Developing Creative Thinking Skills in Metal Purification Concept

through Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Method

Cucu Zenab Subarkah

, Abdul Latif

and Citra Deliana Dewi Sundari

Department of Chemistry Education, UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung, Jl. Cimincrang, Cimenerang, Panyileukan,

Bandung, West Java, 40292, Indonesia

Keywords: Creative Thinking, Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, Creative Problem Solving, Metal Purification.

Abstract: Students are not only required to have good cognitive abilities, but must also have creativity in facing global

competition. In this study, student creativity has been developed by applying creative problem solving

(CPS) learning to metal purification concept. The design of the method used is a one shoot case study with

research subjects as many as 38 students of the second semester Chemistry Education study program. Data

on students' creative thinking ability is measured through a creative thinking ability evaluation test

consisting of indicators of fluency, flexibility, and originality. The value on the fluency indicator is 88

which is in the very good category. The value on the flexibility indicator is 72 which is in the good

category. While the value in the originality indicator is 66 which is in the adequate category. Overall the

level of creative thinking ability of students is at level three by achieving fluency and flexibiity indicators

and categorized as creative. CPS learning uses an approach centered on problem solving skills, which is

followed by strengthening creativity so as to create a creative learning process. Thus, CPS learning on metal

refining materials can develop students' creative thinking skills.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the 21st century, Indonesia as a developing

country is in dire need of creative personnel who are

able to improve the welfare of this nation (Noer,

2011). Student creativity is also required in the

learning process, because college graduates must be

able to apply logical thinking, critical, systematic,

and innovative in the context of the development or

implementation of science and technology that pay

attention to and apply the values of humanities that

are in accordance with their fields of expertise. In

fact, in the learning process there are still many

students who have low creative thinking abilities,

thus it will be difficult to face global competition

that not only requires an individual good cognitive

abilities, but also has creativity (Sani, 2013). Based

on this phenomenon, a learning model is needed that

can develop students' creativity in order to achieve

learning goals (Yudhanegara, 2015).

One of learning model that can develop creative

thinking skills is the Creative Problem Solving

(CPS) learning model (Lee, 2005). This model uses

an approach that focuses on problem solving skills,

which is followed by strengthening creativity

(Pepkin, 2009). Unlike general problem solving

methods, this CPS learning model develops a series

of ideas at the problem solving stage into new ideas

to solve problems (Cardellini, 2006). Treffinger and

Isaksen provide reinforcement that this CPS model

can be used by individuals to formulate problems

and analyze various kinds of effective problem

solving to implement a solution with a series of new

actions (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005).

Characteristics of chemistry as a science are

difficult to understand, require deep and creative

thinking skills (Sari & Hidayat, 2017). One of

chemical concept that is considered difficult to

understand and is considered complicated is

electrolytic cells (Subarkah et al., 2016). Direct

experiments are needed to better understand the

concept of electrolytic cells (Subarkah et al., 2016).

Some concepts in electrolytic cell are abstract but

have concrete examples in everyday life (Subarkah

et al., 2016), such as changes in electrical energy

into chemical energy in the process of metal plating

(electroplating) and metal purification

(electrometallurgy) (Jespersen et al., 2012). Metal

purification material is not sufficiently understood

with the level of basic thinking, because the learning

Subarkah, C., Latif, A. and Dewi Sundari, C.

Developing Creative Thinking Skills in Metal Puriﬁcation Concept through Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Method.

DOI: 10.5220/0010024100002917

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Sciences, Laws, Arts and Humanities (BINUS-JIC 2018), pages 551-555

ISBN: 978-989-758-515-9

551

objectives expected from learning this material are

students can evaluate the symptoms or processes that

occur in it so that the development of creative

thinking skills is needed (Humaeroh, 2016). Metal

refining material is a relevant material for

developing creative thinking skills, because the key

to creative thinking is thinking to design, solve

problems, make changes and improve and get new

ideas (Bono, 2007). Therefore, in this research, the

application of creative problem solving learning

(CPS) to develop creative thinking ability in metal

purification concept is studied.

2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research applies a class research method with

one shoot case study research design, i.e. research

carried out without the presence of a comparison

group, to determine the effect of the treatment given

without regard to other factors (Sukmadinata, 2007).

At the beginning of the study, students watched

videos about gold metal purification and were asked

to explain the contents of the video. Then the

students were given worksheets about copper metal

purification and students were asked to follow the

instructions and answer questions in the worksheet

in groups. Furthermore, students are instructed to

make an efficient copper metal purification product

that will be used for experiments at the next

meeting. After successfully making copper metal

purification equipment, students conduct

experiments using the tools that have been made and

report the results of the experiment. Finally, students

are given evaluation questions to determine students'

creative thinking skills after the implementation of

CPS learning. Determining the level of creative

thinking ability, namely at level 4 students can

achieve three indicators of fluency, flexibility and

originality which are categorized as very creative, at

level 3 students can only achieve two indicators of

fluency and originality or flexibility and originality

which are categorized as creative, at level 2 students

only achieve one indicator of flexibility or

originality which is categorized as quite

creative/adequate, while at level 1 students only

achieve fluency indicators which are categorized as

low creativity, and at level 0 students cannot reach

these three indicators and are categorized as very

low creativity.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Students' creative thinking skills were measured

using evaluation tests that include fluency,

flexibility, and originality indicators. The indicator

of fluency is the ability to produce many ideas. In

measuring fluency, students are asked to think of

many different solutions for a problem. Flexibility

indicator is the ability to produce uniform ideas, be

able to change ways or approaches and have

different directions of thinking. Flexibility is

measured in terms of individual abilities in trying

approaches or ways to solve a problem. While the

originality indicator is the authenticity of the ideas

produced in responding to the idea correctly. The

originality indicator is measured by evaluating

unusual solutions or new solutions given by students

(Kaplan et al., 2005). The results of the analysis of

each indicator of creative thinking ability, i.e.

fluency, flexibility and originality are presented in

Table 1.

Based on Table 1, the average value of the

creative thinking ability test on the fluency indicator

obtained is 88 points with very good categories. As

for the learning achievement group, the higher group

obtained an average score of 90 with very good

interpretation. The group was getting an average

score of 91 with very good interpretation, and the

lower group obtained an average score of 84 with

very good interpretation. In this indicator of creative

thinking abilities all students can easily master the

fluency indicators. This is seen from the acquisition

data which states that all learning achievement

groups obtain an average score above 80 with very

good interpretation. The success of this indicator

when learning using the CPS model precisely at the

clarification of the problem stage, students have

been able to link problems with the concepts learned

so that they can determine the main problem

appropriately. The connection between the problem

and the concept will help students to learn so that

they can solve problems (Suma & Suastra, 2013). As

a result, students are accustomed to seeing problems

from various points of view so that students easily

clarify the problem (Trianto, 2009) i.e. curiosity,

independence, problem solving and linking

problems (Sari & Hidayat, 2017). In addition, the

criteria for the questions are having more than one

answer make students able to solve them easily

(Siswono, 2011).

The overall analysis results on the flexibility

indicators obtained by students are interpreted as

good. This can be seen in the average value obtained

on the flexibility indicator of 77. As for the learning

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference

552

Table 1. Analysis of Creative Thinking Ability Test Results on Each Indicator based on Learning Achievement Groups

Student

Achievement

Group

Aspects of Creative Thinking Abilit

Score Interpretation

Fluency Flexibility Orginality

Higher group 90 81 72 81 Very creative

Medium group 91 72 69 77 Creative

Lower group 84 62 56 67 Creative

Average 88 72 66

75 Creative

Category Very good Good Adequate

achievement group, the higher group obtained an

average score of 81 with very good interpretation,

the medium group was getting an average score of

72 with very good interpretation, and the lower

group achieved an average score of 62 with good

interpretation. Based on observations that have been

made during CPS learning, precisely at the stage of

brainstorming, students actively discuss their ideas

to create hypotheses. With discussions, groups of

students can solve problems that they may not solve

themselves (Cardellini, 2006). Discussion can

encourage students to think and improve the ability

of students who have average or low achievements

to participate in the learning process (Djamarah &

Zain, 2006). As a result, students are used to

answering questions with different answers than

usual, so that the approach to answers to students

always has the different answers.

In the third indicator that is originality, the

overall results are interpreted as good. This is seen

in the average value obtained in the originality

indicator that is equal to 66. As for the learning

achievement group, the high group gets an average

value of 72 with good interpretation, the medium

group is getting an average score of 69 with good

interpretation, and the lower group gain an average

score of 56 with a fairly good interpretation.

Originality indicators are developed during CPS

learning, precisely at the implementation stage. At

this stage students are instructed to make efficient

copper metal purification products. The aim of

making copper metal purification equipment is to

develop the originality of thinking skills that

students have. In this case Nirmala (2010) explained

that the ability to think creatively can be developed

by making learning products. With the creation of

learning products, students' thinking power can

develop (Fatmawati, 2011). In addition, assigning

students to make learning products can foster

learning motivation which is the key to success in

the learning process (Lam et al., 2009). In the higher

achievement group, the group get the highest score

because the the students can express ideas that are

rarely expressed by most students, while in the lower

achievement group get the lowest score because they

only able to provide answers that are fixated on the

textbook. Originality is the main characteristic in

assessing a product of creative thinking that must be

different from before (Siswono, 2011). Therefore,

the originality indicator is considered very important

in knowing students' creative thinking skills. But in

the test of creative thinking skills carried out by

researchers, the achievement of these indicators of

creative thinking is in the lowest position when

compared with other aspects of creative thinking

such as flexibility and fluency. This is because the

originality indicator is at the highest level of

difficulty between the two indicators of other

creative thinking abilities so that students still

experience difficulties in achieving these aspects.

Student difficulties due to learning resources are not

allowed to be used during this test.

Based on the description of the three indicators

of creative thinking, the highest average score is

found in the fluency indicator with very good

interpretation. Meanwhile, the indicator of creative

thinking with the lowest achievement is on the

indicator of originality with sufficient interpretation.

Overall the level of creative thinking ability of

students is at level 3 with the achievement of fluency

and flexibility indicators and categorized as creative.

The number of students at each level of creative

thinking ability based on group learning

achievement can be seen in Figure 1.

In Figure 1, the higher achievement groups of 5

people were in level 4 with very creative categories

and 3 people included in level 3 with creative

categories. While in the medium achievement group

as many as 9 people were at level 4 with a very

creative category and 18 people included in level 3

with the creative category. In lower achievement

group, 3 people are included in level 3 with creative

categories and 1 person is at level 2 with quite

Developing Creative Thinking Skills in Metal Puriﬁcation Concept through Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Method

553

Figure 1 Number of Students at Each Level of Creative Thinking Ability based on Achievement Groups (VC: Very

Creative, C : Creative, A: Adequate, LC : Low Creativity, VLC : Very Low Creativity).



creative categories, but no students are included in

level 4. The highest number of students is included

in level 3, with total 24 students from higher

achievement group, medium and lower group.

The sequence of levels of creative thinking

ability based on learning achievement groups are as

follows: in the first place is the higher group at level

4 categorized as very creative with the achievement

of indicators of fluency, flexibility and originality.

Meanwhile, the third order is occupied by a lower

group that is at level 3 categorized as creative with

the achievement of fluency and flexibility indicators.

Overall the average value of each group of learning

achievement is at level 3 with the achievement of

fluency and flexibility indicators which are

categorized as creative. Thus CPS learning plays a

role in developing students' creative thinking skills.

4 CONCLUSIONS

The creative thinking skills of students developed

through CPS learning on metal purification material

as a whole are at level 3 and categorized as creative

with fluency indicators reach very good category,

flexibility indicators achieving good category, while

the originality indicator only reaches adequate

category.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge LP2M UIN Sunan Gunung Djati

Bandung provided financial support.

REFERENCES

Bono, E., 2007. Revolusi Berpikir. Bandung: PT Mizan

Pustaka.

Cardellini, L., 2006. Fostering Creative Problem Solving

in Chemistry Through Group Work. Chem. Educ.

7.131–140.

Djamarah, S. B. and Zain, A., 2006. Strategi Belajar

Mengajar. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.

Fatmawati, B., 2011. Pembelajaran Berbasis Proyek

Untuk Meningkatkan Keterampilan Berpikir Kreatif

Mahasiswa. J. Pengajaran MIPA. 16. 85–92.

Humaeroh, I., 2016. Analisis Kemampuan Berfikir Kreatif

Siswa Pada Materi Elektrokimia Melalui Model Open-

Ended Problems. Skripsi. Jakarta: UIN Syarif

Hidayatullah.

Jespersen, N. D., Brady, J. E., and Hyslop, A., 2012.

Chemistry: The molecular nature of matter. Wiley.

Kaplan, D. P., R. M and Saccuzo, 2005. Psychological

Testing. Canada: Wadsworth Cengange Learniing.

Lam, W., Cheng, S. F., Ma, R. W. Y., 2009. Teacher and

Student Instrinsic Motivation in Project-Based

Learning. Instr. Sci. 37.0–30.

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference

554

Lee, K. H., 2005. The Relationship Between Creative

Thinking Ability and Creative Personality of

Preschoolers. Int. Educ. J.6. 194–199.

Nirmala, N. W., 2010. Keefektifan Model Pembelajaran

Creative Problem Solving (CPS) dan Teams Games

Tournament (TGT) Dikombinasikan Tahap Van Hielle

Terhadap Hasil Belajar materi Segiempat Kelas VII

SMP N 2 Jaken Kabupaten Pati Tahun Ajaran

2009/2010. Skripsi. Semarang: FMIPA Universitas

Negeri Semarang,

Noer, S. H., 2011. Kemampuan Berpikir Kreatif

Matematis Dan Pembelajaran Matematika Berbasis

Masalah Open-Ended. J. Pendikan Mat. 5. 104–111.

Pepkin, K. L., 2009. Creative Problem Solving in Math.

Int. Educ. J.7.1–14.

Sani, R. A., 2013. Pembelajaran Saintifik untuk

Implementasi Kurikulum 2013. Jakarta: PT Bumi

Aksara.

Sari and Hidayat, R. Y., 2017. Pengembangan

Keterampilan Berpikir Kreatif Siswa Pada Praktikum

Jenis-Jenis Koloid: Pendekatan Sainstifik. J. Tadris

Kim.1. 32.

Siswono, T. Y. E., 2011. Level of student’s creative

thinking in classroom mathematics. Educ. Res. Rev.6.

548–553.

Subarkah, C. Z., Rahayu, A. S., Sundari, C. D. D., and

Chusni, M., 2016. Students ’ Higher-Order Thinking

Ability in Electrolysis Cell. 2.1–6.

Subarkah, C. Z., Rahmawati, R., and Dalli, A., 2016.

Internalizing Islamic Values in Electrochemistry

Learning. J. Pendidik. Islam. 2. 270.

Sukmadinata, N. S., 2007. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan.

Bandung: Rosda karya.

Suma, I. K. and Suastra, I. W., 2013. Pengaruh model

pembelajaran berbasis masalah terhadap sikap ilmiah

dan keterampilan berpikir kritis. E-Journal Progr.

Pascasarj. Univ. Pendidik. Ganesha. 3.60–66,

Treffinger, D. J. and Isaksen, S. G., 2005. Creative

Problem Solving: The History, Development, and

Implications for Gifted Education and Talent

Development. Gift. Child Q. 49. 342–353.

Trianto 2009. Mendesain Model-Model Pembelajaran

Inovatif-Progresif. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media

Group.

Yudhanegara, M. R., 2015. Implementasi Model

Pembelajaran Problem Posing Terhadap Kemampuan

Berpikir Kreatif Matematis Mahasiswa Pada Mata

Kuliah Persamaan Diferensial. J. Pendidik. UNSIKA.

4. 42–50.

Developing Creative Thinking Skills in Metal Puriﬁcation Concept through Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Method

555