See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342476967

REVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILL IN INDONESIA: PREPARATION OF THE 21

ST CENTURY LEARNER

Article · June 2020

DOI: 10.31838/jcr.07.09.223

CITATIONS READS
0 134

4 authors, including:

Muhammad Minan Chusni Sulistyo Saputro

UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung Universitas Sebelas Maret
49 PUBLICATIONS   52 CITATIONS    101 PUBLICATIONS   657 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pengembangan LKPD View project

Testlet Instrumen View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Minan Chusni on 26 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Critical Reviews

ISSN- 2394-5125 Vol 7 , Issue 9, 2020

REVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILL IN INDONESIA: PREPARATION OF THE 21ST CENTURY

LEARNER
Muhammad Minan Chusni1, Sulistyo Saputro2*, Suranto3, Sentot Budi Rahardjo4
1Student of doctoral program in natural science education in Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia.
E-mail: minan.chusni@student.uns.ac.id
2, 3, 4Professor in science education doctoral program in Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia.

*Corresponding E-mail: sulistyo_s@staff.uns.ac.id

Received: 25.03.2020 Revised: 26.04.2020 Accepted: 27.05.2020

Abstract
The challenge of educational system in the future is to make educational process which has specific aspect with the general ability for
student to live now and then. In 21st century, student must be having four competencies such as, CTS, creative thinking, collaborative and
communicative skill. The CTS is one of basic competence which is important for each student to assimilate by change era and new culture.
Many researches have done research about CTS and how to teach it. This article is a review of CTS that focuses on discussion about
definition of thinking, the truth of CTS, implication of CTS and the assessment of CTS.

Keyword: CTS, 21st century skill, 21st century education

© 2020 by Advance Scientific Research. This is an open-access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.09.223

INTRODUCTION: limited resources such as facilities and infrastructure. All of these

Science and technology (Sci-Tech) become a landmark of 21st
century era. It has much of benefit to help human activity. In
Addition, Sci-Tech need the higher of human ability to make it
useful in optimum and maximum impact. Sci-Tech is also giving
the compensation to the educational system and educational
process in the schools (Setya et al., 2019; Yuningsih, Chusni, &
Sidik, 2018). Sci-Tech compensation in the education system is an
adjustment of skill requirements which indicate that the
knowledge is not enough (Dirgantara et al., 2019). Critical,
creative, and innovative thinking skills are needed to confront the
future challenges. If students at the secondary school level are
equipped knowledge only, then the knowledge will expire and be
replaced with the latest knowledge. One of the provisions that
must be given in preparing future labor is to equip students how
to think (Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006). To realize this,
education has an important task to prepare human resources with
great competences in the future.
Education as a learning process is not enough to simply pursue the
problem of intelligence. Every student has potential or other
learning subjects that also need to get proportional attention in
order to develop them optimally (Agustina, Chusni, & Izharuddin,
2019). The fact Indonesians learning process generally is still
directed towards cognitive abilities only. The students have to
memorize a lot of information but not to understand the
information and how to use it. So, this process does not encourage
the achievement of CTS every time (Sanjaya, 2009).
There are a lot of factors that hinder the development of students'
CTS. The first factor is the curriculum which generally has a
comprehensive target material. The second factor can be seen
from the teacher's ability to understand the learning models that
can improve CTS (Duldt-Battey, 1997). The learning process that
used is different from usual so it is requiring additional expertise
and knowledge for the teacher to practice CTS. Student factors
also become a problem to adapt and practice the CTS. Usually,
students are having low interest and motivation to learn and
practice of CTS because the learning seems ineffective. In terms of
school management, practice the CTS becomes a problem where
not all of the schools are provide the facilities that support the
learning activities. In general, the problems of the schools are the
factors have an impact on the implementation of learning
activities in the classroom that are lacking of practicing the CTS.
And then, the profile of graduates is definite because students who
graduate from school become theoretically intelligent with lack of
problem-solving ability (Malik & Chusni, 2019).
The low profile of graduates makes students not ready to adapt
into the society. This refers to the characteristics of the 21st
century where globalization, free trade, and regional autonomy
are requiring the human resources who can hold out with all
possibilities. Therefore, CTS become one of the main things that
needed to increase the profile of graduates and improve student
competitiveness. This aspect must be prepared from elementary
until high school, if students are not given training related to CTS
so they will find it to difficult to compensate for the development
of the contemporary world where knowledge and Sci-Tech
develop very quickly (Moseley, Baumfield, & Elliott, 2005).
PROCESS AND CONCEPT OF THINKING
Thinking is a characteristic that makes the difference between
humans and other creatures. Thinking begins when humans are
able to provide a perception of the environment and then continue
throughout life. Humans use the mind to adapt to various changes
and evolution. Every time humans successfully adapt to the
evolution of the environment, their abilities and thought
processes will also develop indirectly. There are various
definitions of thinking. Thinking is behavior that uses ideas, which
is a symbolic process (Fauzi, 2004). Thinking is also defined as the
development of ideas and concepts in a person (Suriasumantri,
1984).
Development of ways of thinking is obtained through building a
process of connecting information. Solso (1988) provides the
definition of thinking as a process of representation of new
thoughts formed from changes in form through information in the
complete interaction of thought added to decisions, abstractions.
This includes simplifying reason, imagination and problem
solving (Solso, 1988). According to Santrock, (2014) thinking is
the activity of manipulating or managing and transforming
information (Santrock, 2014). Thinking is using to form a concept,
reason with critical, make decisions, creative and solve the
problems.

Journal of critical reviews 1230

 REVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILL IN INDONESIA: PREPARATION OF THE 21ST CENTURY LEARNER

Based on some of the opinions mentioned above, it can be
concluded that thinking is the development of ideas and concepts
in a person as a process of representing new thoughts through the
activities to manipulate, to manage and to transform any
information become as concepts, critically reason, make decisions,
and solve problems.
SUBTANCE OF CTS
Professional definition or opinion
The CTS definition was then carried out by many experts from the
philosophy and psychology study groups (Lewis & Smith, 1993).
Sternberg, (1986) then gave rise to the third CTS in the field of
Education (Sternberg, 1986). Lai, (2011) imply a summarize of
definitions of CTS based on philosophical studies and others field
in Table 1.

Table 1. Professional definition about CTS

Author Year Field Definition
Ennis 1985 - CTS described as reflective and reasonable to decide what to believe or do (Ennis,
1985)
Lipman 1988 Philosophy The deft and responsible thinking facilitating that 1) is based on criteria, 2) is self-
conscious, and 3) is attention to context (Lipman, 1988)
Halpern 1988 - CTS is the goal, reason and direction of the goal. The ability to think critically
includes problems solving, concluding, anticipating with probability, and making
decisions (Halpern, 1998)
Facione 1990 - CTS has results that are interpretation, analyzation, evaluation, and inference, as
well as explaining of an evidence, method, concept and criteria, or contextual
considerations or make a decision as a self-regulation in deciding something
(Facione, 1990)
McPeck 1990 Philosophy the skills and inclination to involve themselves in some activities with reflective
skepticism (McPeck, 1990)
R. W. Paul 1992 Philosophy Disciplined and independent thinking which indicates the perfection of thought
which is adapted to a particular mode or place of thought (R. W. Paul, 1992)
Bailin, Case, 1999 Philosophy Thinking is goal-directed and purposive with aims to form a judgment where it is
Coombs, & adequate and accurate (Bailin, Case, Coombs, & Daniels, 1999)
Daniels
Willingham 2007 Cognitive Studying problems from two different sides, being open-minded with new evidence
Psychology that affects ideas, giving reason without feeling, conveying claims supported by
evidence, making conclusions from existing facts, solving problems, and so on.
(Willingham, 2007)

CTS then began to be introduced in the context of education. One
elaboration of aspects of CTS is found in Bloom's taxonomy (BT).
Bloom's Taxonomy is one of the references in identifying the
depth of mastery of content or skills (Bloom, 1956). Bloom's
taxonomy has hierarchical from "understanding" at the bottom to
"evaluation" at the top. The level that often categorized as CTS is
analysis (C4), synthesis (C5), and evaluation (C6) (Kennedy,
Fisher, & Ennis, 1991).
Criteria of CTS
CTS consist of various components or aspects. Based on different
disciplines, scientists put forward these components or aspects.
The different aspects put forward by experts provide variations
on the model of CTS in learning.
Basssham, William, Henry, & James, (2002) states that the
components of CTS are clarity, accuracy, relevance, consistency,
logical validity, completeness and fairness (Basssham et al., 2002).
R. W. Paul & Linda, (2002) states that the components mentioned
above still need to be added to the breadth of meaning and depth
of CTS (R. W. Paul, 1992). From these two opinions, two CTS
learning models are obtained, namely the Bassham model and the
Paul model. Both of these models are only used as a reference in
compiling learning syntax or procedures.
In addition to the two opinions expressed by Bassham and Paul,
there are still many CTS models put forward by scientists with
different criteria. To stay focused, educational scientists in a
discussion have formulated the core of CTS. There are six aspect
such as interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation
and self-regulation (American Philosophical Association, 1990).
Nevertheless, the results of the consensus can still be interpreted
based on the scope of the knowledge and the cases found. Walker,
(1997) for example, giving statements that the character of CTS is
answering questions, formulating problems, examining facts,
analyzing assumptions and thinking about interpretations
(Walker, 1997).
Norris & Ennis, (1989) divides the components of knowledge
mastery ability into five skills, hereinafter referred to as CTS, as
described below. (1) Provide simple explanations, (2) Building
basic skills, (3) Drawing conclusions, (4) Provide further
clarification (advanced clarification), and (5) Managing strategies
and tactics (Norris & Ennis, 1989).
In other statement, Ennis, (1996) states that there are 6 basic
elements in CTS shortened to FRISCO (Ennis, 1996).

Journal of critical reviews 1231

 REVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILL IN INDONESIA: PREPARATION OF THE 21ST CENTURY LEARNER

Focus Reason Inference Situation Clarity Overview

focus on can to Giving the You have explaning review and
questions selection conclussio to about the thoroughly
or issues to about the n based on understand term examine
make the the fact ing about the
decisions reasoncts. and the the decisions
about what assumtion situation of taken.
is believed. your circle

Figure 1. FRISCO Criteria of CTS by Ennis

Table 2. The Difference Aspect of CTS by Experts

Author CTS Aspects
Bassham Clarity Truth Accuracy Relevance Persistent Logic
(2002) Completeness Fairness - - - -

Clarity Truth Accuracy Relevance Persistent Logic

Paul (2002)
Completeness Fairness Meaningful Expert - -

Facione
Interpretation Analyze Evaluation Inference Explanation Self Confidence
(2000)

Walker Answer the Find the

Research Analyze Interpretation -
(1997) Question problems

Garrison
Trigger event exploration integration resolution - -
(2001)

Define the Emotional

Make the Question Data Verify Analyze Simplification
Wade (1995) Question Consideration

Interpretation Tolerance - - - -

Truth Analyze Logic Structured classifieds Decision

Fisher (2011)
Understandin
Prediction theoretical - - -
g

Elementary Advance Strategies and

Norris (1989) Basic Support Inference -
Clarification Clarification Tactics

Ennis (1996) Focus Reason Inference Situation Clarity Overview

Based on Table 2, it can be seen that each scientist has their own differences, it can be identified that there are criteria for
views and assumptions in providing criteria for CTS. Besides the agreement. The first, CTS researchers usually concur with specific

Journal of critical reviews 1232

 REVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILL IN INDONESIA: PREPARATION OF THE 21ST CENTURY LEARNER
definitional skills, including: 1) Analyze of arguments or evidence
(Ennis, 1985; Facione, 1990; Halpern, 1998; R. W. Paul, 1992); 2)
Make conclusions with reasoning (Ennis, 1985; Facione, 1990; R.
W. Paul, 1992; Willingham, 2007); 3) Assess or evaluate (Case,
2005; Ennis, 1985; Facione, 1990; Lipman, 1988; Tindal & Nolet,
1995); and 4) Make a decision or solve a problem (Ennis, 1985;
Halpern, 1998; Willingham, 2007).
The second, other abilities that relevant with CTS are questioning
and answering the questions to clarify the term (Ennis, 1985); to
identify opinion (Ennis, 1985; R. W. Paul, 1992); to interpret and
explain (Facione, 1990); to make verbal reason and possibility
(Halpern, 1998); prediction (Tindal & Nolet, 1995); and learn the
problem from both sides (Willingham, 2007).
The third is about character. Scientists basically agree with the
existence of character as an internal aspect in showing CTS
(Facione, 1990). In early 1985, researchers recognized that CTS
differed from proclivity to do (Ennis, 1985). Empirical evidence is
used to make sure the idea that CTS and attitude are separate
entities (Facione, 2000). This attitude has been interpreted as
many habits of the mind. Facione (2000) defines the nature of CTS
as "consistent internal motivation to act toward or respond to
people, events, or circumstances in a habit, but potentially in a soft
way". Researchers are usually identifying similar sets and relevant
characters to CTS (Facione, 2000). For example, the most
frequently quoted character of CTS is: 1) open-mindedness (Bailin
et al., 1999; Ennis, 1985; Facione, 1990, 2000; Halpern, 1998); 2)
fair-mindedness (Bailin et al., 1999; Facione, 1990); 3) the
propensity to seek reason (Bailin et al., 1999; Ennis, 1985; R. W.
Paul, 1992); 4) inquisitiveness (Bailin et al., 1999; Facione, 1990,
2000); 5) the desire to be well-informed (Ennis, 1985; Facione,
1990); 6) flexibility (Facione, 1990; Halpern, 1998); and 7) respect
for, and willingness to entertain, others’ viewpoints (Bailin et al.,
1999; Facione, 1990).
Empirical Development of Student CTS
The initial phase of research on the development of children /
students by Piaget tends to regard student’s cognitive processes
as deficiencies in relationships with adults. This theory was
adopted by many education experts who gave statements that
children are unable to perform formal operations (abstract
reasoning) which is one of the basic components of CTS (Kennedy
et al., 1991). Over time, the results of a recent study conducted by
providing treatment of adult cognitive processes to young people
concluded that there is an opportunity to practice CTS in the basic
curriculum (Gelman & Markman, 1986). Silva (2008) added that
there is no limitation of age when students are ready to learn the
complex problems and complex thinking. Furthermore,
Willingham (2007) shows that young people can be trained in CTS,
while even trained scientists can experience errors in reasoning
(Willingham, 2007). This has become one of the arguments in
providing complex thinking processes, especially CTS to
elementary and middle school students. Kennedy et al., (1991)
make a conclusion that CTS can increase without influence age,
even the first grade of student can benefit from CTS instruction
(Kennedy et al., 1991).
Bailin, Case, Coombs, & Daniels, (1999) argues that the application
of CTS competencies at the basic level includes things in the form
of: a) respecting reason; b) respect for others in the discussion; c)
open minded; d) willing to see things from other people's point of
view; e) distinguish between definitions and empirical
statements; f) using cognitive strategies, and g) using the
principles of CTS. Likewise, report American Philosophical
Association, (1990) recommend that "from early childhood, they
should be given direction and lessons, for example, to reason, to
look for relevant facts, to consider choices, and to understand the
views of others" (Facione, 1990). In addition, report American
Philosophical Association, (1990) states that the explicit
Journal of critical reviews
instruction which are dedicated to CTS such as abilities and
dispositions have to modify into all levels of the K-12 curriculum.
Lots of empirical evidence promote this idea that young children
are able to think critically. Koenig & Harris, (2005) said that
children aged 3 and 4 years will distinguish the credibility of
various sources of information. In particular, 4-year-old children
are seen to prefer and agree on adult judgments based on the
amount of experience they have. As well as, Lutz & Keil, (2002)
found that 4-year-old children seemed to be beginning to realize
that different people might have different domains of expertise
and this might be related to their credibility (Lutz & Keil, 2002).
LEARNING IMPLICATION
Some researchers provide recommendations regarding teaching
strategies to encourage the development of CTS. Suggested
strategies include by using model of teaching, and by using any
constructivism techniques. For example, researcher has noted
that CTS is difference abilities that can not to develop without
direct instruction (Abrami et al., 2008; Case, 2005; Facione, 1990;
Halpern, 1998; R. W. Paul, 1992). Facione points out that this
instruction must not only be explicit but also pay attention to
dispositions and affective components.
Another recommendation is using a collaborative learning
(Abrami et al., 2008; Bailin et al., 1999; Bonk & Smith, 1998;
Heyman, 2008; Nelson, 1994; R. W. Paul, 1992; Thayer-Bacon,
2000). This recommendation refers to the results of research and
traditions followed by Piagetian (Piagetian theorists) and
Vygotsky who emphasize the social interaction to encourage the
cognitive development (Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & O’Malley,
1996).
Piaget provided a reference to the instructional value of cognitive
conflict to catalyze the process of cognitive development. This
usually looks effective if the child / student is given the
opportunity to interact with other people who have a higher
cognitive level.
Besides, an explicit instructions and guides are other strategies
that can help to improve CTS (Bonk & Smith, 1998; R. W. Paul,
1992). Instruction used in constructivist methods is more
structured than instruction in traditional learning. This method
provides more opportunities for students during learning. In
implementing CTS oriented learning, educators must be able to
provide direction and provide related examples. This can be
achieved through thinking deeply, so students can observe the
teacher in using evidence and logic to support arguments and
statements (Facione, 2000; R. W. Paul, 1992).
Educators are also advised to use concrete examples that will give
a real impression to students especially to illustrate abstract
concepts such as "conflicts of interest" (Heyman, 2008; R. W. Paul,
1992). Examples taken from real experiences are more likely to be
clear for students intuitively. Learning activities that are believed
to be able to encourage the CTS are making charts, making concept
maps and making argument diagrams (Bonk & Smith, 1998; Van
Gelder, 2005). In making a chart, students must first identify what
they already know about a topic, what they want to know, and
what they have learned. For other examples related to the
implications of learning are making simple essays that require
summary arguments, problem-based learning - specifically the
use of unstructured problem contexts, and mock experiments
(Bonk & Smith, 1998).
LEARNING ASSESSMENT
CTS assessment is important because it has several objectives
namely to 1) diagnose the level of CTS and character of students,
so the teacher can decide what to teach, 2) as feedback to students
about their CTS, so the teacher can decide what must be done
about it, 3) provide motivation to students to become better
critical thinkers, 4) provide information to teachers regarding
1233
 REVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILL IN INDONESIA: PREPARATION OF THE 21ST CENTURY LEARNER
success in practicing CTS to students, 5) provide information
related to students' abilities and practice acceptance and guidance
attitudes towards students, 6) as information for school policies
and other things that can be accounted for regarding students'
CTS.
Assessment of CTS is included in the assessment of high-stakes,
namely "assessment of high importance". This refers to the need
and purpose of carrying out the assessment. Assessment with a
high level of expectation of use requires greater funding with the
consequence the smaller the level of achievement of these
objectives (Ennis, 2011). Specifically, the completeness of aspects
of CTS is an obstacle in high-stakes assessment.
Instruments for measuring CTS are basically widely available. The
evaluator only needs to match the characteristics of the
assessment to the data requirements. Bers, (2005) shows several
assessments of CTS, including 1) Academic Profile; 2) California
CTS Disposition Inventory (CCTDI), this test is provided from an
in-depth assessment (California Academic Press), to measure
students' internal motivation in solving the problem and making
decision; 3) California CTS Test (CCTST) that assesses the ability
to think critically and reason both individuals or groups; 4)
Background study; 5) Collegiate Assessment of Academic
Proficiency (CAAP); 6) Collegiate Learning Assessment Project
(CLA); 7) Task; 8) Test of Everyday Reasoning; 9) Watson-Glaser
CTS Appraisal; 10) Community College Survey of Student
Engagement (CCSSE) and 11) Holistic CTS Scoring Rubric (Bers,
2005).
Ennis, (2001) also shows various tests regarding CTS that have
been published. The various tests are grouped according to the
purpose of assessing one aspect or more than one aspect of CTS.
Tests that can reveal more than one aspect of CTS according to
Ennis are: 1) The California CTS Test; 2) Cornell CTS Test Level X;
3) Cornell CTS Test Level Z; 4) The Ennis-Weir CTS Essay Test; 5)
Judgment: Deductive Logic and Assumption Recognition; 6) New
Jersey Test of Reasoning Skills 7) Ross Test of Higher Cognitive
Processes; 8) Test of Inquiry Skills, 10) Test of Inference Ability in
Reading Comprehension, and 11) Watson-Glaser CTS Appraisal
(Bers, 2005; Ennis, 2001).
Furthermore, Ennis also explained that the test that can reveal one
aspect of CTS is 1) Cornell Class Reasoning Test developed by R.H.
Ennis, W.L. Gardiner, R. Morrow, D. Paul, and L. Ringel; 2) Cornell
Conditional Reasoning Test; 3) Logical Reasoning developed by A.
Hertzka and J.P. Guilford, and 4) Test on Appraising Observations
developed by S.P. Norris and R. King (Bers, 2005).
In addition to the above forms of tests, there is also another form
of test developed by Ennis under the name Cornell CTS Tests
which is focused on aspects of induction, credibility, prediction,
fallacy, deduction, definition, and identification of assumptions.
Furthermore, Ennis also developed the Ennis-Weir CTS Essay Test
with Weir. This test focuses on truth, gives reasons, assumes,
evaluates statements, gives appropriate reasons, looks for
alternative reasons, avoids rejection, irrelevance, circularity,
overgeneralization and language that is not directed (R. Paul,
Linda, & Bartell, 1997).
CONCLUSSION
Thinking is the development of ideas and concepts in a person as
a process of representing new thoughts through the activities of
manipulating or managing and transforming information in
memory to form concepts, thinking critically, making decisions,
and solving problems. CTS are the processes for analyzing,
synthesizing, and / or evaluating information collected or
generated through reflection, reasoning, or communication, so as
to produce valid, strong and resistant arguments and conclusions
that are able to provide evidence. A number of researchers has
recommended the use of specific teaching strategies to encourage
the development of CTS and abilities, such as explicit instruction,
Journal of critical reviews
collaborative or cooperative learning, modeling, and
constructivist techniques. Assessment can be done by looking at
the aim to assess one aspect or more than one aspect of CTS. After
reviewing the literature review on CTS, the author gives several
suggestions, namely a) Development of learning models that can
stimulate CTS should be done, b) Development of CTS instruments
needs to be done.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank Ministry of Religion of the Republic of
Indonesia. This work was supported in part by a grant from 5000
Doctoral Program, Number 2825/DJ.I/Dt.I.III/PP.04/08/2018.
REFERENCES
1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A.,
Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional
interventions affecting critical thinking skills and
dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.
2. Agustina, R. D., Chusni, M. M., & Izharuddin, M. (2019).
Efficacy and potential of physics education students in
mathematical physics subject. Ournal of Physics: Conference
Series, 1175(1), 012178.
3. American Philosophical Association. (1990). Critical
Thinking.
4. Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999).
Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 31(3), 285–302.
5. Basssham, G., William, J., Henry, N., & James, M. W. (2002).
Critical Thinking A Students Introduction. USA: McGraw-Hill.
6. Bers, T. (2005). Assessing Critical Thinking in Community
Colleges. New Direction for Community Colleges, 130.
7. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the
Classification of Educational Goals—Handbook 1: Cognitive
Domain. New York: McKay.
8. Bonk, C. J., & Smith, G. S. (1998). Alternative instructional
strategies for creative and critical thinking in the accounting
curriculum. Journal of Accounting Education, 16(2), 261–293.
9. Case, R. (2005). Moving critical thinking to the main stage.
Education Canada, 45(2), 45–49.
10. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996).
Learning in humans and machine: Towards an
interdisciplinary learning science. In The evolution of
research on collaborative learning (pp. 189–211). Oxford,
England: Elsevier.
11. Dirgantara, Y., Malik, A., Samsudin, A., Yuningsih, E. K.,
Chusni, M. M., Agustina, R. D., & Fairuzillah, M. N. (2019).
Stakeholder view of competency profiles (pedagogical,
professional, social and personality) graduate of the physics
education. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1280,
p. 52026). IOP Publishing.
12. Duldt-Battey, B. W. (1997). Coaching winners: How to teach
critical thinking, in crirical thinking across the curricullum
project. Missouri: Longview Community College Lee’s
Summit.
13. Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical
thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44–48.
14. Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
15. Ennis, R. H. (2001). Critical Thinking Assessment. The Ohio
State University, 32(3).
16. Ennis, R. H. (2011). The Nature of Critical Thinking: An
Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities.
Retrieved from
http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/%0Adocumen
ts/TheNatureofCriticalThinking_51711_000.pdf
17. Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert
consensus for purposes of educational assessment and
instruction. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
18. Facione, P. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical
1234
 REVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILL IN INDONESIA: PREPARATION OF THE 21ST CENTURY LEARNER
thinking: Its character, measurement, and relation to critical
thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84.
19. Fauzi, A. (2004). Psikologi umum. Bandung: Pustaka Setia.
20. Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and
induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183–209.
21. Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer
across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and
metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4),
449–455.
22. Heyman, G. D. (2008). Children’s critical thinking when
learning from others. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 17(5), 344–347.
23. Kennedy, M., Fisher, M. B., & Ennis, R. H. (1991). Educational
values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform. In
Critical thinking: Literature review and needed research (pp.
11–40). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum &
Associates.
24. Koenig, M. A., & Harris, P. L. (2005). Preschoolers mistrust
ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Development, 76(6),
1261–1277.
25. Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical Thinking, A Literature Review.
Retrieved from http://www.pearsonassessments.com
26. Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking.
Theory into Practice, 32(3), 131–137.
27. Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking—What can it be?
Educational Leadership, 46(1), 38–43.
28. Lutz, D. J., & Keil, F. C. (2002). Early understanding of the
division of cognitive labor. Child Development, 73(4), 1073–
1084.
29. Malik, A., & Chusni, M. M. (2019). Enhancing Student’s
Problem-Solving Ability Through Collaborative Problem
Solving (CPS) on Simple Harmonic Motion Concept. In
Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1175, p. 12179).
IOP Publishing.
30. McPeck, J. E. (1990). Critical thinking and subject specificity:
A reply to Ennis. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 10–12.
31. Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., & Elliott, J. (2005). Frameworks for
thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
32. Nelson, C. E. (1994). Critical thinking and collaborative
learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (59), 45–
58.
33. Norris, S. P., & Ennis, R. H. (1989). Evaluating critical
thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
34. Paul, R., Linda, E., & Bartell, T. (1997). California Teacher
Preparation for Instruction in Critical Commision, Thinking
Research Findings and Policy Recommendations. California:
California Commision on Teacher Credentialing.
35. Paul, R. W. (1992). Critical thinking: What, why, and how?
Journal of critical reviews
View publication stats
New Directions for Community Colleges, 77, 3–24.
36. Paul, R. W., & Linda, E. (2002). Critical Thinking: Tools for
Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life. Upper
Saddle River, N.J: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
37. Sanjaya, W. (2009). Strategi pembelajaran herorientasi
atandar proses pendidikan. Jakarta: Prenada.
38. Santrock, J. W. (2014). Psikologi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Salemba
Humanika.
39. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting
Self-Regulation in Science Education: Metacognition as Part
of a Broader Perspective on Learning. Research in Science
Education, 36, 111–139.
40. Setya, W., Ramadhana, A., Putri, H. R., Santoso, A., Malik, A., &
Chusni, M. M. (2019). Design and development of
measurement of measuring light resistance using Light
Dependent Resistance (LDR) sensors. In Journal of Physics:
Conference Series (Vol. 1402, p. 44102). IOP Publishing.
41. Silva, E. (2008). Measuring Skills for the 21st Century [Report].
Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/MeasuringSkills.
pdf.
42. Solso. (1988). Psikologi Umum. Jakarta: Rineka.
43. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Critical thinking: Its nature,
measurement, and improvement National Institute of
Education. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED272882.pdf%0A
44. Suriasumantri, J. S. (1984). Ilmu dalam Perspektif. Jakarta:
Gramedia.
45. Thayer-Bacon, B. J. (2000). Transforming critical thinking:
Thinking constructively. New York: Teachers College Press.
46. Tindal, G., & Nolet, V. (1995). Curriculum-based
measurement in middle and high schools: Critical thinking
skills in content areas. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27(7),
1–22.
47. Van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some
lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53(1), 41–
48.
48. Walker, G. H. (1997). Critical Thinking. Retrieved from
http://www.utc.edu/Teaching-
ResourceCenter/critical.htm.#strategies)
49. Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard
to teach? American Educator, 8–19.
50. Yuningsih, E. K., Chusni, M. M., & Sidik, R. (2018). Electrical
fall (EFA) as a learning media for electromagnetic induction.
In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
(p. 012287). IOP Publishing.
1235