

Problem Statement
Information, evidence and critical arguments stated by most of the studies by 4, 11 suggested
that, empirical evidence existed to indicate that, Malaysian students acquired the procedural
understanding and Lower Order Mathematics Thinking Skills (LOMTS) but less mastered

2
conceptual understanding and High Order Mathematics Thinking Skills (HOMTS), particularly,
reasoning skills.
The weakness in reasoning was commonly associated with mathematical learning
difficulties experienced by the students. Empirical evidences were aplenty to show that, many
Malaysian students had problems mastering both aspects of mathematics learning, namely,
conceptual understanding and HOMTS. Therefore, this study looked into improving the
Differentiation Reasoning Level (DRL) of reasoning skills among students for a topic in the
Additional Mathematics subject, known as Differentiation, through Differentiation Reasoning
Learning Strategies (DRLS)

Methods
The study design was in the form of DRLS, expected to support students’ learning of
Differentiation, covering all the skills in the subject. Discussions on the data analysis focused
on two types of data, namely, DRL and DRL component levels of comparing, classifying,
inductive and deductive. Data analysis was conducted according to the following perspectives:
 Effectiveness Analysis I: Analysis of overall changes in DRL (before and after learning
using DRLS).
 Effectiveness Analysis II: Analysis of changes in the levels of DRL components of
comparing, classifying, inductive and deductive (before and after learning using DRLS).
The respondents comprised a total of 31 purposively-sampled students from a secondary
boarding school in Johor. The aim was to improve their Reasoning Level through DRLS and
their achievement in Differentiation.

Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation was used to describe the data
distribution. Inference test analysis was also used to study the impact of DRLS developed, to
help students improve their DRL through RTQD and to improve their Reasoning Level in the
four components of DRL namely, comparing, classifying, inductive and deductive.

Findings
Results of Data Analysis for Mean Score Difference for Students’ TPP Before and After
Learning Using SPPP.
The findings displayed in Table 1 showed the DRL mean score of 3.6 after learning using
DRLS, a tremendous improvement from the previous score of 1.2. In addition, the standard
deviation after the intervention also improved to 0.043, from 0.035, obtained in the pre-test.
These values indicated that, the students’ scores were not evenly scattered where the score gap
in the post-test was slightly higher than that in the pre-test. Mean, M=2.4 obtained for the spurt

3
in change of students’ scores (M = 2.4) implied that the their DRL increased very well. A
measurement followed to gauge the way the difference between pre- and post-test scores caused
significant impacts on the students’ achievement

Table 1: Paired sample t-test for TPP Before and After Learning Using SPPP

Pairs Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. Cohen d

(2-tailed)
Pre- test 1.2 0.198
Post- test 3.6 0.240 -59.961 <0.001 0.996
Spurt in Score Change 2.4 0.225

Referring to the value of d = 0.996 14 obtained above, This suggested that, DRLS
significantly contributed towards the main and interactive effects on the performance of
secondary school high achievers in DRL.the difference in mean scores the students’ DRL in the
pre and post-tests had substantial impacts on their DRL on Differentiation. This further showed
that, the results of the findings suggested that, learning using DRLS could increase the mean
score of DRL among the students who participated in this study. Following the findings, a
statistical analysis was performed to see significant differences between the mean scores of
DRL, before and after being subjected to the sample paired t-test.
Based on results of the findings, paired sample t-test was conducted to verify if there was a
significant difference between pre- and post-intervention. Referring to Table 1, the results of
the analysis showed that, there was a significant difference in mean scores due to the
intervention (t = -59.961; p <0.001). It was observed that, overall, DRL for each student
involved in this study improved from a lower to a higher mean range (see table 1) after learning
using DRLS.

Results of Data Analysis of Mean Score Differences for Each of Students’ Reasoning
Components Before and After Learning Using SPPP.

Table 2 shows the results of paired t-test for reasoning components in Pre- and Post- learning using
DRLS. Comparing the score range of reasoning level for each component, the students seemed
to have a good level of reasoning on each component after learning using DRLS. Referring to
Table 6, it was found that, the minimum and the maximum scores were 1 and 2 respectively,
before learning using DRLS and these scores improved to 2 and 4, respectively for the
comparison component.
Similarly, for the other components, there was a slight improvement experienced by the
students in the Post-Test. Overall, the level of reasoning for each component after learning

4
using DRLS was good and excellent with average minimum scores in Pre-Test and Post-Test
being 1 and 3, respectively, and average maximum scores 2 and 4, respectively.
Subsequently, a t-test was used for the DRL components, before and after learning using
DRLS to verify if there was a significant difference in mean scores achieved before and after
learning using DRLS.

Table 2: Results of Paired t-test for Reasoning Components in Pre- and Post- Using SPPP

Component N Min Max Mean S.D t Sig. Cohen

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post d
Comparing 31 1 3 2 4 1.05 3.37 0.15 0.57 -22.097 .000 0.942
Classifying 31 1 3 2 4 1.24 3.56 0.28 0.35 -32.416 .000 0.972
Inductive 31 1 3 2 4 1.05 3.70 0.21 0.30 -38.325 .000 0.979
Deductive 31 1 3 1 4 1.00 3.39 0.00 0.49 -26.843 .000 0.960

Referring to Table 2, the results of the t-test analysis showed impacts of learning using DRLS
on the DRL components, comparing [(31) = -22.097, p <0.05, eta2 = 0.942], classifying [(31)
= - 32.416, p <0.05, eta2 = 0.972], inductive [(31) = - 38.325, p <0.05, eta2 = 0.979] and
deductive [(31) = - 26.843, p <0.05, eta2 = 0.960]. This difference could clearly be seen from
the mean scores before and after learning using DRLS. The mean of comparing (M = 1.05),
classifying (M = 1.24), inductive (M = 1.05) and deductive (M = 1.00) improved to an excellent
level after learning using DRLS, with respective values of (M = 3.37), (M = 3.56), (M = 3.70)
and (M = 3.39). All of the mean differences were measured at the significance level of 0.05. A
further analysis using One-Way ANOVA was subsequently conducted to observe significant
differences that occurred in each of the DRL components in DRLS learning as shown in Table
3

Table 3: Analysis of Within-Subjects Contrasts Via One-Way ANOVA Test for TPP Components

Type III Sum of Partial Eta

Source Intervention Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared
Comparing Pre – Post 1 166.06 1 166.06 538.82 .000 .94
Post 1 - Post 2 10.35 1 10.35 19.00 .000 .38
Post 2 - Post 3 18.06 1 18.06 41.20 .000 .57
Post 3 – Post .97 1 .97 1.85 .183 .05
Classifying Pre – Post 1 42.38 1 42.38 99.36 .000 .76
Post 1 - Post 2 17.94 1 17.94 34.30 .000 .53

5
 Post2 – Post 4.77 1 4.77 11.23 .002 .27
Inductive Pre – Post 1 116.452 1 116.452 504.113 .000 .944
Post 1 - Post 2 .538 1 .538 1.791 .191 .056
Post2 – Post3 .202 1 .202 .668 .420 .022
Deductive Post3 – Post 13.337 1 13.337 38.734 .000 .564
Pre – Post 1 17.065 1 17.065 35.328 .000 .541
Post 1 - Post 2 211.645 1 211.645 834.910 .000 .965
Post2 - Post 176.645 1 176.645 720.526 .002 .960

Referring to the results of the ANOVA test analysis (Test of Within-Subject Contras) in Table 3,
significant differences were observed after the interventions conducted on the DRL components
for comparing in Pre-Post1 [F (1,30) = 538.82, p <0.05, eta2 = 0.94], Post1-Post2 [F(1,30)=19.00,
p<0.05, eta2=0.38] and Post2-Post3 [F(1,30)=41.20, p<0.05, eta2=0.57], classifying in Pre-Post1
[F(1,30)=99.36, p<0.05, eta2=0.77], Post1-Post2 [F(1,30)=34.30, p<0.05, eta2=0.53] and Post2-
Post [F(1,30)=11.23, p<0.05, eta2=0.27] , inductive in Pre-Post1 [F(1,30)=504.133, p<0.05,
eta2=0.944] and Post3-Post [F(1,30)=38.734, p<0.05, eta2=0.564], followed by deductive in Pre-
Post1 [F(1,30)=35.328, p<0.05, eta2=0.541], Post1-Post2 [F(1,30)=834.910, p<0.05, eta2=0.965]
and Post2-Post [F(1,30)=720.526, p<0.05, eta2=0.960] .
Therefore, it could be concluded that, there were major mean differences in the 10 learning
activities conducted which contributed to significant F values for all the four DRL components.
All of the mean differences were measured at the significance level of 0.05. Based on the above
results, it was evident that interventions conducted via successive DRLS learning in DRL
components were effective in improving the students' reasoning skills.

Conclusions
The findings of the study indicated that the students’ reasoning skills, comprising the four
components, namely, comparing, classifying, inductive and deductive as a whole was at an
excellent level. Similarly, students' achievement in the Differentiation topic improved
tremendously. The reasoning level obtained by the researchers was similar with what was
proposed by 12, who realized the potentials of these four components as being able to generate
Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) among students.
Based on results obtained from the measured DRL components, the researchers deduced
that, the level of mastery of all the four components of comparing, classifying, inductive and
deductive showed a tremendous improvement after learning using DRLS with their pre-
convention mean (M) values of 1.05, 1.24, 1.05, 1.24, respectively, raising to post-convention
mean (M) values of 3:37, 3.56, 3.70, 3.56, respectively. This, accordingly, explained that, the

6
students succeeded to increase their level of reasoning from weak and moderate levels to good
and excellent levels.
However, the results obtained by the researchers were different from those obtained by 8,
where in their study, the mastery of Critical Thinking Skills, comprising components of making
inferences, comparing assumptions, making deduction and interpretation, as well as evaluating
arguments was in general at a moderate level. The researchers found that, the students’
reasoning skills for comparing, classifying, inductive and deductive were at an excellent level
after learning using DRLS with the 10 activities being very carefully organized according to the
learning objectives and systematic grading of learning level, tailored to the students’ pace to
improve their reasoning skills in all the four components. Besides, views of experts in
Mathematics education were also taken into account in establishing this DRLS, to ensure its
effectiveness for the intended purpose.
In contrast, a study by 12 found that the level of HOTS for students who majored in technical
education in UTHM was moderate for comparing, inductive and deductive, and low for
classifying. This could have resulted from such factors as reasoning skills being examined
solely using questionnaire provided, compared to the method used by the researchers, who
produced our own DRLS module, systematically, which proved itself in this study to have
improved the students’ reasoning skills in all the four components.

References
1. Malaysia, Ministry of Education. Malaysian Education Development Plan 2013-
2025.Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia, (2012).
2. Switala, M. S. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh), (2013).
3. Arsaythamby, V., Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiti Utara Malaysia. (2006b).
4. Surif, J., Ibrahim, N. H., & Mokhtar, M., Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56
(Ictlhe), 416–425 (2012).
5. Amalina Ibrahim, Nor‘ain Binti Mohd. Tajudin and Norashiqin Mohd. Idrus. Jurnal
Pendidikan Sains & Matematik Malaysia , 8–19. (2012).
6. Maidinsah, H., (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Sains Malaysia), (2004).
7. Mohd Eizuan Abu Hassan, Noor Shah Saad dan Mohd Uzi Dollah, Jurnal Pendidikan Sains
& Matematik Malaysia. Vol.2 No.2, 8–19. (2013).
8. Aziz, N., Jurnal Pendidikan Matematik, 2(2), 31-49. (2015).
9. Marzano, Robert J. A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of learning.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1250 North Pitt Street,
Alexandria, (1992).
10. Marzano, Robert J., Debra Pickering, and Jay McTighe. Assessing Student Outcomes:
Performance Assessment Using the Dimensions of Learning Model. Association for

7
 Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1250 N. Pitt St., Alexandria,(1993).
11. Mohamad Nizam, A., Noor Azean, A., Mohd Salleh, A., Abdul Halim, A., dan Mahani, M.,
International Conference on Education and High Order Thinking Skills 2016 in conjunction
with the 2nd International Seminar on Science and Mathematics Education. (2016).
12. Yee, M. H., Jailani, M. Y., Suzanna, I., Othman, W., & Tee, T. K. The pattern of Marzano’s
higher order thinking skills based on dimensions using significant knowledge. (2010).
13. Yee, M. H., (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia). (2015).
14. Cohen,J.W. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1988).