 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 20, Issue 1, Article 2 (Aug., 2019) |
The measurement results of students’ cognitive styles
The subjects were students of the biology education class in 2013 with reflective and impulsive cognitive styles. To obtain data on which students had which styles, measurements of cognitive styles on each student were carried out. The aspects were observed and recorded in the measurement of cognitive style, which includes the time (t) used by the student for the first answer and frequency (f) of students to respond to and obtain the correct answer. Average time (t) and frequency (f) for each student were calculated, followed by average time (t) and frequency (f) of all students being tabulated in tables to determine the median of time and frequency. The cognitive style measurement results are presented in Table I. The median of time data t (intervals), and frequency data (frequency until the correct answer) were used to determine cognitive styles.
Table I. Statistical description of the cognitive style measurement results.
Total of Students
Time(second)
Frequency
Total of Reflective Students
Total of Impulsive Students
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
36
0.749
0.046
0.186
5.692
1
2.50
13
13
Information: Min = Minimum Data Med = Median
Max = Maximum Data
The results of the measurement of MFFT, showing the four types of cognitive thinkers, are presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Plotted MFFT scores showing the four different types of cognitive thinkers.Based on Table I, the number of reflective students is 13 (36.1%), while the number of impulsive students is 13 (36.1%); the proportion of students who were reflective and impulsive (72.2%) was higher than the percentage of quick and precise/accurate in answering or slower and less precise/less accurate in answering, namely 27.8%. These results are consistent with some the results found by previous researchers, such as Rozencwajg and Corroyer (2005), who showed that the proportion of students with reflective-impulsive scores were 76.2%; Warli (2010), showing that the proportion of students with reflective-impulsive is 73.7%; Cintamulya (2014, 2016) showing that the proportion of students with reflective-impulsive is 66.6%; and Fadiana (2016) showing that the proportion of students with reflective-impulsive is 73.7%.
The measurement of critical thinking skills in students with reflective versus impulsive cognitive styles
The measurement of critical thinking skills in students with reflective and impulsive cognitive styles was done at the end of the semester, after completion of learning conservation and environmental knowledge. Implementation of measurements was performed at the time of the Semester Final Exams by using critical thinking skills test instruments. The critical thinking skills test consists of six questions, with scores for each question with a range of 1–5 so that the highest possible score is 30. Measurement results of the critical thinking skills in students with reflective and impulsive cognitive styles of learning conservation and environmental knowledge are presented in Table II.
Table II. Measurement results of critical thinking skills in reflective and impulsive cognitive style of learning conservation and environmental knowledge students.
Reflective Cognitive Style
Impulsive Cognitive Style
Scores of Critical Thinking
Frequency
Scores of Critical Thinking
Frequency
30
1
24
1
29
1
20
1
24
3
18
1
23
1
17
1
20
2
15
4
19
2
12
4
18
2
9
1
12
2
Total
13
Total
13
Average Scores
21.54
Average Scores
15.08
The difference between scores of students with reflective and impulsive cognitive styles was non-parametrically statistically analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test. The results of the data are shown in Table III.
Table III. The results of the Mann-Whitney test of scores of critical thinking skills between students with reflective and impulsive cognitive styles.
Critical Score
Mann-Whitney U
Wilcoxon W
Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)]
24.500
115.500
-3.103
.002
.001a
.001b
.000
.002
.000b
.000
.001
Monte Carlo Sig.
(2-tailed)
Sig.
99% Confidence
Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Monte Carlo Sig.
(1-tailed)
Sig.
99% Confidence
Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Based on Table III, the Asymp. Column Sig. (2-tailed)/Asymptotic significance for the two-sided test is 0.002 or probability below 0.05. Decision Mann-Whitney Test results were if the probability 0.05, then H0 is accepted, and if the probability 0.05, then H0 is rejected. Thus, because the probability is below 0.05, then H0 is rejected. This means that the difference between the students with reflective versus impulsive cognitive styles on conservation and environmental knowledge learning is significant.
The average scores of the critical thinking skills of students with the reflective cognitive style are higher than the scores of students with the impulsive cognitive style, as shown in Table II. As explained by Rozencwajg and Corroyer (2005), the students with reflective cognitive styles have the characteristics of using a long time to answer the question carefully or meticulously so that the answers given tend to be correct. While the students with impulsive cognitive style have the characteristics of using a short time to answer the problem carelessly so that the answers tend to be incorrect. The answers sampled from the students with reflective and impulsive cognitive styles are shown in Figure 2 and 3.
Figure 2. Sample answer from a student who has a reflective cognitive style.
Figure 3. Sample answer from a student who has an impulsive cognitive style.
Based on the sample answers of the reflective and impulsive students, some differences among them were: (1) the reflective students were better at understanding the problems, so their explanations are more detailed than the impulsive students; (2) the reflective students gave more detailed reason than the impulsive students, with evidence that was relevant to the problem; (3) the reflective student used more information compared to the impulsive student; (4) the reflective student provided more explanation and examples than the impulsive student.
From the differences shown in answering the questions, it can be said that the students with the reflective cognitive style fulfill more criteria of critical thinking than the impulsive students. This result is in accord with several studies reported by other researchers about critical thinking based on reflective and impulsive cognitive styles, such as Rahayu and Winarso (2018), Fridanianti et al. (2018), Arniwati and Cintamulya (2017), Muryani and Cintamulya (2018), and Rofi’ah and Masriyah (2018).
The criteria for critical thinking by Ennis (1985) include: (1) focus (indicator: understand the given problem); (2) reason (indicator: give reasons based on facts/evidence relevant at every step in making a decision or conclusion); (3) inference (indicator: make decisions based on the right reason to support the conclusions); (4) situation (indicator: use all the information in accordance with the problem); (5) clarity (indicator: provide further explanation of what is meant in the conclusions; explain the terms in the question; give examples of cases similar to the matter); and (6) overview (indicators: rechecking, overall, from beginning to end). The criteria for critical thinking by Paul and Elder (2007) are modified, which include: clarity, accuracy, precision, depth, breadth, and logic.
The differences in critical thinking skills of the students with reflective and impulsive cognitive styles are important for teachers to understand to deal with the implementation of learning processes. According to Griggs (1991), learning styles should be taken into consideration as a precondition to developing critical thinking. Every individual has a learning style. If the learning style is accommodated, the attitudes toward learning can improve with an increase in productivity, academic achievement, and creativity. In other words, cognitive style is a variable that affects the learning process (Rezaei et al., 2013). Cognitive style is an important aspect that must be considered by teachers in developing students’ critical thinking skills (Forood & Farahani, 2013). The importance of learning styles in the learning process is shown by the results of the research of Heidari and Bahrami (2012) and Aliyari (2015), which indicates a strong positive relationship with critical thinking and the reflective cognitive style and a negative relationship with critical thinking with the impulsive cognitive style. Finally, the teachers can consider the differences in students’ cognitive styles when they design the learning model that empowers critical thinking skills and accommodate the students’ cognitive styles.
