How to Improve Creative Thinking Skills of Pre-Service Physics
Teachers?
Adam Malik
1,2
, Uus Ruswandi
2
, Agus Setiawan
1
, Andi Suhandi
1
and Anna Permanasari
1
1
School of Postgraduate Studies, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudi No 229, Bandung 40154, Indonesia
2
UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung, Jl. A.H. Nasution No 105, Bandung 40614, Indonesia
Keywords: HOT Lab, Creative Thinking Skills, Pre-Service Physics Teachers.
Abstract: The present study was aimed at investigating the use of Higher Order Thinking (HOT) Lab to improve
creative thinking skills of pre-service physics teachers. To this end, this study employed a quasi-
experimental design. The research subjects were 60 students enrolled in the Physics Education Program of
UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung. 30 of them were assigned to the experimental group who used the HOT
Lab, and the other 30 to the control group who used verification lab. The results revealed that students’
creative thinking skills improved with a high average N-gain as a result of using HOT Lab that consists of
various activities that can enhance creative thinking skills. Thus, it can be concluded that the use of HOT
Lab can improve students’ creative thinking skills better than the use of verification lab. It is recommended
that HOT Lab be used in other educational levels.
1 INTRODUCTION
Active learning pedagogies that promote Higher
Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) play an important
role and are suggested to be implemented in
educational system (Alismail and McGuire, 2015;
Madhuri et al., 2012). Therefore, a problem solving
oriented HOT Lab was developed to develop HOT
through practicums (Malik et al., 2012). According
to Malik and Setiawan (2016), HOT Lab procedure
is a combination of creative problem solving and
problem solving lab and consists of five general
process: 1) understanding a given challenge, 2)
producing ideas, 3) preparing practicum activities, 4)
carrying out practicum activities, and 5)
communicating and evaluating the outcomes. Every
activity in HOT Lab is designed to promote both
convergent (critical) and divergent (creative)
thinking skills.
Creative thinking skills (CTS) is required to
anticipate the opportunities and challenges of the
21st century. As a way of thinking, CTS can be used
to work collaboratively to solve problems and to
generate and develop innovative products (Chai et
al. 2015; Klieger and Sherman, 2015; Chang et al.
2015; Binkley et al. 2012; Stojanova, 2010).
Therefore, students’ CTS should be trained and
developed during the lecture in order for the students
to be ready for the future challenges.
There have been many studies on CTS as part of
HOTS; for examples, studies on the implementation
of creative problem solving strategy to improve CTS
by Im et al. (2016) Leisema and Wannapiron (2013)
Centikaya (2013) and Wang and Horng (2002).
Other studies used various instructional models to
improve CTS including: creative inquiry learning
(Yang et al., 2016), project-based instruction (Şener
et al. 2015), brainstorming (Runco, 2007), creative
problem solving (Isaksen and Treffinger, 2004),
inquiry based learning (Madhuria et al. 2012). Other
studies investigated the correlation between CTS
and other aspects such as learning achievement
(Anwar et al., 2012), reading and writing skills
(Copping, 2016; Wang, 2012). Other studies
investigated the effectiveness of using certain
instruments or trainings to improve CTS; for
example, the effect of using Scientific Structures
Creativity Measure (SSCM) on divergent thinking
(Meyer and Lederman, 2015), the effect of creative
reversal act on creative thinking (Sak and Oz, 2010),
and the effectiveness of creativity training (Scott et
al, 2004).
However, few studies have investigated the
implementation of HOT oriented practicum in
universities to improve students’ CTS. This study
Malik, A., Ruswandi, U., Setiawan, A., Suhandi, A. and Permanasari, A.
How to Improve Creative Thinking Skills of Pre-Service Physics Teachers?.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education (ICSE 2017) - Volume 2, pages 423-427
ISBN: 978-989-758-316-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
423

employed a quasi-experimental design. An essay test
was used to measure the pre-service physics
teachers’ CTS after using HOT Lab.
2 METHODS
This study used a quasi-experimental design. The
experimental group carried out a practicum on
elasticity using HOT Lab consisting of 11 activities
as follows: understanding real world problem,
determining and evaluating ideas, answering
experimental questions, preparing materials and
instruments, answering predictions, answering
methodical questions, exploring, measuring,
analyzing, drawing a conclusion, and presenting the
outcomes. Using verification lab, the control group
carried out a practicum on elasticity consisting of
nine activities as follows: understanding the
objectives, understanding the basic theory, preparing
materials and instruments, completing the
introductory task, carrying out the experiment
procedure, measuring, analyzing, drawing a
conclusion, and completing the final task.
The research subjects were all fourth semester
students enrolled in the Physics Education Program
of UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung in the 2016-
2017 academic year. The samples were 30 students
consisting of 12 males and 18 females assigned to
the experimental group and 30 control group
students consisting of 9 males and 21 females; they
were chosen using a simple random sampling
technique. The samples were heterogeneous in their
achievement index. The population claimed that they
did not have sufficient CTS training during the
lectures.
Students’ CTS was measured using an essay test
developed with reference to the Torrance’s
framework comprising four components: fluency,
flexibility, elaboration, and originality. In addition,
every test question item was also designed to elicit
creative thinking activities such as asking question,
guessing of cause, fixing the product, guessing the
possibility that happened, and fixing the results; the
design was adopted from Alrubaie and Daniel
(2014). The scoring system for every question used a
1-3 scale.
To find out the improvement in CTS, a
normalized gain <g> calculation was carried out.
The result of <g> calculation was interpreted using
Hake’s (1999) criteria: <g> <0.3 means low, 0.3 ≤
<g> ≤ 0.7 means moderate, and <g> > 0.7 means
high. After the normal distribution and homogeneity
tests, a t-Test was conducted to find out if the CTS
improvement of the experimental group was
different from that of the control group.
In addition, to identify the effect of HOT Lab on
the CTS improvement, an effect size calculation was
conducted. The effect size was identified using the
standardized mean (d) from Cohen et al (2007). The
result of calculation was interpreted using the
criteria from Cohen et al (2007); i.e., 0<d<0.2 means
a small effect, 0.2 ≤ d ≤ 0.8 means a medium effect,
and d ≥ 0.8 means a large effect.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The CTS improvement size was measured by
calculating individual N-gain. Table 1 presents the
data of CTS improvement of both experimental and
control groups.
Table 1: Students’ CTS Improvement.
Category
N-Gain KBK
N-gain Average (%)
Experimental
Control
Low
0.00
63.33
Medium
13.33
36.67
High
86.67
0.00
Average
73.63
29.76
The majority of experimental group students
experienced a high improvement in their CTS, and
the majority of control group students experienced a
low improvement. The N-gain average score of the
experimental group was 73.63%, and that of the
control group was 29.76%.
The pretest and posttest average scores of the
experimental group were 45.42% and 85.56%
respectively, and those of the control group were
33.06% and 52.92%. Table 2 presents the statistical
data of CTS improvement of both experimental and
control groups.
Table 2: Statistical Data of Students’ CTS Improvement.
Data type
Normal distribution test (α= 0.05)
Homogeneity
Test
(α= 0.05)
t-Test
Significance level
Note
Significance
level
Note
Experimental
Control
Experimental
Control
Creative
thinking skills
0.112
0.087
Normally
distributed
Normally
distributed
0.325
Homogeneous
0.000
Significant
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
424

Table 2 shows that the data of both groups were
normally distributed and homogeneous. The result of t-
Test showed that the experimental group students’ CTS
was significantly different from those of the control
group students.
The <g> calculation for each CTS indicator was
conducted to elaborate the result discussion. Table 3
presents the N-gain average score of each CTS indicator
of both groups.
Table 3: N-gain average score of each CTS indicator.
No
Activity of
creative
thinking skills
Aspect of creative thinking skills
Fluency
Flexibility
Elaboration
Originality
Experimental
Control
Experimental
Control
Experimental
Control
Experimental
Control
1
Asking question
0.75
0.28
0.60
0.21
2
Guessing of
cause
0.80
0.24
0.70
0.28
3
Fixing the
product
0.72
0.33
0.72
0.36
4
Guessing the
possibility that
happened
0.75
0.37
5
Fixing the
results
0.81
0.20
Average
0.78
0.26
0.65
0.25
0.74
0.35
0.77
0.28
Fluency was the most improved aspect in the
experimental group. Its improvement was high.
However, it was low in the control group. Students who
used HOT Lab could think fluently when asking
questions and guessing causes. The N-gain average
score for the guessing of because activity was higher
than that of the asking question. Students were trained
to ask questions and guess causes by determining and
evaluating ideas, answering predictions, exploring and
presenting the outcomes in HOT Lab. Students could
think fluently when choosing and analyzing the given
ideas to solve real world problem, predicting the cause
and effect relationship between variables, exploring and
testing ideas to design the experiment procedure, and
presenting the outcomes to test the predictions
previously proposed collaboratively. The result of this
study confirms the result of a previous study that the use
of HOT Lab improved students’ fluency better than the
verification lab (Malik, et al., 2017). The fluency of the
control group students who used the verification lab was
not well-trained and not well-developed. The N-gain
average score of the guessing of because activity was
lower than that of the asking question. This indicated a
difference from the experimental group. Students only
proved what they had previously learned. During the
practicum, they had to do something previously
determined in the experiment procedure. This confirms
a previous study that cookbook experiment does not
facilitate understandings of what has been done (Von
and Von, 2007).
Flexibility was the least improved aspect in both
groups. However, the improvement in flexibility of the
experimental group was medium, or higher than that of
the control group. Those who used HOT Lab could
think flexibly when asking questions and guessing
causes by presenting various questions, arguments, and
answers to solve the real world problem. The flexibility
N-gain average score of the guessing of because activity
was higher than that of the asking question. The
flexibility in asking questions and guessing causes was
trained and developed by answering predictions,
answering experimental questions, answering
methodical questions, measuring and analyzing during
practicum in HOT Lab. This is in agreement with
previous studies that CTS can be enhanced through
collaborative problem solving (Leisema and
Wannapiron, 2013; Centikaya, 2013). The flexibility
improvement of the control group was low. The
flexibility N-gain average score of the guessing of
because activity was higher than that of the asking
question. This goes to show a difference from the
experimental group in fluency and a similarity in
flexibility. Those who used the verification lab could
not think flexibly because they were always told what
and how to measure by following the predetermined
procedure. This is in line with McDermott’s (1999)
opinion that conventional laboratory activities do not
really help improve thinking ability.
The improvement in elaboration of the experimental
group was high and higher than that of the control
group. Those who used HOT Lab could think
elaborately when fixing the product and guessing
possibilities by enriching and developing an idea or a
product to improve the outcomes. The N-gain average
score of the guessing the possibility that happened
activity was higher than that of the fixing the product
activity. Elaboration aspect was trained and developed
when exploring, measuring, analyzing, and presenting
the outcomes in HOT Lab. This confirms the result of
study conducted by Malik et al. (2017) that HOT Lab
How to Improve Creative Thinking Skills of Pre-Service Physics Teachers?
425

could improve the elaboration aspect better than the
verification lab. Elaboration was the most improved
aspect in the control group. The N-gain average score of
the guessing the possibility that happened activity was
higher than that of the fixing the product activity. This
indicated a similarity to the experimental group.
Students who used the verification lab analyzed and
determined various factors to see if the outcomes
corresponded to the references. This is in line with
Heuvelen’s (2001) opinion that cookbook lab practicum
is no longer beneficial for the students especially when
it comes to equipping them with hands-on and minds-on
scientific skills.
The improvement in the originality aspect of the
experimental group was high and higher than that of the
control group. The N-gain average score of the fixing
the result activity was higher than that of the fixing the
product activity. The activity of answering methodical
questions, exploring, measuring, analyzing, and
presenting the outcomes in HOT Lab enabled students
to think originally during fixing the product and fixing
the results activities. Students were able to express new
and unique ideas to solve a problem and to produce an
innovative product. This is in contradiction with the
result of a previous study suggesting that implementing
creative problem solving (CPS) strategy as a basis for
the development of HOT Lab is not significantly better
than non-CPS strategies in improving students’ original
thinking (Wang and Horng, 2002). Originality aspect of
the control group students in fixing the product and
fixing the results activities was not well-trained and not
well-developed. The N-gain average score of the fixing
the result activity was lower than that of the fixing the
product activity. This result indicated a difference from
the experimental group. The control group students
simply decided the details of the analysis with an
emphasis on conceptual (quantitative) proof. The main
objective of verification lab is to describe and elaborate
what has been learned and to teach an experimental
technique (Heller, K and Heller, P, 2010).
The improvements of all CTS aspects of the
experimental students were higher than those of the
control group students. This confirms the result of a
previous study suggesting that HOT Lab could
improve all aspects of other high order thinking
skills (Malik, et al., 2017).
The result of the effect size calculation to measure
the effect of HOT Lab implementation in improving
students’ CTS was 7.84. Referring to the criteria of
Cohen et al (2007), it could be interpreted that the
effect was large. It can then be concluded that the effect
of using HOT Lab on students’ CTS was larger than
that of the verification lab. This is in line with
Wenning’s (2011) opinion that cookbook lab is driven
step by step instructions requiring minimum
intellectual involvement thereby promoting robotic and
rule-conforming behaviors.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Generally, we have successfully conducted a study on
the implementation of HOT Lab in improving CTS of
pre-service physics teachers. The results revealed that
the improvement of all CTS aspects of the experimental
group who used HOT Lab was significantly different
from that of the control group who used verification lab.
Fluency was the most improved aspect, and flexibility
the least improved in the experimental group. HOT Lab
is worth considering to be implemented to teach other
physical topics.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researchers thank the Institute for Research and
Community Services (LPPM) of UIN Sunan
Gunung Djati Bandung for supporting this
publication.
REFERENCES
Alismail, H. A., McGuire, P., 2015. 21st century standards
and curriculum: current research and practice, Journal
of Education and Practice. vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 150–155.
Alrubaie, F., Daniel, E. G., 2014. Developing a creative
thinking test for Iraqi physics students. International
Journal of Mathematics and Physical Sciences
Research. vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 80-84.
Anwar, M. N., Aness, M., Khizar, A., Naseer, M.,
Muhamad, G., 2012. Relationship of creative thinking
with the academic achievements of secondary school
students. International Interdisciplinary Journal of
Education. vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 44-47.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley,
M., Miller-Ricci, M., Rumble, M., 2012. Defining
Twenty-First Century Skills, in P Griffin, B Mcgraw, E
Care (eds), Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century
Skills, Springer. New York.
Centikaya, C., 2013. The effect of gifted students’ creative
problem-solving program on creative thinking, Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences. vol. 116, no. 1.
Chai, C. S., Deng, F., Tsai, P. S., Koh, J. H. L., Tsai, C.
C., 2015. Assessing multidimensional students
perceptions of twenty-first-century learning practices.
Asia Pacific Education Review. vol. 16, no. 3, pp.
389–398.
Chang, Y., Li, B. D., Chen, H. C., Chiu, F. C., 2015.
Investigating the synergy of creative thinking and
creative thinking in the course of integrated activity in
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
426

Taiwan. Educational Psychology. vol. 35, no. 3, pp.
341–360.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., Lecturer, P., Morrison, K.,
Lecturer, S., 2007. Research methods in education,
Routledge. Oxon,
6th
edition.
Copping, A., 2016. Exploring connections between
creative thinking and higher attaining writing.
Education. pp. 3-13.
Hake, R. R., 1998. Interactive-engagement versus
traditional methods: A sixthousand-student survey of
mechanics test data for introductory physics courses.
American Journal of Physics. vol. 66, pp. 64-74.
Heller, P., Heller, K., 2010. Problem solving labs, in
cooperative group problem solving in physics.
Research Report. Departement of Physics University
of Minnesota, viewed 2 Maret 2016,
http://www.umn.org.
Heuvelen, A. V., 2001. Millikan lecture 1999: The
workplace, student minds, and physics learning
systems. Journal American of Physics. vol. 69, no.11.
Im, H, Hokanson, B., Jhonson, K. K., 2016. Teaching
creative thinking skills: A longitudinal study. Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal. vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 129-
142.
Isaksen, S. G., Treffinger, D. J., 2004. Celebrating 50
years of reflective practice: Versions of creative
problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior.
vol. 38, pp. 75–101.
Klieger, A., Sherman, G., 2015, Physics textbooks: Do
they promote or inhibit students’ creative thinking.
Physics Education. vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 305–309.
Leisema, S., Wannapiron, P., 2013, Design of collaborative
learning with creative problem-solving process learning
activities in a ubiquitous learning environment to develop
creative thinking skills. Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences. vol. 116, no. 14, pp. 3921-3926.
Madhuria, G. V., Kantamreddia, V. S. S. N., Goteti, L. N.
S., 2012. Promoting higher order thinking skills using
inquiry-based learning. European Journal of
Engineering Education. vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 117–123.
Malik, A., Setiawan, A., 2016. The development of higher
order thinking laboratory to improve transferable skills
of students. Procedings of the 2015 International
Conference on Innovation in Engineering and
Vocational Education. Atlantis Press, vol. 56, pp. 36–
40.
Malik, A., Setiawan, A., Suhandi, A., Permnasari, A.,
2017. Enhancing pre-service physics teachers' creative
thinking skills through hot lab design. The 4th
International Conference on Research,
Implementation, and Education of Mathematics and
Science (4th ICRIEMS). AIP Conf. Proc. vol. 1868,
pp. 070001-1–070001-7.
McDermott, C. L., 1999, A perspective on teacher
preparation in physics and other sciences. American
Journal of Physics. vol. 58, no. 8.
Meyer, A. A., Lederman, N. G., 2015. Creative cognition
in secondary science: An exploration of divergent
thinking in science among adolescents. International
Journal of Science Education. vol. 37, no.10, pp.
1547–1563.
Runco, M. A., 2007. Creativity, theories and themes:
research, development and practice, Elsevier.
Amsterdam.
Sak, U., Oz, O., 2010. The effectiveness of the Creative
Reversal Act (CREACT) on students’creative
thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity. vol. 5, pp.
33–39.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., Mumford, M. D., 2004. The
Effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative
review. Creativity Research Journal. vol. 16, no. 4,
pp. 361–388.
Şener, N., Türk, C., Tas, E., 2015. Improving science
attitude and creative thinking through science
education project: A design, implementation and
assessment. Journal of Education and Training
Studies. vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 57–67.
Stojanova, B., 2010. Development of creativity as a basic
task of the modern educational system. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences. vol 2, no. 2.
Von, A. C., Von, A. S., 2007. University students’
activities, thinking and learning during laboratory
work. European Journal of Physics. vol. 28, no. 3, pp.
S51–S60.
Wang, A. Y., 2012. Exploring the relationship of creative
thinking to reading and writing. Thinking Skills and
Creativity. vol. 7, pp. 38–47.
Wang, C. W., Horng, R. Y., 2002. The effects of creative
problem-solving training on creativity, cognitive type, and
RandD performance. The Journal of Research,
Technology and Innovation Management. vol. 32, no. 1,
pp. 35-45.
Yang, K., Lee, L., Hong, Z., Lin, H., 2016. Investigation
of effective strategies for developing creative science
thinking. International Journal of Science Education.
vol. 0693, pp. 1–19.
Wenning, C. J., 2011. Experimental inquiry in
introductory physics courses. J. Phys. Tchr. Educ.
Online. vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1-8.
How to Improve Creative Thinking Skills of Pre-Service Physics Teachers?
427