IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
You may also like
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS
Effect of Higher Order Thinking Laboratory on the
Improvement of Critical and Creative Thinking
Skills
To cite this article: A Setiawan et al 2018 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 306 012008
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
- The efforts of improving mathematical
connection ability of senior high school
student with 7e learning cycle model
R G S Nabilah, S Suhendra and K Yulianti
- Implementation of STEM Approach Based
on Project-based Learning to Improve
Creative Thinking Skills of High School
Students in Physics
M Widyasmah, Abdurrahman and K
Herlina
- Brain Jogging Training to Improve
Motivation and Learning Result of Tennis
Skills
M Tafaqur, Komarudin, Mulyana et al.
This content was downloaded from IP address 175.176.80.219 on 28/06/2022 at 11:55
ICIEVE 2017
IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering
306 (2018) 012008 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/306/1/012008
1234567890‘’“”
Effect of Higher Order Thinking Laboratory on the
Improvement of Critical and Creative Thinking Skills
A Setiawan*, A Malik, A Suhandi, and A Permanasari
Science Education Program, School of Postgraduate Studies, Universitas Pendidikan
Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229 Bandung 40154 Indonesia
*agus_setiawan@upi.edu
Abstract. This research was based on the need for improving critical and creative thinking skills
of student in the 21-st century. In this research, we have implemented HOT-Lab model for topic
of force. The model was characterized by problem solving and higher order thinking
development through real laboratory activities. This research used a quasy experiment method
with pre-test post-test control group design. Samples of this research were 60 students of Physics
Education Program of Teacher Educatuon Institution in Bandung. The samples were divided into
2 classes, experiment class (HOT-lab model) and control class (verification lab model). Research
instruments were essay tests for creative and critical thinking skills measurements. The results
revealed that both the models have improved student’s creative and critical thinking skills.
However, the improvement of the experiment class was significantly higher than that of the
control class, as indicated by the average of normalized gains (N-gain) for critical thinking skills
of 60.18 and 29.30 and for creative thinking skills of 70.71 and 29.40, respectively for the
experimental class and the control class. In addition, there is no significant correlation between
the improvement of critical thinking skills and creative thinking skills in both the classes.
1. Introduction
The learning achievement described in the National Standards of Higher Education implies that every
university needs to equip students with the 21st century skills including critical thinking, creative
thinking, problem solving, cooperative, communication as well as ICT-literate. Those skills are well
known as 21st century skills or transferable skills. In general, transferable skills are skills developed in
one situation to be transfered to other situations, from classroom learning situations to real life situations
[1].
Transferable skills can be developed through science learning process in classrooms or practicum in
laboratories. Practicum is important to (1) generate motivation for science learning, (2) improve basic
skills of experiment, (3) apply scientific approach and (4) support mastery of learning materials [2]. The
main purpose of physics practicum is to increase physics knowledges, improve practicum skills, aroush
interest, develop creative thinking and problem-solving skills, improve scientific thinking skills as well
as apply methods of experiment [3]. In addition, practicum also offers context-rich learning experiences,
enhance conceptual understanding, develop practical skills [4] and the best way to learn the nature of
science [5, 6].
In fact, purposes of practicum as mentioned above have not fully implemented by teachers in physics
teaching and learning as reflected in the results of questionnaires distributed to several senior high
schools in West Java. Most physics teachers face difficulties to develop practicum procedures. The
current practicums tend to cookbook model and lact of practicum equipments. Most physics teachers
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd
1
ICIEVE 2017
IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering
306 (2018) 012008 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/306/1/012008
1234567890‘’“”
only organize practicum twice per semester [7]. A research reported that implementation of physics
practicum in senior high school in Bengkulu Province is in the low category [8]. Main constrains
experienced by teachers to do practicum are as follow: (1) lack of practicum facilities, (2) time limited
to do practicum and (3) difficult to design practicum. We also identified that the existing practicums
havenot developed higher order thinking skills. By considering the previous findings, it is urgent to
develop a Higher Order Thingking Laboratory (HOT Lab) to facilitate 21st century skills (transferable
skills). Furthermore, the HOT Lab developed in this research should be able to solve problem with
practicum equipments and limited time for practicum.
Some empirical studies aimed at improving critical and creative thinking skills as part of transferable
skills has been widely carried out. Research on strategy and model of learning to enhance critical
thinking skills that have been done include guided inquiry learning model [9], problem-based approach
[10], collaborative work approach [11], application of writing strategies [12]. Research on improving
creative thinking skills using strategies and learning models that have been done include brainstorming
[13, 14], lateral thinking [15], creative problem solving [16, 17], project-based learning [18] and creative
inquiry learning [19]. While research on the improvement of two high-level thinking skills, critical and
creative thinking skills together through practicum in university level is as an innovation. Therefore this
research addresses what can the HOT lab improve critical and creative thinking skills and what is the
relationship between students' critical and creative thinking skills.
2. Experimental Method
This research employs a quasi-experimental method with control group pretest-posttest design. The
experiment class implemented HOT Lab consisting of 11 stages: real world problem, determine and
evaluate ideas,experimental questions, materials and equipment, prediction, question method;
exploration, measurement, analysis, conclusion and presentation. While the control class implemented
verification lab consisting of 9 stages: objectives, basic theory, tools and materials, preliminary
assignment, trial procedure, measurement, analysis, conclusion, and final report.
Population in this research is students of Physics Education Program of UIN Sunan Gunung Djati
Bandung at semester IV in academic year of 2015/2016. The samples are 60 students divided into 30
students for experimental class and 30 students for control class. The samples were selected by using a
simple random sampling technique. The instrument used in this research is an essay test to measure
critical and creative thinking skills on the concept of Force. Indicators of critical thinking test refers to
Binkley et all framework [20], while indicator of creative thinking skills test refers to Torrance
framework.
Data were analyzed by using a normalized gain <g> according to the equation expressed by Hake
[21]. The calculated <g> was then interpreted by the Hake criterion [22] ( <g> <0.3 (low); 0.3 ≤ <g> ≤
0.7 (medium); and <g>> 0.7 (high). The difference of the <g> for experiment and control classes was
tested by t-test after previously conducting normality test using One-Sample Kolmogorov Smirnov test
and homogeneity test by using test of homogenity of variances. Then, correlation between critical
thinking skill and creative skills was calculated by corelation bivariate test.
3. Result and Discussion
3.1. Critical Thinking Skills
Figure 1 provides average score of pretest, posttest and N-gain for creative thinking skills. N-gain of
critical thinking skills for HOT Lab class is 60.2% (medium category) and verification lab class is
29.30% (low category). Result of statistical calculation is shown in Table 1. It can be concluded that there
is a significant difference of students' critical thinking skills skill between HOT lab class compared to lab
verification class. This means that HOT lab is better than verification lab to improve critical thingking skills.
2
N-gain of critical thinking skills (%)
ICIEVE 2017
IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering
306 (2018) 012008 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/306/1/012008
1234567890‘’“”
80.00
72.22
70.00
60.18
60.00
48.47
50.00
40.00
30.00
29.93
27.08
29.30
20.00
Experiment
Control
10.00
0.00
Pretest (%)
Posttest (%)
N-gain (%)
Figure 1. Average N-gain scores of critical thinking skills
Table 1. Statistic calculation of critical thinking skills data
Data type
Critical
thinking
skills
Normality (α = 0.05)
Level
Information
Significance (2-tailed)
Experimental Control Experimental Control
0.782
0.983
Normal
Normal
Uji t (α = 0.05)
Level
Information
Significance
(2-tailed)
0.000
Significant
Homogeinity
(α = 0.05)
0.109
Homogeneous
Further calculations are performed for each aspect of critical thinking skills in both the groups. The result
is shown in Figure 2. The N-gain for each aspect of critical thinking skills in the experimental class is
higher than the control class. All aspects of critical thinking skills (CTS1 to CTS6) in the experimental
class are in modium category. The N-gain of critical thinking skills aspect in the control class classified
into two categories, namely medium category for CTS1 and CTS2 and low category for CTS3 to CTS6.
N-gain of a critical thinking
skills aspect
70.00
61.44
60.50
60.00
57.85
59.02
60.41
53.89
50.00
40.00
32.37
32.32
27.50
30.00
23.28
27.83
29.06
20.00
10.00
Experiment
Control
0.00
CTS.1
CTS.2
CTS.3
CTS.4
CTS.5
CTS.6
Figure 2. Average N-gain for each aspect of critical thinking skills
Respectively:
1. CTS1. Explain. State results, justify procedures, and present arguments
2. CTS2. Analyze how parts of a whole interact with each other to produce overall outcomes in complex systems
3. CTS3. Interpret information and draw conclusions based on the best analysis
4. CTS4. Synthesize and make connections between information and arguments
5. CTS5. Inference. Query evidence, conjecture alternatives, and draw conclusions
6. CTS6. Evaluate. Assess claims and arguments
3
ICIEVE 2017
IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering
306 (2018) 012008 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/306/1/012008
1234567890‘’“”
The CTS1 aspect shows the greatest N-gain for both the class, in medium category. However, the
experimental class shows higher improvement than the control class. The aspect of explanation shows
the greatest N-gain in both the classes. Students of the HOT Lab class are capable to present and provide
results, procedures and arguments. Those skills have been developed in the stage of exploration and
presentation in the HOT Lab design. In the both stages, the students design and check system of work
from provided choice of answers to solve problems and present experimental results obtained in the
form of verbal and non-verbal. In contrast, students of verification lab class are already informed what
to measure, perform the given procedures. They do not present the the obtained experiments. This result
agreed with previous study that cookbook experiments less facilitates to know what have been done
during the experiment [22].
Aspect of CTS4 shows the smallest N-gain in both the classes. But, the experiment class has higher
N-gain (medium category) compated ro the control class (low category). Stages of experimental
questioning and questions method in the HOT lab design facilitate much better opportunity for students
to connect the provided information with the presented arguments. While the student of of verification
lab lass only decide the details of the analysis and emphasize the concept comprehension (quantitative).
This is in accordance with the focus of developed competency in the lab verification design that supports
what students are learning, teaching experimental techniques but lacking the practice of thinking skills
[23].
N-gain creative thinking
skills (%)
3.2. Creative thinking skills
Figure 3 provide the average score of pretest, posttest and N-gain of creative thinking skills for the
experimental class and control class on the topic of force. Here, N-gain scores are provided in decimal
numbers. We noted that creative thinking skills of the experimental class and the control class are
increased. However, N-gain of the experimental class is higher (0.7, high category) than that of the
control class (0.29, low category). Table 2 provides results of statistical calculation of creative thinking
skills in experiment and control class. It can be concluded that there critical thinking skills of the
experimentalkclass (HOT lab class) is significantly better than that of the control class (Verification Lab
class).
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
82.86
70.71
53.33
42.22
33.97
29.40
Experiment
Pretest
Posttest
N-gain
Figure 3. Average N-gain of creative thinking skills
Table 2. Statistic calculation of students' creative thinking skill
Data
type
Creative
thinking
skills
Normality (α = 0.05)
Level
Information
Significance
Experiment Control Experiment Control
0.528
0.509
Normal
Normal
4
Homogeinity
(α = 0.05)
0.798
Homogeneous
Uji t (α = 0.05)
Level
Information
Significance
0.000
Significant
ICIEVE 2017
IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering
306 (2018) 012008 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/306/1/012008
1234567890‘’“”
N-gain of aspect of creative
thinking skills (%)
Further calculations have been made for each aspect of creative thinking skills in both the classes
(Figure 4). The average N-gain for each aspect of creative thinking skills in the experimental class is
higher than that of the control class. In the experimental class, three aspects of creative thinking skills
(fluency, flexibility and elaboration) showed high category while the aspect of orginalities showed
medium category. The N-gain aspects of creative thinking skills in the control class classified into two
categories: fluency and elaboration are in the medium category while the flexibility and orginality
aspects are in low category.
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
75.33
74.04
73.47
37.94
69.50
36.78
27.61
Fluency
Flexibility
26.89
Elaboration
Originality
Experiment
Control
Figure 4. Average N-gain for each aspect of creative thinking skills
Fluency aspect shows the greatest N-gain both in the experimental class and control class. N-gain of
the experimental class is higher than the control class. In the stages of question method, activity in the
HOT lab design provides a better opportunity for students to think fluently related to asking questions
that serve a guide for a problem solving. One can find the most basic principles of physics and its
problems by asking questions [24]. The fluency aspect in the control group is less developed, because
in the verification lab design students are just doing the procedures already given. This agrees with
other report that the implementation of verification lab rarely cacilitate to understand what has been
done [25].
The originality aspect shows the smallest N-gain for both the experimental class and control class.
N-gain of the experimental class is higher than the control class. The stages of exploration and analysis
activities in the HOT lab design give better opportunities for students to think originaly to produce a
new and unique phrase. In contrass, students who impelemened verification lab design only decide the
details of analysis and emphasize the concept comprehension. The results are similar to other studies
reprting that the application of CPS strategy as the basis of HOT Lab design does not significantly
improve originality of thinking skills as compared to non-CPS strategies [26].
3.3. Correlation between creative and critical thingking skills
In this study, we also explore the correlation between N-gain of critical thinking skills and creative
thinking skills in the experimental class and control class. The result of statistical calculation is provided
in Table 3. We found that significantly there is no correlation between N-gain of critical thinking skills
and N-gain of creative thinking skills both for experimental class and control class.The result indicate
that critical thinking skills and creative thinking skills as high-level thinking skills are associated with
other variables such as age, cognitive level and field of study[27]. Other aspect related to the science
process is the logic of science as a form of logical thinking. Therefore, the laboratory activities also give
a rich context for using logical thinking together between creative thinking skills and critical thinking
skills [28]. Every activity in the HOT Lab promotes together convergent thinking (critical thinking) and
divergent thinking (creative thinking).
5
ICIEVE 2017
IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering
306 (2018) 012008 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/306/1/012008
1234567890‘’“”
Table 3. Correlation between creative thinking and critical thinking skills of the experimental class
and control class
Group
Experiment
class
Control
class
Normality (α = 0.05)
Level of
Information
Significance
Critical
Creative
Critical
Creative
0.782
0.528
Normal
Normal
0.983
0.509
Normal
Normal
Correlations test
Homogeinity
(α = 0.05)
0.205
Homogeneou
s
0.165
Homogeneou
s
Level of
Significance
Information
Pearson
corelation
Information
0.149
No corelation
-0.270
Negative
corelation
0.310
No corelation
0.192
Positif
corelation
4. Conclusion
We have successfully carried out a research to investigate effect of HOT lab in improving critical
thinking skills and creative thinking skills of students. The results showed that HOT lab increased better
critical thinking and creative thinking skills of students as competed to verification lab design. This
research also found that there is no siginificat correlation between improvement of creating thinking
skills and critical thingking skills. However, further researchs are required to elaborate factors that
influence no-correlation between critical skills and creative thinking skills.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank to the chairperson, Lab operator and assistant as well as students of the
Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung who allowed and contributed in
this research. The authors also would like to thank The Minsitry of Research, Technology and Higher
Education for financial support of this research through Hibah Pascasarjana research scheme year 2017.
References
[1] Denicolo P and Reevers J 2013 Developing Transferable Skills (London: SAGE Publications Ltd)
[2] Hofstein A and Lunetta V N 2004 The laboratory in science education: Foundation for the 21st
century Science Education 88 (1) p 28–54
[3] Deacon C and Hajek A 2011 Student perceptions of the value of physics laboratories International
Journal of Science Education 33 (7) p 943–977
[4] Byers W 2002 Promoting active learning through small group laboratory groupes University
Chemistry Education, 6 p 28–34
[5] Brewe E., Kramer L., and O’Brein, G., Modeling instruction: positive attitudinal shifts in
introductional physics measures with class, Physics Review Special Topics Physics
Educational Resource, 5 (1): 013102 (2009)
[6] Wenning C J 2006 A framework for teaching the nature of science Journal of Physics Teacher
Education Online 3 (3) p 3-10
[7] Malik A and Setiawan A 2016 The Development of Higher Order Thinking Laboratory to
Improve Transferable Skills of Students Proceedings 2015 International Conference on
Innovation in Engineering and Vocational Education (Bandung), Vol 56 (Amsterdam: Atlantis
Press) p 36–40
[8] Sutarno M and Putri D H 2013. Pengembangan laboratorium virtual fisika untuk meningkatkan
keterampilan proses sains siswa SMA di wilayah miskin Propinsi Bengkulu. Laporan
Penelitian Hibah Bersaing. Universitas Bengkulu
[9] Malik A 2010 Model pembelajaran inkuiri dengan menggunakan virtual laboratory dan real
laboratory untuk meningkatkan penguasaan konsep dan keterampilan berpikir kritis siswa
SMA pada topik listrik dinamis, Tesis (Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia)
[10] Ku K Y L., Ho I T., Hau K T., and Lai E C M 2014 Integrating direct and inquiry-based instruction
in the teaching of critical thinking: an intervention study, Instr Sci, 42 p 251–269
6
ICIEVE 2017
IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering
306 (2018) 012008 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/306/1/012008
1234567890‘’“”
[11] Cowden C D and Santiago M F 2016 Interdisciplinary explorations: promoting critical thinking
via problem-based learning in an advanced biochemistry class, Journal of Chemical Education,
93 (3) p 464–469
[12] Temel S 2014 The effects of problem-based learning on pre-service teachers’ critical thinking
dispositions and perceptions of problem-solving ability, South African Journal of Education,
34 (1) p 1-20
[13] Osborn A F 1963 Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving
(3rd revised ed.) (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
[14] Runco M A 2007 Creativity, Theories and Themes: Research, Development and Practice,
(Amsterdam: Elsevier)
[15] De Bono E 1971 Lateral Thinking for Management (New York: McGraw-Hill).
[16] Isaksen S G and Treffinger D J 2004 Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: versions of
creative problem solving, The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, p 75–101
[17] Busyairi A and Sinaga P 2015 Strategi pembelajaran Creative Problem Solving (CPS) berbasis
eksperimen untuk meningkatkan kemampuan kognitif dan keterampilan berpikir kreatif,
Jurnal Pengajaran MIPA, 20 (2), p 133-143
[18] Şener N., Türk C., and Tas, E., 2015 Improving science attitude and creative thinking through
science education project : a design, implementation and assessment, Journal of Education
and Training Studies, 3 (4), p 57–67
[19] [Yang K., Lee L., Hong Z., and Lin H., 2016 Investigation of effective strategies for developing
creative science thinking, International Journal of Science Education, 0693 (September), p 1–
19
[20] Binkley M., Erstad O., Herman J., Raizen S., Ripley M., Miller-Ricci M., and Rumble M., 2012
Defining Twenty-First Century Skills (Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills) eds
Grifin P McGaw B and Care E (New York: Spinger) chapter 2 p 17–66
[21] Hake R R 1999 Analyzing change/gain scores, American Educational Research Association,
[online] di:http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/AnalyzingChange-Gain, pdf
[22] Bowen G M and Roth W M., 2005 Data and graph interpretation practices among preserve science
teachers, J Res Sci Teach, 42 (10) p 1063–1068
[23] Kukliansky I 2009 The characterization of data analysis and understanding of related concepts in
the physics laboratory among science and engineering students Unpublished doctoral
dissertation (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev)
[24] Stenberg R., 2012 The assesment of creativity: an investmen-based approach. Creativity Research
Journal, 24 (1), p 3-12
[25] Von Aufschnaiter C and Von Aufschnaiter S 2007 University students’ activities, thinking and
learning during laboratory work European Journal of Physics 28 (3) S51–S60
[26] Wang C W.and Horng R Y 2002 The effects of creative problem solving training on creativity,
cognitive type and R & D performance, The Journal of Research, Technology and Innovation
Management, 32 (1), p 35-45
[27] Lin W C 2004 The relationship among creative, critical thinking and thinking styles in Taiwan
high school students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31 (1), p 33-45
[28] Koray Ö and Köksal M S 2009 The effect of creative and critical thinking based laboratory
applications on creative and logical thinking abilities of prospective teachers, Asia-Pacific
Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 10, Issue 1, Article 2, p.1
7