Intellectual values and epistemological understanding of middle school students in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26555/humanitas.v17i2.14500Keywords:
epistemological understanding, intellectual values, middle school studentsAbstract
Engaging in intellectual activities and seek new knowledge is critical for Indonesian students. However, most learning activities in elementary and secondary schools in Indonesia are centered on rote learning. This study aimed to provide an initial description of how middle school students in Indonesia value intellectual activities and describe the level of epistemological understanding that underlie how they value intellectual activities. Sixty-eight middle school students were involved in this study by giving their responses to intellectual values questions. Descriptive analysis was conducted to examine the percentage of participants who endorse discussion. Additionally, the reasons for endorsing discussion were also examined to determine the epistemological understanding level. The percentage of participants that endorse discussion in question one, two, and three was 71%, 47%, and 50%, respectively. While 24% of participants consistently endorsed discussion in all three questions. Most students gave reasons that indicate absolutist or multiplist level of an epistemological understanding. Very few reasons can be categorized into the evaluativist level. Students seem to believe that discussion is important to do to solve the problems. Most students have yet to perceive the intellectual activity as an essential tool to enhance their understanding and acquire new knowledge, as an evaluativist would.References
Abdurakhman, H. (2016). Menghafal itu bukan belajar (Memorizing is not learning). https://edukasi.kompas.com/ read/2016/12/14/15245261/menghafal.itu.bukan.belajar?page=all
Ackerman, P. L., Kanfer, R., & Goff, M. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive determinants and consequences of complex skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1(4), 270-304. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.1.4.270
Arteche, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T. C., Ackerman, P., & Furnham, A. (2009). Typical intellectual engagement as a byproduct of openness, learning approaches, and self-assessed intelligence. Educational Psychology, 29(3), 357-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410902927833
Bell, R., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
Bjorklund, D. F. (2005). Children's thinking: Cognitive development and individual differences. Fourth edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 48, pp. 306-307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Ackerman, P. L. (2006). Incremental validity of the typical intellectual engagement scale as predictor of different academic performance measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(3), 261-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8703_07.
Hefter, M. H., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., Fries, S., & Berthold, K. (2015). Effects of a training intervention to foster precursors of evaluativist epistemological understanding and intellectual values. Learning and Instruction, 39, 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.002
Hevey, D., Thomas, K., & Maher, L. (2012). Method effects and the need for cognition scale. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 20-33.
Internation Test Commission. (2016). The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (Second edition). [www.InTestCom.org]
Jeanrie, C., & Bertrand, R. (1999). Translating tests with the international test commission's guidelines: Keeping validity in mind. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15(3), 277-283. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.15.3.277
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16-46. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x028002016
Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00302.
Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395
Kuhn, D. (2010). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development, Second Edition, (July 2010), 497-523. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444325485.ch19
Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to learning support inquiry. Cognition, 18(4), 495-523. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1804
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00030-7
Kuhn, D., & Park, S. H. (2005). Epistemological understanding and the development of intellectual values. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.05.003
Mascherek, A., & Zimprich, D. (2011). Stability and change in typical intellectual engagement in old age across 5 years. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67(3), 309-316. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbr101.
Mussel, P. (2010). Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 506-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.014
Shaffer, D. R. (2005). Social and personality development. Fifth edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Slavin, R. E. (2014). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Tenth edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Stumm, S. Von, & Furnham, A. F. (2012). Learning approaches: Associations with typical intellectual engagement, intelligence and the big five. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(5), 720-723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.014
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.
