COLLABORATION

collaboration does not appear to benefit every student in every learning context—some students
appear to learn more when working individually, at least at times.

Keterampilan bekerja sama tidak tampak sebagai sesuatu yang menguntungkan bagi siswa di setiap
konteks pembelajaran – beberapa siswa tampak belajar lebih baik ketika mereka belajar secara
individu.

The research on collaboration and creativity, another 21st century skill, generally focuses on group
outcomes: Are groups more creative than individuals working alone and pooling their ideas after the
fact? The findings are generally negative, with most studies suggesting that people working in groups
tend to be less creative than individuals working on similar problems (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987; Larey &
Paulus, 1999; Thompson, 2003; West, Borrill, & Unsworth et al., 1998). Many studies have been
conducted to identify both reasons for the negative effects of groups and possible interventions that
increase group creativity.

Penelitian pada keterampilan kolaborasi dan kreativitas, yang merupakan keterampilan abad ke-21,
umumnya berfokus pada hasil kelompok: Apakah hasil kerja grup lebih kreatif daripada hasil kerja
secara individu? Hasil penelitian pada umumnya negatif dengan mayoritas penelitian menunjukan
bahwa orang yang bekerja secara kelompok cenderung lebih tidak kreatif dibandingkan dengan orang
yang bekerja individu pada suatu masalah yang sama (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987; Larey & Paulus, 1999;
Thompson, 2003; West, Borrill, & Unsworth et al., 1998). Banyak penelitian telah dilaksanakan untuk
mengidentifikasi alasan munculnya efek negatif dari belajar secara berkelompok dan merumuskan
intervensi yang memungkinkan untuk meningkatkan kreativitas kelompok.

Rudeness was assessed by video recording the participants, and then later coding the interactions.
This technique of recording and then coding has been used in other studies as well to measure
transactive (Miell & McDonald, 2000) or verbal behaviors (Gillies, 2010).

Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone.Educational Researcher, 44, 46-53.

COMMUNICATION

Communication research in the past has often focused on teacher-to-student communication

Penelitian mengenai keterampilan komunikasi pada masa lalu berfokus pada komunikasi antara guru
dengan siswa.

Definition: effectively using oral, written, and nonverbal communication skills for multiple purposes
(e.g., to inform, instruct, motivate, persuade, and share ideas); effective listening; using technology
to communicate; and being able to evaluate the effectiveness of communication efforts—all within
diverse contexts.

Farber and Klein (1999) concluded their study optimistically, calling for wider implementation of
speech-language pathologists in the classroom. This seems to be a good option; however, it
could prove to be difficult for schools to implement, due to the possible extra expense. Other similar
research needs to be done, perhaps on older populations (above the preschool and kindergarten
level), or examining the long-term impacts of these studies.

Much of the intervention research has focused on addressing student communication deficits
or helping prevent teacher bias when communicating with students. These interventions generally
look to be effective, but they do not necessarily provide guidance on promoting 21st century
communication skills within the entire student population.

Banyak penelitian eksperimen yang berfokus untuk mengatasi lemahnya keterampilan komunikasi
pada siswa atau untuk membantu munculnya bias pada saat guru berkomunikasi dengan siswa.
Eksperimen tersebut pada umumnya terlihat efektif, namun kenyataannya tidak terlalu
mempromosikan keterampilan komunikasi abad ke-21 siswa.

CREATIVITY

Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow (2004) “Creativity is the interaction among aptitude, process, and
environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and
useful as defined within a social context” (p. 90).

Teachers’ instructional practices also play an influential role. Schacter and his colleagues (2006)
have, for instance, outlined several creativity supportive practices, including: explicitly teaching for
creative thinking, providing students with choice and exploratory learning, encouraging students’
intrinsic motivation, and providing opportunities for students to use their imagination. Not only are
such practices associated with promoting creativity, they can also boost student achievement.
Unfortunately, Schacter and his team found that such practices were not frequently used by
teachers, particularly if those teachers were assigned to teach in schools serving minority and low-
performing students.

Plucker, et.al (2015) menyatakan bahwa praktik pembelajaran oleh guru memainkan perang yang
sangat berpengaruh untuk meningkatkan kreativitas siswa.Schacter et al (2006) telah menuraikan
beberapa praktik pembelajaran yang mendukung peningkatan kreativitas dan meningkatkan prestasi
belajar siswa. Sayangnya, Scharcter et.al menemukan bahwa praktik tersebut tidak sering digunakan
oleh guru, terutama jika guru tersebut ditugaskan untuk mengajar di sekolah-sekolah yang memiliki
siswa dengan kemampuan yang rendah.

However, there is empirical evidence that students do not ap- preciate the creative thinking required in doing science, and
that they do not view science in general as a creative endeavour (see Schmidt, 2011).

Namun, terdapat bukti empiris bahwa siswa tidak menganggap bahwa keterampilan berpikir kretif tidak diperlukan dalam
pembelajaran sains, dan tidak menganggap bahwa sains secara umum merupakan hasil usaha kreatif.

Thinking about Creativity in Science Education

The invention, of course, of concepts and theories, more often than not, requires extraordinary imaginative leaps, but it is
also true that even everyday scientific work, like, for example, problem finding and solving, hypothesis formation, and
modelling, requires imagi-Y. HADZIGEORGIOU ET AL.
native/creative thinking, although the latter is not usually asso-ciated with novelty.

EFFECT OF A MODEL FOR CRITICAL THINKING ON STUDENT

ACHIEVEMENT IN PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
AND INTERPRETATION, ARGUMENTATIVE REASONING,
CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS, AND HISTORY CONTENT
IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE HISTORY COURSE

CRITICAL THINKING

It could even be argued that intelligence tests were early measures of critical thinking, as early
tests attempted to measure problem-solving ability, logical thinking, and other forms of cognition that
later came to be defined as critical thinking.

Ku (2009) points out that multiple- choice, survey-style inventories are likely not the most effective
way to measure critical thinking. She argues for a more comprehensive test involving both multiple-
choice and short- answer questions. Researchers generally agree that assessments should be based
on simulations that approximate real-world problems and issues and that reflect “authentic” problems,
contexts, and performances (Bonk & Smith, 1998; Halpern, 1998).

JENNIFER H. REED
Graduate School
University of South Florida
Tampa, Florida

Despite widespread expressions of concern about developing critical thinkers, studies have
shown that most schools are neither challenging students to think critically about academic
subjects nor helping them develop the reasoning abilities needed to deal successfully with the
complexities of modern life. Our educational system continues to graduate students who do
not reason well (Goodlad, 1984; Goodlad & Keating, 1994; Kennedy, 1991; Paul, 1993).
Recent studies by Perkins and associates (Perkins, 1989; Perkins, Faraday, & Bushey 1991)
and Kuhn (1992) have documented the faulty everyday reasoning and poor argumentation
skills used by most people. Even a college education appears to have a limited effect on
graduates’ critical thinking abilities, including making reasonable interpretations of texts and
formulating unbiased and well-reasoned arguments (Halpern, 1998; Keeley & Browne, 1986;
Kurfiss, 1988; Perkins, 1985).

Penelitian telah menunjukkan bahwa sebagian besar sekolah yang tidak menantang siswa
untuk berpikir kritis tentang mata pelajaran akademik maupun membantu mereka
mengembangkan kemampuan penalaran yang diperlukan untuk berhasil dengan kompleksitas
kehidupan modern. Studi terbaru oleh Perkins dan rekan (Perkins, 1989; Perkins, Faraday, &
Bushey 1991) dan Kuhn (1992) telah mendokumentasikan penalaran sehari-hari dan
keterampilan argumentasi yang buruk pada kebanyakan orang. Bahkan perguruan tinggi
tampaknya memiliki efek terbatas pada kemampuan berpikir kritis lulusannya, termasuk
membuat interpretasi yang wajar dari teks dan merumuskan argumen yang berisi dan
beralasan (Halpern, 1998; Keeley & Browne, 1986; Kurfiss, 1988; Perkins, 1985).