Flipping the Undergraduate Classroom to Develop Student Analytical Thinking Skills

Abstract

In Thailand, analytical thinking skills (ATS) have been identified as an essential element in the development of a 21st-century workforce. Moreover, due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the concern for student health and safety, the Thai Ministry of Education has stated that online education will become part of the New Normal in education. Therefore, it has become imperative that the most effective methods and mechanisms be found for online teaching in Thailand. Therefore, the authors investigated which factors increase Thai student ATS by flipping the classroom environment and using digital storytelling and inquiry-based learning (IBL). Therefore, this research aims to develop and evaluate the LIFD ATS instruction model to study the proposed effects of the ATS instruction model. A mixed research methodology was employed. The mean, standard deviation, and t-test were used to analyze the data. From the qualitative review, an initial learning model was developed and subsequently examined by a panel of eight education experts. After that, 40 students became the study's experimental group for the revised model. The results showed that the results of the expert assessment of the learning environment model using a flipped classroom combined with IBL and digital storytelling to promote ATS and academic achievement had appropriateness at the highest level. The evaluation of the student results using the ATS model identified four significant results. These were: 1) Post-test after the student's use of the ATS model determined their ATS abilities were higher than before the class. 2) Student learning achievement, innovation, and ICT skills increased as an outcome of the ATS model’s use. 3) The comparison of academic achievement after study of the students who studied with the format was 83.33%, higher than the specified 80% criteria and previously established assumptions. 4) The evaluation results of the model’s effectiveness determined that the learning effectiveness index (EI) of the learners was 0.6666 and the EI of the ATS was 0.6966, which was higher than 0.50, thus meeting the specified criteria. The study contributes to the knowledge concerning student ATS and these skills’ importance to a 21st century knowledge worker. Doi: 10.28991/ESJ-2022-06-04-06 Full Text: PDF

Characteristics of the mobile problem based learning flipped classroom (mPBLFC) mathematics learning model: a systematic literature review

“…Links to external content are included in models [35], accounting for 17.4%. Learning resources in the models proposed by Phurikultong and Kantathanawat [36] are linked to Google Suite, allowing students to find information independently. Through this Google Suite, developers can provide various important information and guarantee the validity of the content.…”

A systematic review of analytical thinking skills in STEM education settings

“…In addition, one of the studies included Dale’s Cone of experience/multimedia theory as the basis of their research (Nur’Azizah et al , 2018). Other research studies have used specific models to guide their investigations and among these frameworks are the guided inquiry model (Rodrangsee et al , 2022), the research-based learning (RBL) model (Chumsukon and Ruangsan, 2021; Suyatman et al , 2021) and the community learning resources (CLR) model (Chumsukon and Ruangsan, 2021), Focusing, exploring, analyzing, conceptual developing, and applying teaching model (Kocabaş and Yücel, 2022) and analytical thinking skills learning model (Phurikultong and Kantathanawat, 2022). However, the sixteen studies analysed did not specify the theoretical framework or model they used in conducting their research (Andriani and Supiah, 2021; Chuumchuen and Surpare, 2022; Karenina et al , 2020; Levin and Verner, 2020; Mayarni and Nopiyanti, 2021; Lu Atun Nisa’ et al , 2019; Perdana et al , 2019; Phuseengoen and Singhchainara, 2022; Sari et al , 2019; Sujatmiko et al , 2021; Sundari et al , 2020; Suyatman et al , 2021a, 2021b; Thabvithorn and Samat, 2022; Theabthueng et al , 2022; Wahyuningtyas et al , 2021; Yuenyong and Yuenyong, 2021).…”

“…The intervention that is commonly used is problem-based learning (Andriani and Supiah, 2021; Karenina et al , 2020; Perdana et al , 2019; Putranta and Supahar, 2019; Sari et al , 2019; Suyatman et al , 2021a, 2021b) and followed by the use of learning models such as RBL (Suyatman et al , 2021), CLR (Chumsukon and Ruangsan, 2021), online active learning (OAL) models (Rodrangsee et al , 2022) and the guided inquiry model (Cahyati and Subali, 2022). Other studies used a variety of intervention methods, including open learning (Anggoro et al , 2021), interactive modules based on intelligence theory (Azid and Md-Ali, 2020), think-pair-share techniques (Theabthueng et al , 2022), learning interactive multimedia (Nur’Azizah et al , 2018), flipped classroom (Khamsaengmat and Kanjug, 2022), digital storytelling, inquiry-based learning (IBL) (Phurikultong and Kantathanawat, 2022), concept map in AT-based module (Sundari et al , 2020), YouTube video (Wahyuningtyas et al , 2021), STEM-integrated movement activities (Phuseengoen and Singhchainara, 2022), predict–observe–explain (POE) strategy (Yuenyong and Yuenyong, 2021), andro-webcomic media based on problem-based learning (Sujatmiko et al , 2021), Web-based learning with augmented reality (AR) (Thabvithorn and Samat, 2022), simulation based interactive e-learning course (Chuumchuen and Surpare, 2022), emergency distance (Kocabaş and Yücel, 2022), blended learning, collaborative learning (Wongpratoom and Sranamkam, 2019), popup booklet development (Lu Atun Nisa’ et al , 2019), 3D design and printing (Levin and Verner, 2020) and multimedia learning interactive (Nur’Azizah et al , 2018). One research analysis did not determine the intervention used (Mayarni and Nopiyanti, 2021).…”

Construction of Analytical Thinking Skills Instruments for Micro Teaching Courses

“…Researchers develop various learning practices to develop students' analytical thinking. For example, in Turkey, using case-based science scenarios (Kirman-Bilgin & Kala, 2022); in Thailand, implementing learning management plans (Sitthipon, 2017), using information search activities (Puchumni, Tungpradabkul, & Magee, 2019), using research-based learning (RBL) (Chumsukon & Ruangsan, 2021), and digital storytelling and inquiry-based learning (IBL) (Phurikultong & Kantathanawat, 2022), in Ukraine and using debate (Spaska et al, 2021), and in Indonesia applying research-based learning (RBL) (Ahdika, 2017).…”