Biology Achievement and Critical Thinking Skills: A Case Among STEM Senior High School Learners

Critical thinking is a core competency emphasized in senior high school science education. However, its relationship with academic performance remains inconclusive in local contexts. This study examined the levels of critical thinking skills and Biology achievement among STEM senior high school learners and determined the relationship between these two variables. This quantitative study used researcher-modified test and survey questionnaires and were participated by 269 senior high school learners from both public and private schools. Results showed that only 13% of learners demonstrated high levels of critical thinking skills, while the majority were classified as average (43%) or low (43%), indicating limited higher-order reasoning proficiency among most learners. In terms of Biology achievement, most students performed at a Satisfactory level (59.90%), followed by Very Satisfactory (19.00%), with only a minimal proportion attaining Outstanding performance (0.40%). A notable 20.80% of learners did not meet academic expectations. Pearson product-moment correlation analysis revealed a very weak and non-significant relationship between critical thinking skills and Biology achievement (r = 0.058, p = 0.342), suggesting that critical thinking did not significantly predict academic performance in General Biology 2. The findings imply that Biology achievement may be more strongly influenced by instructional practices, assessment methods, and contextual factors than by critical thinking skills alone. The study underscores the need to align teaching strategies and assessment practices with curriculum goals to ensure that the development of critical thinking is meaningfully reflected in academic outcomes among learners.

Biology/Science

1. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Antolin, R. C., & Buenviaje, D. P. (2022). Inquiry-based science instruction and its effect on students’ achievement in Biology. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 10(2), 85–94. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bautista, J., Bernardo, A. B. I., & Ocampo, D. (2023). Learning conditions, resource access, and science performance among Philippine senior high school students. Philippine Journal of Education, 96(2), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2019). Exploring parental involvement in Filipino students’ learning. Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 28(3), 267–276. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Boholano, H. (2021). Improving critical thinking through instructional innovation: A Philippine classroom perspective. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(4), 72–88. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bolok, S. R. (2019). Home learning environment and academic performance in science among junior high school students. Luz-Yñiguez Education Journal, 3(1), 19–27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Caballes, R. R., & Almario, C. P. (2021). Predictors of science achievement among Grade 10 students in public schools. International Journal of Education and Research, 9(6), 89–102. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cabansag, M. G. (2020). Classroom factors influencing science performance among junior high school learners in Northern Luzon. PNU Research Journal, 15(1), 53–67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Castillo, M. A. (2019). Factors affecting science performance of Grade 11 learners in public senior high schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 7(3), 1–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Department of Education. (2016). K to 12 curriculum guide: Science. DepEd Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. De Guzman, A. B., & Tan, E. (2021). Contextual determinants of student achievement: Implications for Philippine K–12 science education. Journal of Educational Development, 15(1), 24–34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Dizon, R. B., & Aure, M. (2018). Teaching practices and students’ problem-solving performance: Implications for higher-order thinking development. PNU Research Journal, 12(2), 101–118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ennis, R. H. (2011). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. University of Illinois. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (2017). Science motivation and learning strategies: Student self-reports. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(3), 341–358. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Malaluan, A. R., & Penano-Ho, L. (2020). Performance tasks and critical thinking: A study among Filipino learners. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(1), 115–127. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Penetrante, M. (2017). Modular and laboratory-based approaches in teaching science: Their effects on student achievement and engagement. Philippine Journal of Education Studies, 92(1), 66–78. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Salazar, R., & Maravilla, L. (2020). Teaching approaches and their influence on critical thinking development among senior high school students. Philippine Normal University Research Journal, 18(2), 56–70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social-cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101832 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• “Faunal Diversity of Antlions (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae) From Kolhapur Regions of Western Maharashtra”