publikasi internasional jurnal - pdu.untar.ac.id internasion… · publikasi internasional jurnal....

PUBLIKASI INTERNASIONAL JURNAL

Volume 23, Issue 2

November, 2015

J.P.E.R.

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL

AND

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

University of Oradea Publishing House

Editor

Mihai Marian, Ph.D.

University of Oradea, Psychology Department, Romania

Executive editor

Simona Trip, Ph.D.

University of Oradea, Romania

Assistant editor

Gabriel Roşeanu, Ph.D.

University of Oradea, Romania

Advisory board

Daniel David, Ph.D.

Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

James McMahon, Ph.D.

Michael J. Stevens, Ph.D.

Illinois State University, USA

Albert Ellis Institute of REBT, U.S.A.

Editorial board

Viorica Andriţchi, Ph.D. Institute of Educational Sciences, Republic of Moldova

Sarah M. Bonner, Ph.D. Hunter College, Department of Educational Foundations

& Counseling Programs, U.S.A.

Marius Cioară, Ph.D.


Ioana Jurcău, Ph.D. Cluj-Napoca Urgency Clinical Children Hospital,

Romania

Ellen Lavelle, Ph.D.

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, A.R.,

U.S.A.

Ruxandra Răşcanu, Ph.D.

University of Bucharest, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Studies, Romania

Viorel Robu, Ph.D. Petre Andrei University of Iasi, Faculty of Psychology and

Education Sciences, Romania

Jonathan Schwartz, Ph.D.

University of Hawaii at West O'ahu, Division of

Elementary Education, U.S.A

Alina Slapac, Ed.D.

University of Missouri-St. Louis, Division of Teaching

and Learning, U.S.A.

Cristian Tileagă, Ph.D. Department of Social Sciences, Loughborough University,

UK

Iulia Timofti, Ph.D.

"Vasile Alecsandri" University of Bacau, Romania

Gheorghe Florin Trif, Ph.D.

Technical University, Department of Teacher Tutoring,

Romania

Monica Secui, Ph.D.


Journal’s website administrator

Dan Pătroc, Ph.D.

University of Oradea, Philosophy Department, Romania

Technical editor

Marius Drugaş, Ph.D. University of Oradea, Psychology Department, Romania

English consultant

Lioara Coturbaş, Ph.D.

University of Oradea, Sociology and Social Work, Romania

ISSN: 2247–1537

Aims and scope of the Journal of Psychological and Educational

Research

The Journal of Psychological and Educational Research (JPER) (ISSN: 2247-

1537 ISSN-L: 2247-1537) continues Analele Universităţii din Oradea – Fascicula

Psihologie / The Annals of University of Oradea, Psychology Installment (ISSN:

1583-2910), integrating educational issues into the body of psychological research.

The Journal of Psychological and Educational Research (JPER) is a biannual

peer reviewed journal that publishes scientific articles corresponding to one of the

following categories:

Studies that are based upon empirical data obtained from research designs

and methodology that strictly follow the scientific principles (experimental,

correlational, metaanalitical, case studies etc.) in order to identify recurring

patterns of interactions between certain aspects of psychological and educational

variables and explain the relationship between them;

Theoretical synthesis which emphasize the cumulative character and the

current status of the scientific knowledge in a certain domain;

Thematic interviews with prestigious personalities which are active in the

domain of psychology and education, and also comments regarding important

scientific manifestations;

Reviews of books and articles that had a major impact at a paradigmatic

level in the field of psychology and education.

Publication frequency: Published biannually in May (Issue 1) and November

(Issue 2).

The acceptance rate of the articles sent for publication in the Journal of

Psychological and Educational Research (JPER), volume 23 in 2015 is 21%. Some

of the articles that have been rejected in the first phase will be published in later

volumes provided that the authors will respect the indications and suggestions of

the reviewers.

An important criterion of selection is reporting the size of effect and/or the

statistical power of the research.

Journal of Psychological and Educational Research (JPER) is covered by the

following abstraction and indexing services:

SCOPUS http://www.scopus.com

ProQuest www.proquest.com

Central and Eastern European Online Library http://www.ceeol.com

Index Copernicus International http://journals.indexcopernicus.com

EBSCO Publishing http://www.ebscohost.com

Cabell Publishing, Inc. http://www.cabells.com

The Journal of Psychological and Educational Research (JPER)

(http://www.socioumane.ro/index.php/periodice/399-journal-of-psychological-and-

educational-research) is accredited by the CNCSIS (www.cncsis.ro) from

01.05.2006 and is a type B+ journal, code 648.

Manuscript submission

Manuscripts will be submitted in electronic format (as an attached document)

via e-mail at the following address: [email protected] or in printed form in

two copies at the following address: Mihai Marian, Universitatea din Oradea,

Facultatea de Ştiinţe Socio-Umane, Departamentul Psihologie, st. Universităţii, no.

3, Campus 2, 410087 Oradea, Bihor, Romania; on the envelope please mention

„for Journal of Psychological and Educational Research (JPER)”. Upon its

arrival, the first author of the article will be notified via e-mail.

Address

Universitatea din Oradea; Facultatea de Ştiinţe Socio–Umane, Catedra de

Psihologie

St. Universităţii, no. 3, Campus 2, Oradea, Bihor, cod 410087 Romania, U.E.

Tel.: (040)0259432830 fax: (040)0259432789

http://www.socioumane.ro/index.php/periodice/399-journal-of-psychological-and-

educational-research

E-mail: [email protected]

___________________________________________________________________

Print in November 30, 2015

http://www.proquest.com/

http://www.ceeol.com/

http://www.ebscohost.com/

http://www.socioumane.ro/index.php/periodice/399-journal-of-psychological-and-educational-research


mailto:[email protected]

Journal of Psychological and

Educational Research

Vol. 23, No. 2, November, 2015

CONTENTS

_____________________

The effect of moderate task-irrelevant, negative emotion on

classroom. Test taking performance in a non-clinical population

Martinez, J. C., & Bartosek, M.

7-16

Exploring incubation effects on insight problem-solving with

computer‐based tasks

Yoo, S., Zellner, R., & Kim, H. J.

17-40

Preliminary investigation on the effectiveness of a thinking skill

training in Indonesia: “Thinking skills training with digital

technology”

Tiatri, S., & Jap, T.

41-53

Influence of training and knowledge management on competency

among quality managers at Rajabhat Universities in Thailand

Tongsamsi, K., & Tongsamsi, I.

54-72

The prediction of separation-individuation through internal-

external locus of control in Turkish late adolescents

Aslan, S.

73-89

Intervention for chronic dysthimia: A case study on diagnostic

uncertainty

Rotaru, T. Ş., Hîngănescu, A. R., & Alexa, T.

90-110

The development strategy of citizenship education in civic

education using project citizen model in Indonesia

Trisiana, A., Jutmini, S., Haryati, S., & Hidayatullah, F.

111-124

____________________________________________________________________________________________

[email protected]






41

Journal of Psychological and

Educational Research

JPER - 2015, 23 (2), November, 41-53

_____________________________________________________________

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION ON THE

EFFECTIVENESS OF A THINKING SKILL TRAINING

IN INDONESIA: “THINKING SKILLS TRAINING WITH

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY”

Sri Tiatri Tjibeng Jap

Tarumanagara University, Indonesia

Abstract

One main problem in Indonesia such as low educational achievement of school students was

thought to be due to a general lack of thinking skills. As an attempt in addressing this problem,

the present study aims to develop a thinking skill training with digital technology. The training

covers materials on critical thinking principles, Socrates reasoning method, experiential

learning, and experimental method. This is a quasi-experimental study with pretest and posttest

and a passive control group. The outcome measures were verbal intelligence and non-verbal

intelligence tests. The data were analyzed with analysis of covariance. There were forty

participants in this study. The participants´ age ranged from 13 to 19 years old with an average

of 14.5 years old (SD=1.34). A significant difference was found between the experimental and

control group for the verbal intelligence test, but not for the non-verbal intelligence tests.

Thinking skills training with digital technology successfully improved the thinking skills of the

participants as indicated by the significant improvement of verbal intelligence. Although the

results seem promising, further investigation with randomized controlled trial, different

measurements, and more training sessions are required before drawing any definitive

conclusions.

Keywords: critical thinking; thinking skill training; verbal intelligence; non-verbal intelligence;

digital technology

Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to:

* Faculty of Psychology, Tarumanagara University, Jakarta, Indonesia. Address: Jl. Letjen

S. Parman No. 1, Jakarta 11440. E-mail: [email protected]

Tjibeng Jap - Faculty of Information Technology, Tarumanagara University, Jakarta,

Indonesia


S. Tiatri and T. Jap / JPER, 2015, 23(2), November, 41-53

___________________________________________________________________

42

Introduction

Thinking skills are often regarded as key skills to be successful in

higher education (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2010) and career (Heimler,

Rosenberg, & Morote, 2012; Parham, Noland, & Kelly, 2011). An employer

and employee survey conducted in Indonesia indicates that employees with

thinking skills are rare and in great demand (Gropello, Kruse, & Tandon,

2011). Similar state of demand exists in the Indonesian education system.

According to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), Indonesian

education is considered to be below par. Indonesian education experts

understood the report as a warning sign, and they understandably called for

more attention on thinking skills training in Indonesian education (Napitupulu,

2013). The lack of thinking skills among Indonesians has been considered to

have influenced the society at large, which is portrayed in some aspects such as

citizens’ lack of concern on traffic safety (despite full understanding of the risks

involved) and rash decisions made by government officials (Wahyudi, 2013).

Many Indonesian academicians are worried that this thinking skills problem

will ultimately spread to other aspects of the society. As an attempt to address

this problem called by Indonesian education experts, we developed a training

program for thinking skills and test it.

As an important first step towards the program development, the

definition of thinking skills and how it should be measured is considered.

Measuring thinking skills is difficult because the definition lacks consensus

(Beyer, 1984). A pragmatic definition of thinking skills would be by using

intelligence quotient (IQ) tests as thinking skills measure (Stanovich, 2009).

Despite criticisms of defining thinking skills in terms of IQ tests (Duckworth,

Quinn, Lynam, Loeber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2011; Stanovich, 2009), IQ tests

have its own attractive pragmatic values as a proxy measure of thinking skills.

IQ scores are correlated with educational achievement, employment prospects,

career outcomes, and well-being (Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Bundy, 2001).

Therefore, increasing thinking skills in terms of IQ scores may positively

influence those factors.

Although IQ scores can be an attractive measure of thinking skills, it

cannot serve to guide the training material. Thus, another definition of thinking

skills that can be used to guide the material for the thinking skills training is


___________________________________________________________________

43

required. One definition of thinking skills that can serve this purpose is critical

thinking (Facione, 1990). Critical thinking is a general term for a wide range of

cognitive skills required to identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth

claims, discover and overcome personal biases, formulate and present reasons

to support a conclusion, and make reasonable decisions about what to believe

and what to do (Bassham, Irwin, Nardone, & Wallace, 2011).

Objective

The aim of this study is to develop and test a thinking skills training that

would increase thinking skills. The training is based on critical thinking

principles, Socrates reasoning method (Kahn, 1998), experiential learning, and

experimental method. It would make use of the current affordances of digital

technology. Specifically, the efficacy of the training would be investigated

through quasi-experimental design with pre- and posttest and control group.

The experimental and control group were tested twice in a period of three

weeks. The control group did not receive any training. The efficacy of the

training would be evaluated by the differences between pre- and posttest scores

of the experiment group controlling for the scores of the control group.

Method

Participants

There were 58 participants from the SM orphanage and 23 from the PH

orphanage. The participants from the SM orphanage were assigned as the

experimental group that received the training, while orphanage members of the

PH orphanage were assigned as the passive control group. After the pretest

session, 20 participants from each orphanage were selected for the study to

create an equal control group. Other participants were excluded due to lack of

serious participation, unwillingness to participate due to various reasons (e.g.

need extra time to study for upcoming national exams (N=18), have extra-

curricular activities (N=22), and some were randomly excluded to create an

equal number of experiment and control group (N=8).

Participants from both groups were in the age range of 13-19 years

(m=14.5 years old, SD´=1.34), showed consistent results in pretest, and were

willing to give full participation on the research. All the 20 participants from


___________________________________________________________________

44

SM orphanage house were female (experimental group) and the 20 participants

from PH orphanage house were male (control group).

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of

Institute for Research and Academic Publications, Tarumanagara University,

Indonesia. We obtained written informed consent from the head of SM

orphanage house in Tegal and PH orphanage house in Slawi, both are located in

Central Java, Indonesia. The head of the orphanage house was the guardian and

caretaker of the children (member of the orphanage house).

Instruments

Cattel’s Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT). This study used the

adapted Indonesian third version of the test Cattel’s Culture Fair Intelligence

Test (CFIT) (Cattell & Cattell, 1959). CFIT is an intelligence test that is

relatively free from language and cultural influence. This test is composed of

four sub-tests with different tasks on each sub-test (series, classifications,

matrices, and conditions). The test is viewed as an acceptable measure of fluid

intelligence with acceptable reliability (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2012). We did not

use the raw scores, but the adapted score based on the Indonesian norm of the

test.

Tarumanagara Children and Adolescent Verbal Intelligence Test

(TCAVIT). The Tarumanagara Children and Adolescent Verbal Intelligence

Test (TCAVIT) is a newly developed test of verbal intelligence for children and

adolescents in Indonesia. One of the main reasons for the development of this

test is the problem that is often encountered by the adapted version of verbal

intelligence test from Western tests, which are translation problems and cultural

differences. TCAVIT consists of inductive and deductive syllogism. It has 20

multiple choice questions with 4 answer options. Internal consistency reliability

(α=.69) has been shown to be acceptable among Indonesian children and

adolescents (Jap, Tiatri, Jaya, & Arjadi, 2013).

Tarumanagara Children and Adolescent Non-Verbal Intelligence Test

(TCANVIT). The Tarumanagara Children and Adolescent Non-Verbal

Intelligence Test (TCANVIT) was developed based on the idea of culture free

intelligence test originally advocated by Raven and Cattell (Kaplan &

Saccuzzo, 2012). The test consists of induction and deduction reasoning from


___________________________________________________________________

45

pictures. There are 17 multiple choice questions with 4 answer options. Similar

to TCAVIT, acceptable level of internal consistency reliability (α=.68) has been

reported with Indonesian children and adolescents population (Jap et al., 2013).

Thinking skills training with digital technology

The construction of the thinking skills training is mainly but not

exclusively based on the principles of critical thinking, Socrates reasoning

method, experiential learning, and experimental method. These principles are

then applied through the use of digital technology instrument, a digital camera.

The training was conducted in a group format. Each group consisted of five

participants.

There are various principles of critical thinking used in this training.

The principles of critical thinking are delivered at the first, second, third, and

fifth training session. The first training session present the definition and

standard of critical thinking according to Bassham, Irwin, Nardone, and

Wallace (2011). Their definition of critical thinking consists of clarity,

precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logical correctness, completeness,

and fairness. Each of these terms is discussed and given relevant everyday life

examples. The second session discusses inductive reasoning, which is then

followed by a practice session on inductive deduction with digital camera. The

third session covers materials on deductive reasoning. This is also followed by

a deductive reasoning practice sessions with digital camera. The fifth session

discusses categorical syllogism. The participants are taught to dissect sentences

into categories and examine it for logical flaw(s). After that, the participants

receive discussion materials and exercises. The purposes of these activities are

to train the participants to critically examine arguments using categorical

syllogism approach. For example: “Some lawyers are not swimmers. All

lawyers are law graduates. Therefore, some law graduates are not swimmers.

True or False?” The participants are required to draw the categorical logic with

circles and answer correctly.

The Socrates reasoning method, particularly Socratic questioning, is

employed in the communication between trainers and participants. This method

plays a major role in training critical thinking (Paul & Elder, 2006) . It is used

particularly when participants meet difficulties in understanding abstract

concepts. The trainer would then ask the participants in a Socratic questioning

manner. However, the Socratic questioning method is not used when the


___________________________________________________________________

46

participants have technical problems (e.g. problems with the cameras).

The experiential learning paradigm in this training is embedded in the

use of digital technology. The experiential learning paradigm demands that the

students learn the process of adapting things from the

environment/surroundings (Kolb, 1984). The training places the participants in

an environment where critical thinking is a required adaptation. This forces the

participants to use their thinking skills. However, unlike the usual paper and

pencil logical exercises, the training purposefully exposes the participants to

environment reflecting real life problem. The training utilizes the new

affordances of technology, which are DSLR camera and tablet computer. The

induction and deduction practice session are made of problems that are often

met by professional digital photographers, which requires induction and

deduction to solve. We believe that curiosity and engagement will arise in such

settings, thus increasing their utilization of thinking skills.

This environment is created through two main features of the DSLR

cameras, which are ISO and shutter speed. These features are normal variables

that professional photographers should always adjust. ISO and shutter speed are

about the amount of light a photograph is needed. The ISO is the film

sensitivity towards light. Higher ISO will make the film is more sensitive

towards light. The increased sensitivity camera enables the photographer to

take pictures in low-light environment, but the downside is that the picture

taken will be grainy and not clear. On the other hand, decreasing the ISO will

reduce the film’s sensitivity towards light and will result on a smoother and

finer picture. The photographer must be able to detect which ISO is appropriate

for a situation. The other feature, shutter speed, is also a light variable. The

shutter speed option adjusts the speed of the opening of the shutter in seconds.

The longer the shutter speed is opened, the more light the film receptor

received. More light will create a brighter picture and enable the photographer

to take pictures in a low-light environment. However more light will also

capture more movements, both the movement of the object and the movement

of the camera. Thus, adjusting the light in a photograph requires analyzing the

light situation in a given environment and tweaking the ISO and shutter speed

control.

Placing the participants in such environment forces them to adapt by

developing experimental skills. They are forced to form hypotheses through

deductive and inductive reasoning from the data (the light environment,


___________________________________________________________________

47

movement, shutter speed, and ISO). The hypotheses can be tested almost

instantly, which give the participants instant feedback on their way of thinking.

When their hypothesis results in a picture that is too dark or too light, they have

to revise their hypothesis and test it again by taking another picture.

The short amount of time required for the feedback and its nature is of

utmost important. A feedback that takes too long will not be as helpful as an

instant feedback, since the participants might already forget about their mistake.

Instant feedbacks are of central importance in modifying behaviors (Ferster &

Skinner, 1957). Moreover, the nature of feedback in the digital camera training

is always objective. It is not given by human. This is important to avoid the

problem of multiple and non-standardized answers across trainers. Therefore,

this will help in assuring the participants to have standardized thinking skill

through the participation of the training.

Procedures

We conducted a pretest session to all the initial set of participants from

SM orphanage house (N=58) and PH orphanage house (N=23). Then, 20

participants from SM orphanage house were selected for the experimental

group and 20 participants from PH orphanage house for the control group. The

training consisted of 8 sessions that was conducted twice a week in the

weekend (Saturday and Sunday), each for approximately 2 hours. The first

session was for pretest, and the last session was for posttest.

The independent variable was the thinking skills training with digital

technology and dependent variable was thinking skills. The hypothesis was that

the thinking skills training with digital technology would enhance thinking

skills.

Research Design

This was a quasi-experimental study with pretest and posttest control

group (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). There were two groups involved in this study,

one experimental group and one passive control group. Before the training,

participants were informed about the nature of the research, session plans, and

the confidentiality of their identity in later publication of this study. The

participants received incentives in the form of snacks at the end of every two

sessions.


___________________________________________________________________

48

Data Analysis

The data was first tested for normality using Kolmogorov-Smirnov,

then analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The posttest scores

between the experimental and control group was analyzed for differences,

while making the pretest scores from both groups as the covariate. This method

of analysis is recommended for pretest posttest non-randomized control group

design (Dimitrov & Rumrill, 2003; Huck & McLean, 1975).

Results

Descriptive result

The participants’ age ranged from 13-19 years old. The mean age for

the participants was 14.5 year old (SD=1.34). There were 20 female

participants in the experimental group and 20 male participants in the control

group. The mean of the CFIT for the experimental group at pretest was 106.45

(SD=8.78) and the mean for the control group was 98.40 (SD=20.02).The mean

score of the TCAVIT at pretest for the experimental group was 12.45

(SD=2.76) and for the control group was 10.40 (SD=4.06). The mean score of

the TNCAVIT at pretest for the experimental group was 8.00 (SD=2.60) and

for the control group was 8.90 (SD=3.71). The descriptive result of the

participants´ characteristic is available at Table 1.

Table 1. Participants’ characteristic

Characteristic Mean (Standard Deviation)

Experimental group

Age 14.2 year old (SD=0.89)

CFIT 106.45 (SD=8.78)

TCAVIT 12.45 (SD=2.76)

TNCAVIT 8.00 (SD=2.60)

Control group


CFIT 98.40 (SD=20.02)

TCAVIT 10.40 (SD=4.06)

TNCAVIT 8.90 (SD=3.71)


___________________________________________________________________

49

Table 1. Participants’ characteristic - continued

Characteristic Mean (Standard Deviation)

Combined


CFIT 102.43 (SD=15.80)

TCAVIT 11.43 (SD=3.58)

TNCAVIT 8.45 (SD=3.19) Note: CFIT (Cattel’s Culture Fair Intelligence Test); TCAVIT (Tarumanagara Children and

Adolescent Verbal Intelligence Test); TNCAVIT (Tarumanagara Children and Adolescent Non-

Verbal Intelligence Test)

Training effect

The training’s effect was examined by looking at the differences

between experimental group and control group, while holding the pretest scores

as covariates. The descriptive statistics for the pretest and posttest scores is

shown in Table 2. The three measures in this experiment were analyzed

separately. The CFIT showed no significant statistical difference between the

experimental group and control group (F(1, 37)=0.02, p>0.05, partial η2=0.00).

Both groups had an increased score at posttest. Similarly, the non-verbal

intelligence test showed no significant statistical difference (F(1, 37)=0.09,

p>0.05, partial η2=0.00). But, the verbal intelligence test showed significant

statistical difference between the experimental group and the control group

(F(1, 37)=7.68, p<0.05, partial η2=0.17).

Table 2. Pretest and posttest mean and standard deviations

Measures Pretest Posttest

Experimental group

CFIT 106.45 (SD=8.78) 111.80 (SD=10.77)

TCAVIT* 12.45 (SD=2.76) 13.30 (SD=2.30)

TNCAVIT 8.00 (SD=2.60) 8.75 (SD=3.45)

Control group

CFIT 98.40 (SD=20.02) 105.75 (SD=17.71)

TCAVIT* 10.40 (SD=4.06) 10.15 (SD=3.67)

TNCAVIT 8.90 (SD=3.71) 9.15 (SD=3.16) Note: CFIT (Cattel’s Culture Fair Intelligence Test), F(1, 37)=0.02, p>0.05, partial η

2=0.00;

TCAVIT (Tarumanagara Children and Adolescent Verbal Intelligence Test), F(1, 37)=7.68,

p<0.05, partial η2=0.17; TNCAVIT (Tarumanagara Children and Adolescent Non-Verbal

Intelligence Test), F(1, 37)=0.09, p>0.05, partial η2= 0.00; *p<0.05


___________________________________________________________________

50

Conclusion

The result showed that ‘Thinking skills training with digital technology’

has an effect on verbal intelligence measure. There is a statistically significant

difference between experimental group and control group on verbal intelligence

measure, but not on the non-verbal intelligence test. In other words, the

hypothesis was supported for the thinking skills measured by Verbal

Intelligence Test, but was not supported for the thinking skills measured by

Non-Verbal Intelligence tests. This result can be interpreted that eight sessions

of thinking skills training in four weeks have an effect on verbal reasoning

capability (as measured by the verbal intelligence test), but not on general

reasoning capability (as measured by the non-verbal intelligence test).

Furthermore, the results are in line with the findings of Hopson, Simms,

and Knezek (2001). They found that computer technology-enriched classroom

environment has a positive influence on higher-order thinking skills. In

addition, we showed that enrichment through different technology such as

digital camera and tablet also serve a similar function like computer. Moreover,

the effect of technology enrichment seem to be able to generalize across

context as we showed that it also has a positive influence on higher-order

thinking skills in orphanage home.

The exclusive effect on the participants’ verbal reasoning capability can

be explained by the over-emphasis of the training material on verbal reasoning.

The role of the trainers is to reason and question the participants’ way of

thinking. This forces the participants to develop verbal reasoning capability.

Despite the seemingly optimistic result, there are several limitations that

made the results are difficult to interpret. First and foremost is the lack of active

control group. At the time of designing the study in 2012, the issue with quasi-

experimental design in cognitive training discussed by Boot and colleagues

(2013) has not been raised. Future study should rule out the possibility of

placebo effect by examining the training under randomized control group

design with a good active control group. Secondly, the results may perhaps be

dependent on the measures that were used. Another useful consideration for

future study would be to modify the length and intensiveness of the training. A

longer and more intensive training may provide stronger effect.

To conclude, this study showed that thinking skills training with digital


___________________________________________________________________

51

technology has the potential to increase thinking skills as measured by verbal

reasoning. However, further investigation with stronger design is needed to

draw a more definitive conclusion.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Sugeng Priyatno, the head of the orphanage houses, for

allowing us to conduct the study. We are also grateful to Edo Jaya and Retha

Arjadi who provided assistance in designing the study, conducting the study,

analyzing the data, and writing this manuscript. Additionally, we are grateful to

Chysanti Arumsari and Bernard Amadeus Jaya for their assistance in writing

this manuscript.

References

Bassham, G., Irwin, W., Nardone, H., & Wallace, J. M. (2011). Critical

thinking : a student’s introduction (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Beyer, B. K. (1984). Improving Thinking Skills: Defining the Problem. The Phi

Delta Kappan, 65(7), 486-490.

Boot, W. R., Simons, D. J., Stothart, C., & Stutts, C. (2013). The Pervasive

Problem with Placebos in Psychology Why Active Control Groups Are

Not Sufficient to Rule Out Placebo Effects. Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 8(4), 445-454. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613491271

Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, A. K. S. (1959). Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT):

Scales 2 and 3 Introductory Kit. Institute for Personality and Ability

Testing, Incorporated.

Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill, J. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and

measurement of change. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and

Rehabilitation, 20(2), 159-165.

Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., Lynam, D. R., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-

Loeber, M. (2011). Role of test motivation in intelligence testing.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(19), 7716-7720.

http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018601108

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for

Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Research Findings


___________________________________________________________________

52

and Recommendations. (Reports-Research/Technical) (p. 112). Newark,

DE.: American Philosophical Association.

Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement (Vol. vii).

East Norwalk, CT, US: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Gropello, E. D., Kruse, A., & Tandon, P. (2011). Skills for the Labor Market in

Indonesia: Trends in Demand, Gaps, and Supply. Washington, DC: World

Bank Publications.

Heimler, R., Rosenberg, S., & Morote, E.-S. (2012). Predicting career

advancement with structural equation modelling. Education + Training,

54(2/3), 85-94. http://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211210215

Hopson, M. H., Simms, R. L., & Knezek, G. A. (2001). Using a technology-

enriched environment to improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of

Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 109-119.

http://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2001.10782338

Huck, S. W., & McLean, R. A. (1975). Using a repeated measures ANOVA to

analyze the data from a pretest-posttest design: A potentially confusing

task. Psychological Bulletin, 82(4), 511-518.

http://doi.org/10.1037/h0076767

Jap, T. B., Tiatri, S., Jaya, E. S., & Arjadi, R. (2013). Laporan Penelitian

Kepada Lembaga Penelitian Dan Publikasi Ilmiah Universitas

Tarumanagara: Perancangan Model Pelatihan Untuk Meningkatkan

Daya Pikir Melalui Teknologi Digital Studi Pada Anak Dan Remaja Di

Balai Rehabilitasi Sosial Jawa Tengah (Reports - Research/Technical).

Tarumanagara University.

Kahn, C. H. (1998). Plato and the Socratic Dialogue: The Philosophical Use of

a Literary Form. Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2012). Psychological Testing: Principles,

Applications, and Issues, 8th ed.: Principles, Applications, & Issues.

Cengage Learning.

Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research.

Fort Worth, TX.:Harcourt College Publishers.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning

and development. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2010). Student Success in

College: Creating Conditions That Matter. John Wiley & Sons.


___________________________________________________________________

53

Napitupulu, E. L. (2013, January 27). Indonesia Alami Krisis Pendidikan.

Retrieved August 18, 2013, from

http://edukasi.kompas.com/read/2013/01/27/21175927/Indonesia.Alami.K

risis.Pendidikan

Parham, A. G., Noland, T. G., & Kelly, J. A. (2011). Accounting Majors’

Perceptions Of Future Career Skills: An Exploratory Analysis. American

Journal of Business Education (AJBE), 5(1), 29-36.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Thinker’s Guide to the Art of Socratic

Questioning. Foundation Critical Thinking.

Stanovich, K. E. (2009). What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of

Rational Thought. Yale University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E., & Bundy, D. A. (2001). The Predictive Value

of IQ. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47(1), 1-41.

http://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2001.0005

Wahyudi, M. Z. (2013, May 31). Masyarakat Tak Terbiasa Berpikir Rasional.

Retrieved August 18, 2013, from

http://edukasi.kompas.com/read/2013/05/31/11101048/Masyarakat.Tak.Te

rbiasa.Berpikir.Rasional

Received June 6, 2015

Revision October 14, 2015

Accepted October 25, 2015

NOTES FOR AUTHORS

Manuscript format

All manuscripts forwarded for publishing will be edited in English in an A4

format with 12 point TNR characters and 2 line spacing. The length of the

manuscript may not exceed 25 pages (for empirical studies and theoretical

synthesis) or five pages for interviews, comments and reviews.

Typescripts: The style and format of the typescript should be in accordance

with the specifications given in the Publication Manual of the American

Psychological Association (5th Ed.).

The first page of the article should contain only the title of the article, the

names and surnames of the authors and also contact details for the first author

(address and e-mail), thus assuring an efficient review process.

All manuscripts will contain at page 2 an abstract in English of maximum 200

words and up to five keywords, and starting from page 3 the text body will be

introduced.

References within the text will show the mentioned author’s name and the year

the reference source was published. The reference at the end of the article will be

typed according to the APA [Publication Manual of the American Psychological

Association (2001), 5th Ed.] publication standards. Titles of journals and books

should be given in full, as shown below:

Russell, B. (1932). The Conquest of Happiness. London: Allen & Unwin.

Marian, M. (2012). The way perception of behavioural determinants influence the

dysfunctional attributions in depression. Journal of Psychological and

Educational Research, 20(2), 44-60.

Levenson, M. R., Aldwin, C. M., & D’Mello, M. (2005). Religious development

from adolescence to middle adulthood. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.),

The psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 144-161). New York: Guilford

Press.

Tables, graphics or figures (BW) will be numbered independently in

accordance with the order of appearance in the text body and will be accompanied

by an adequate title. These will be presented individually on separate pages at the

end of the manuscript and in the text body a clear reference will be made with

regard to the place of insertion of the table, graph or figure.

All editing should be done in MSWord format.

Manuscript submission

Manuscripts will be submitted in electronic format (as an attached document)

via e-mail at the following address: [email protected] or in printed form in

two copies at the following address: Mihai Marian, Universitatea din Oradea,

Facultatea de Ştiinţe Socio-Umane, Departamentul Psihologie, st. Universităţii, no.

3, Campus 2, 410087 Oradea, Bihor, Romania; on the envelope please mention

„for Journal of Psychological and Educational Research (JPER)”. Upon its

arrival, the first author of the article will be notified via e-mail.

The review process

All received manuscripts will be sent to two reviewers that are independent of

the editorial staff, which will analyze the material without knowing the identity of

the authors. The review criteria are the following:

1. The relevance of the subject to the domain of psychology and education;

2. The topicality of the investigated subject;

3. The scientific value of the article; and

4. The clarity and adequacy of the research method used.

After the review process the first author will receive one of the following

feedbacks regarding the submitted material: accepted, minor review, major review

or rejected.

In case a review by the authors is necessary, the manuscript will be sent to the

first author with the suggestions and comments of the reviewers.

Manuscripts submitted as Brief Articles will receive a simple accept or reject

disposition in the shortest possible time. Brief Articles should be restricted to

empirical or methodological papers (not theoretical ones) of up to 4000 words with

maximally 25 references and 3 tables or figures (e.g., 2 tables, 1 figure). A word

count should be included on the title page.

Address

Universitatea din Oradea; Facultatea de Ştiinţe Socio–Umane, Catedra de Psihologie

St. Universităţii, no. 3, Campus 2, Oradea, Bihor, cod 410087 Romania, U.E.

Tel.: (040)0259432830 fax: (040)0259432789



E-mail: [email protected]

publikasi internasional jurnal - pdu.untar.ac.id internasion… · publikasi internasional jurnal....

Documents