publikasi internasional jurnal - pdu.untar.ac.id internasion… · publikasi internasional jurnal....
TRANSCRIPT
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.
University of Oradea, Psychology Department, Romania
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.
University of Oradea, Psychology Department, Romania
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
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.socioumane.ro/index.php/periodice/399-journal-of-psychological-and-
educational-research
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
S. Tiatri and T. Jap / JPER, 2015, 23(2), November, 41-53
___________________________________________________________________
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
S. Tiatri and T. Jap / JPER, 2015, 23(2), November, 41-53
___________________________________________________________________
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
S. Tiatri and T. Jap / JPER, 2015, 23(2), November, 41-53
___________________________________________________________________
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
S. Tiatri and T. Jap / JPER, 2015, 23(2), November, 41-53
___________________________________________________________________
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,
S. Tiatri and T. Jap / JPER, 2015, 23(2), November, 41-53
___________________________________________________________________
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.
S. Tiatri and T. Jap / JPER, 2015, 23(2), November, 41-53
___________________________________________________________________
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 pre- test 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
Age 14.8 year old (SD=1.64)
CFIT 98.40 (SD=20.02)
TCAVIT 10.40 (SD=4.06)
TNCAVIT 8.90 (SD=3.71)
S. Tiatri and T. Jap / JPER, 2015, 23(2), November, 41-53
___________________________________________________________________
49
Table 1. Participants’ characteristic - continued
Characteristic Mean (Standard Deviation)
Combined
Age 14.5 year old (SD=1.34)
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
S. Tiatri and T. Jap / JPER, 2015, 23(2), November, 41-53
___________________________________________________________________
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
S. Tiatri and T. Jap / JPER, 2015, 23(2), November, 41-53
___________________________________________________________________
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
S. Tiatri and T. Jap / JPER, 2015, 23(2), November, 41-53
___________________________________________________________________
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.
S. Tiatri and T. Jap / JPER, 2015, 23(2), November, 41-53
___________________________________________________________________
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
http://www.socioumane.ro/index.php/periodice/399-journal-of-psychological-and-
educational-research
E-mail: [email protected]