Measuring creative thinking skills of senior high school male and female students in physics (CTSP) using the IRT-based physTCreTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.46Keywords:
Creative thinking skill, gender difference, Senior High School physics learningAbstract
The study is aimed at (1) describing students’ CTSP, (2) comparing CTSP between male and female students, (3) identifying the highest and lowest sub-aspects of students’ CTSP. The research subjects were 534 students of the State Senior High School in Bantul Regency, obtained by a stratified random sampling technique. The testing instrument was the IRT-based PhysTCreTS and data were analysed using the Partial Credit Model (PCM) IRT technique. Findings show that: (1) The highest percentage of students’ CTSP lies in the “medium” category (48%), while the “high” and “very high” categories amount to 23%; (2) The CTSP of male students have a higher percentage than those of the female students but, in term of the means, male students’ abilities are lower; and (3) There are differences in the CTSP sub-aspects between male students and female students. For the high category, male students are dominant on the sub-aspects planning, expressing, and formulating while female students are dominant in planning, formulating, and expressing. For the low category, male students are dominant in finding alternatives, criticizing, and testing while female students are dominant in finding alternatives, developing, and testing. The result can be used as a ground base to enhance students' creative thinking by giving special treatment to sub-aspects which fall into the low category of the creative thinking abilities of male and female students.
Downloads
References
Amir, Z.M.Z. (2013) Perpektif Gender dalam Pembelajaran Matematika [Gender Perspectives in Mathematics Learning]. Jurnal Marwah Vol. XII No.1 Juni Th. 2013. page 15-31
Aziz, R. (2006). Studi tentang kreativitas pada siswa Sekolah Menengah Pertama di kota Malang [Study of creativity in junior high school students in the city of Malang]. Psikoislamika, 3, 3, 239-254.
Azwar, S. (2012). Reliabilitas dan validitas [Reliability and validity]. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., & Rumble, M. (2010). Defining 21st century skills. Australia: University of Melbourne.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81-90.
BSNP. (2006). Penyusunan KTSP Kabupaten/ Kota; Panduan Penyusunan Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan Jenjang Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah [Preparation of Regency/City KTSP; Guide to Compiling Curriculum Levels of Primary and Secondary Education]. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
Chiappetta, E. L and Koballa, T. R. (2010). Science Instruction in the Middle and Secondary Schools. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Cramond, B., Morgan, J.M, Bandalos, D., & Zuo, L. (2005). A report on the 40-year followup of the Torrence tests of creative thinking: Alive and Well in the new millennium, Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 4, 283-291.
Çelik, H, Kırındı, T. & Ayçiçek Kotaman, Y. (2020). The Effect of the Computer-Based Analogy Used in Science Teaching on Learning. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(1), 73-93.
Daker, R. J., Cortes, R. A., Lyons, I. M., & Green, A. E. (2020). Creativity anxiety: Evidence for anxiety that is specific to creative thinking, from STEM to the arts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000630
De Bono, E. (1990). Mengajar Berpikir [Teaching Thinking]. Translater: Soemardjo. 1992. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Edgerton, Jason D, Tracey Peter, Lance W. Robert. (2014). Gendered Habitus and Gender Differences in Academic Achievement. Alberta Journal of Education Research, Volume 60(1), 182-212.
Elliot, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., Cook, J. L. & Travers, J. F. (2000). Educational Psychology: Effective Teaching, Effective Learning, Third Edition. United States of America: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Etkina, E., Alan van H., Suzanne W. B., David T. B., Michael G., Sahana M., David R. & Aaron W. (2006). Scientifics abilities and their assessment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research2, 020103: 1-15.
Gülen, S. & Yaman, S. (2019). The Effect of Integration of STEM Disciplines into Toulmin's Argumentation Model on Students’ Academic Achievement, Reflective Thinking, and Psychomotor Skills. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(2), 216-230.
Heong, Y. M., Othman, W.B., Yunos, J.B.M., Kiong, T.T., Hassan, R.B., & Mohamad. M.M.B. (2011). The Level of Marzano Higher Order Thinking Skills among Technical Education Students. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 1, No. 2, July 2011, (Online), (http://www.ijssh.org/papers/20-H009.pdf), It was acceded on 26 November 2017.
Istiyono, Edi, Wipsar Brams Dwandaru, & Farida Rahayu. (2018). Pengembangan tes creative thinking skills fisika SMA (PhysCreTHOTS) berdasarkan teori tes modern [Development of high school physics creative thinking skills tests (PhysCreTHOTS) based on modern test theory]. Cakrawala Pendidikan, Th. XXXVII, No. 2, 2018.
Mahanal, S. (2011). Pengaruh Pembelajaran Berbasis Proyek pada Mata pelajaran Biologi dan Gender terhadap Keterampilan Metakognisi dan Kemampuan Berpikir Kritis Siswa SMA di Malang [The Effect of Project Based Learning on Biology and Gender Subjects on Metacognition Skills and Critical Thinking Ability in High School Students in Malang]. Research Report. Malang: Lemlit UM.
Mahmoodi, Masoud & Shahrebabaki. (2015). Relationships Between Language Teachers’ Time-Management Skill, Creativity, and Burnout: A Mediation Analysis. Alberta Journal of Education Research, Volume 61(1), 20-39.
Mardapi, Djemari. (2012). Penyusunan intrumen tes dan nontes [Preparation of test and nontest instruments]. Yogyakarta: Mitra Cendekia
M. L. Nering & R. Ostini. (2006) Handbook of Politomous Item Response Theory Models. London
Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (1997). Parscale 3: IRT based test scoring and item analysis for graded items and rating scales: Chicago: Scientific Software Inc.
Reese, H. W., Lee, L., & Cohen, S. H., Puckett, J. M. (2009). Effects of intellectual variables, age, and gender on divergent thinking in adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 2001 25 (6) 491–500, (Online) (nccuir.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/20791/1p99.pdf), It was acceded on 26 November 2017.
Retnawati, Heri. (2014). Teori Respons Butir dan Penerapannya [Item Response Theory and Its Application]. Yogyakarta: Nuha Medika
Santrock. W. J. (2002) Life-Span Development 2, Translater: Chusairi & Damanik). Jakarta: Erlangga
Sitorus, Jonni. (2017). Students’ Thinking Way: Learning Trajectory of Realistic Mathematics Education. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics. Volume 5(1), 22-31.
Slameto. (1991). Belajar dan faktor yang Mempengaruhinya [Learning and factors that influence]. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta
Spooner, Marc. (2001). Creative Teenage Students: What Are They Telling Us About Their Experiences in (and Around) Our High Schools? Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Volume 48(4), 314-326.
Suryabrata, S. (2002). Pengembangan Alat Ukur Psikologis [Development of Psychological Measurement Instrument]. Yogyakarta: Andi Offset.
Widhiarso, Wahyu (2010). Model Politomi dalam Teori Respons Butir [Politomous Model in Item Response Theory]. Yogyakarta: Psikologi UGM.
Van der Linden, Wim J and Hambleton, Ronald K. (1997). Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc
OECD. (2015). PISA 2015 Result in Focus [Online] https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015results-in-focus.pdf. It was acceded on May 2018
TIMSS & PIRLS. (2015). International Result in Science [Online] http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/wp-content/uploads/filebase/full%20pdfs/T15-International-Results-in-Science-Grade8.pdf. It was acceded on 19 May 2015
Sabtiawan, W. B., Yuanita, L., & Rahayu, Y. S. (2019). Effectiveness of Authentic Assessment: Performances, Attitudes, and Prohibitive Factors. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(2), 156-175.
Sasser, L. (2010). Brain Differences between Genders. Gender Differences in Learning, Genesis 5:12, (Online), (http://www.faccs.org/assets/ Conventions/Convention 10/Workshops/SasserGenderDifferences-in-Learning.pdf),
Sudjana, N. (1990). Penilaian Hasil Belajar Mengajar [Teaching and Learning Outcomes Assessment]. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Sukardiyono, Rosana, D. & Dwandaru, W. S. B. (2019). Measuring junior high school students’ science learning and science process skills through and integrated science instructional assessment. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16 (4), 467-477.
Tanti, Maison, Mukminin, Syahria, Habibi, & Syamsurizal, (2018) Exploring the Relationship between Preservice Science Teachers’ Beliefs and Self-Regulated Strategies of Studying Physics: A Structural Equation Model. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15(4), 7992
Walsh, C. M., & Hardy, R.C. (1999). Dispositional Differences in Critical Thinking Related to Gender and Academic Mayor. Journal of Nursing Education, Apr 1999; 38, 4; ProQuest Central pg. 149, [Online]. http://textos.pucp.edu.pe/textos/descargar/1111.pdf, It was acceced on 26 November 2017.
Zubaidah, Siti, Nur Miftahul Fuad, Susriyati Mahanal, Endang Suarsini. (2017). Improving Creative Thinking Skills of Students Through Differentiated Science Inquiry Integrated with Mind Map. Journal of Turkish Science Education, Volume 14(4), 77-91.
Downloads
Issue
Section
Published
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
