Psychoanalytic conceptual framework: a critical review of creativity in modeling inquiry training

  • Zaenal Sukawi
    Universitas Sains Al Quran Jawa Tengah di Wonosobo, Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Ahmad Khoiri 
    Universitas Sains Al Quran Jawa Tengah di Wonosobo, Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Sri Haryanto
    Universitas Sains Al Quran Jawa Tengah di Wonosobo, Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Denok Sunarsi
    Universitas Pamulang, Banten, Indonesia
    Indonesia

Abstract

The conceptual framework of psychoanalysis seeks to explain the nature and development of the personality of students through creative elements, namely motivation, emotions, and other internal creative aspects. Conceptual method of psychoanalytic approach as a determination of the implementation of the inquiry training model through a systematic review. Based on data analysis that: 1) student creativity can be explored through a psychoanalytic approach that expresses new ideas with students' intellectual freedom in the form of inquiry and problem-solving skills in their own way; 2) Creativity is based on Guilford's creative person who is built by conscious and unconscious efforts on neuroscience which gives rise to motivation, energy, ego to do creative ideas; 3) Different ways of creative students become important factors in determining discovery learning models. creativity is part of a personality that is encouraged to be creative if indeed they cannot meet sexual needs directly. Because their needs are not fulfilled, sublimation occurs, and finally, imagination emerges.
Keywords
  • Creativity
  • Inquiry Training
  • Psychoanalytic
References
  1. Adams, K. (2005). The Sources of Innovation and Creativity. In National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) Research Summary and Final Report. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED522111.pdf
  2. Akkaya, N., & Demirel, M. V. (2012). Teacher Candidates’ Use of Questioning Skills in During-Reading and Post-Reading Strategies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4301–4305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.244
  3. Alameddine, M. M., & Ahwal, H. W. (2016). Inquiry Based Teaching in Literature Classrooms. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232(April), 332–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.031
  4. Amabile. (1997). Motivating Creativity in Organizations: On Doing What You Love and Loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(I), 39–59.
  5. Anwar, M. N., Aness, M., Khizar, A., Naseer, M., & Muhammad, G. (2012). Relationship of Creative Thinking with the Academic Achievements of Secondary School Students. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 1(3), 1–4. http://iijoe.org/IIJE_01_03_12.pdf
  6. Baron, J., Scott, S., Fincher, K., & Emlen Metz, S. (2015). Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.003
  7. Collete & Chiappetta. (1994). Science Instruction in the middle and secondary school (3rd.ed). In New York: Merril.
  8. Cornoldi, C., Carretti, B., Drusi, S., & Tencati, C. (2015). Improving problem solving in primary school students: The effect of a training programme focusing on metacognition and working memory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12083
  9. Coughlan, A. (2007). Creative thinking and critical Thinking. In Www.Dcu.Ie/Sites/Default/Files/Students/Studentlearning/Creativeandcritical.Pdf (Issue 1989).
  10. Cremin, T., Glauert, E., Craft, A., Compton, A., & Stylianidou, F. (2015). Creative Little Scientists: exploring pedagogical synergies between inquiry-based and creative approaches in Early Years science. Education 3-13, 43(4), 404–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.1020655
  11. Daniel Tan, K. C., & Kim, M. (2012). Issues and challenges in science education research: Moving forward. Issues and Challenges in Science Education Research: Moving Forward, April, 1–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3980-2
  12. Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education-A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004
  13. Diki, D. (2014). Creativity for Learning Biology in Higher Education. Lux, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5642/lux.201303.03
  14. Dixon-Woods, M. (2011). Systematic reviews and qualitative methods. In D. Silverman (Ed.). Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
  15. Frey, B. B. (2018). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n705
  16. Guilford. (1965). Intelligence: 1965 Model. University of Southern California E, 20–26.
  17. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
  18. Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence, Creativity, and Their Educational Implications. California: RR. Knapp.
  19. Hadzigeorgiou, Y., Fokialis, P., & Kabouropoulou, M. (2012). Thinking about Creativity in Science Education. Creative Education, 03(05), 603–611. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.35089
  20. Ibrahim, M., & Irawan, A. (2015). Effectivity of Peer Tutoring Learning to Increase Mathematical. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(1), 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1038/NPHOTON.2012.146
  21. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2011). Models of teaching. Pustaka Pelajar.
  22. Kembara, M. D., Hanny, R., Gantina, N., & Kusumawati, I. (2020). Scientific Literacy Profile Of Student Teachers On Science For All Context. November.
  23. Khoiri, A., Sunarno, W., Sajidan, & Sukarmin. (2019). Inquiry training model to improve creativity student in environmental physics courses. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2194(December). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5139781
  24. Khoiri, Ahmad. (2019). Meta Analysis Study: Effect of STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematic) towards Achievement. Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA, 9(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.30998/formatif.v9i1.2937
  25. Khoiri, Ahmad, & Sunarno, W. (2019). How Is Students’ Creative Thinking Skills ? An Ethnoscience Learning Implementation. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan FisikaAl-BiRuNi, 08(October), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.24042/jipfalbiruni.v0i0.4559
  26. Khoiri, Ahmad, Sunarno, W., Sajidan, S., & Sukarmin. (2020). Development of strategic environmental assessment (sea) in science learning. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(7), 3771–3782.
  27. Malik, A., Nuraeni, Y., Samsudin, A., & Sutarno, S. (2019). Creative Thinking Skills of Students on Harmonic Vibration using Model Student Facilitator and Explaining (SFAE). Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni, 8(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.24042/jipfalbiruni.v8i1.3056
  28. Mer, A. Ç. İ. (2007). Effective Teaching in Science : A Review of Literature. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(1), 20–44.
  29. Peters, V. U. (2017). Inquiry Based Science Education,: Scafolding Pupil Self Directed Learning in Open Inquiry. International Journal of Science Educational.
  30. Piirto, J. (2011). Creativity for 21st. In Sense Publishers.
  31. Roswendi, A. S., Khoiri, A., & Sunarsi, D. (2020). Characters in hypno teaching and neuroscience : an overview. 8(3), 138–144.
  32. Şener, N., Türk, C., & Taş, E. (2015). Improving Science Attitude and Creative Thinking through Science Education Project: A Design, Implementation and Assessment. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(4), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v3i4.771
  33. Simonton, D. K. (2010). FEATURED ARTICLE : The Creative Process in Picasso ’ s Guernica Sketches : Monotonic Improvements versus Nonmonotonic Variants The Creative Process in Picasso ’ s Guernica Sketches : Monotonic Improvements versus Nonmonotonic Variants. Creativity Research Journal, September 2011, 37–41.
  34. Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the U.S. Patent Office Criteria Seriously: A Quantitative Three-Criterion Creativity Definition and Its Implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–3), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.676974
  35. Suchman, J. R. (1964). The Illinois studies in inquiry training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 230–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020315
  36. Sugiyanto, F. N., Masykuri, M., & Muzzazinah, M. (2018). Analysis of senior high school students’ creative thinking skills profile in Klaten regency. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1006(1), 0–5. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1006/1/012038
  37. Sunarsi, D. (2018). Pengaruh Gaya Kepemimpinan dan Disiplin Kerja Terhadap Kinerja Karyawan Pada CV. Usaha Mandiri Jakarta. JENIUS (Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia), 1(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.32493/jjsdm.v1i2.919
  38. Sunarsi, D. (2019). Pengaruh Kompensasi, Komunikasi Dan Stress Kerja Terhadap Prestasi Kerja Karyawan Pada Pt Catur Putra Jaya Kota Depok - Jawa Barat. Jimf (Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen Forkamma), 1(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.32493/frkm.v1i2.2543
  39. Swarz, J. D. (1988). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Test Critiques Vol. VII, 18(1), 619–662. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_3
  40. Tendrita, M., Mahanal, S., & Zubaidah, S. (2016). Empowerment of Creative Thinking Skills through Think Pair Share Remap Model. Proceeding Biology Education Conference (ISSN: 2528-5742), 13(1), 285–291.
  41. Torrance. (1969). Creativity.’.What Research Says to the Teacher. National Education Association, Washington, ,D.C.- Association -of--Classroom Teachers.
  42. Torrance, E. P. (1976). Future Careers for Gifted and Talented Students Gifted Child. Quarterly 20, 142–156.
  43. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive Validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(4), 236–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00936.x
  44. Udompong, L., & Wongwanich, S. (2014). Diagnosis of the Scientific Literacy Characteristics of Primary Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 5091–5096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1079
  45. Wallach, M., & Torrance, E. P. (1968). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms -- Technical Manual. American Educational Research Journal, 5(2), 272. https://doi.org/10.2307/1161826
  46. Wenning, C. J. (2009). Scientific epistemology : How scientists know what they know. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 5(2), 3–15. http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo/issues/aut2009.html
  47. Yang, K. K., Lin, S. F., Hong, Z. R., & Lin, H. S. (2016). Exploring the Assessment of and Relationship Between Elementary Students’ Scientific Creativity and Science Inquiry. Creativity Research Journal, 28(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1125270

Downloads

PDF

Statistic

Abstract Views
: 959 times
PDF
: 313 times