The Influence of Flip Chart Media Use on Elementary School Students' Creativity and Critical Thinking

Didik Herwanto, I Wayan Wesa Atmaja, Hariyanto Hariyanto

Abstract


The development of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS), particularly creativity and critical thinking, has become a central priority in contemporary science education. However, limited access to digital learning resources in many rural elementary schools necessitates the exploration of alternative instructional strategies that remain pedagogically effective. This study aims to examine the effects of non-digital flip-chart media on the creativity and critical thinking skills of sixth-grade students in science learning. The development of creativity and critical thinking skills as part of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) is an important demand in 21st-century Education. However, limited learning facilities in rural elementary schools still hinder the implementation of innovative technology-based learning. However previous studies predominantly examine digital media interventions or focus on a single higher-order thinking skill, leaving limited empirical evidence regarding the simultaneous development of creativity and critical thinking through non-digital visual media in rural elementary school contexts. This gap highlights the need for contextual and integrative research that explores simple, accessible instructional media to foster Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS).This study used a quantitative approach with a one-group pretest–posttest design. Data were collected using validated creativity and critical thinking essay tests consisting of 10 items each, assessed with analytical rubrics. Statistical analyses included normality testing, paired sample t-test, Normalized Gain (N-Gain), and Cohen’s d effect size to determine both statistical significance and practical impact. The subjects were 27 sixth-grade students from Elementary School, selected using a total sampling technique. The research instruments were validated through expert judgment and empirically tested using Cronbach’s alpha to ensure reliability. Data were analyzed using paired sample t-test, N-Gain, and effect size (Cohen's d). The results showed that the use of flip chart media significantly increased students' creativity and critical thinking skills (p < 0.05). The increase in creativity was in the high category (N-Gain = 0.76), while the increase in critical thinking skills was in the medium category (N-Gain = 0.67). The effect size was very large for both variables. These findings indicate that non-digital flip chart media is an effective, practical, and contextually appropriate alternative for developing HOTS in elementary school students, particularly in science learning within technology-limited environments. Theoretically, this study reinforces the role of structured visual media in supporting higher-order cognitive processes, while practically, it offers an accessible instructional strategy for teachers in rural schools to foster creativity and critical thinking without reliance on digital infrastructure.These findings indicate that non-digital flip chart media is an effective, practical, and contextually appropriate alternative for developing HOTS in elementary school students, especially in science learning in environments with limited technological facilities.

Keywords


Flip Chart Media; Creativity; Critical Thinking Skills; HOTS; Science Learning.

Full Text:

DOWNLOAD [PDF]

References


Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063

Barbot, B., Hass, R. W., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2019). Creativity assessment in psychological research: (Re)setting the standards. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000233

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.905247

Cavallone, M., Ciasullo, M. V., Douglas, J., & Palumbo, R. (2021). Framing higher education quality from a business perspective: setting the conditions for value co-creation. Studies in Higher Education, 46(6), 1099–1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1672644

Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2016). How Methodological Features Affect Effect Sizes in Education. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16656615

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791

Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.004

Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision. Topoi, 37(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4

Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). What works and doesn’t work with instructional video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.015

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Studies of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206

Glaser, J. M. (2002). White Voters, Black Schools: Structuring Racial Choices with a Checklist Ballot. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088413

Hascher, T., & Waber, J. (2021). Teacher well-being: A systematic review of the research literature from the year 2000–2019. Educational Research Review, 34, 100411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100411

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

Kim, K. H. (2011). The Creativity Crisis: The Decrease in Creative Thinking Scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.627805

Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting Effect Sizes of Education Interventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912798

Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(NOV), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033002003

OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en

Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929

Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017). Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21 st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938




DOI: https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.v9i2.38402

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Didik Herwanto, I Wayan Wesa Atmaja, Hariyanto

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application) already indexed:

            

___________________________________________________________________

  
   https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.

   Creative Commons License
   IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application)
   is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 View IJECA Stats

____________________________________________________________________

 IJECA Publisher Office: