International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)

Vol. 12, No. 3, September 2023, pp. 1645~1653

ISSN: 2252-8822, DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v12i3.24719  1645

Online-based activities to improve students’ critical thinking,

problem solving, and communication

Marinu Waruwu, Yari Dwikurnaningsih, Sophia Tri Satyawati

Department of Education Administration, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga,
Indonesia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: This study aimed to explain how students’ critical thinking, problem solving
and communication skills can be developed through student development
Received Jun 15, 2022 activities in online-based scientific discussion programs at universities. This
Revised Mar 4, 2023 study used a mix method approach with a sequential explanatory model. The
Accepted Apr 3, 2023 research was conducted using quantitative methods in the first stage and then
in the second stage using qualitative methods. Management discussion
model was measured through questionnaires and interviews. The
Keywords: quantitative data analysis was employed to identify the effectiveness of the
discussion model and its impact. The qualitative data analysis was carried
Communication out in three stages, namely data reduction, data presentation; and drawing
Critical thinking conclusions. The research findings showed that the model of student
Development development activities with online-based scientific discussion methods can
Online-based scientific significantly improve students’ critical thinking, problem solving, and
discussion communication skills. The results of this study indicated that universities
Problem solving provide opportunities for students to improve critical thinking skills,
problem solving and communication skills through online-based scientific
discussion programs.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Marinu Waruwu
Department of Education Administration, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,
Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana
Diponegoro Street, No. 52-60 Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
One of the qualities of higher education is measured by the quality of students. Indicators of student
quality can be seen in academic and non-academic scores. Academic or non-academic quality excels because
of learning materials, facilities, student focus, assessment quality, social activities and service quality [1].
One strategy to improve the quality of students is through coaching in the non-academic field. The student
development program is carried out to improve the quality of the student’s personality. So far, there have
been several forms of developing student activities at universities such as the development of interests and
talents, leadership, development of social awareness, environmental care, cultural tolerance, scientific
development, spiritual development, skill development and community involvement as well as sports
development [2], [3]. The forms of student development activities are expected to be able to produce students
who have academic and non-academic advantages.
Student development activities aim to improve the character and personality of students so that they
behave honestly, are skilled at developing themselves, live socially, are skilled at self-control, humanity,
communication and moral competence and are responsible for living life in the future [4]. This is in line with
the previous study that student development has the aim of encouraging students to grow, progress, and

Journal homepage: http://ijere.iaescore.com

1646  ISSN: 2252-8822

increase their development capacity as a result of enrollment in higher education institutions. Thus, students
have competence, emotional attitudes, interdependence, personal maturity, self-identity, purpose and
integrity of life [5]. In addition, students will form an appreciation for culture, understand issues of
democracy and justice as citizens, respect ethnicity, gender, sexual identity so that their lives are more
meaningful, involved and progress academically in higher education [4], [6].
Student development activities seek to create opportunities for leadership development, managerial
skills, practical experience, ability to build networks, and also self-awareness [7]. Students have the
opportunity to apply theory in practical life. This is the implementation of the Education Policy of the
Government of the Republic of Indonesia as stated in Law Number 12 of 2012 concerning Higher Education
which confirms that students have the right to receive educational services that are in accordance with their
talents, interests, potential and abilities [8]. The development of student talents, interests, and abilities
according to Law Number 12 of 2012 is carried out through curricular activities, co-curricular activities as
supporting activities for the educational process, and extra-curricular activities as activities carried out
through student organizations.
The ideal purpose of the student development activities is supported by the results of several
researches. The results of study by Hemafitria, Rohani, and Novianty stated that the character building of
student is getting better and better with student development activities in higher education [9]. Then,
Sinuraya, Rajagukguk, and Fabian stated that student development encourages students to be more mature
intellectually, socially, able to manage emotions, have goals and build integrity [10].
Based on the analysis result on the needs in the field, the issues on the student’s development
program are the absence of specific development programs in the curriculum, the development programs that
are not well programmed, lacking in guiding the students to develop their critical thinking, solving problems,
and effective communication, and limited resources of funding for the programs. These affected the low
competitive culture and the competitiveness of the graduates of the university. The results of Anwar and El
Fiah research showed that the problem of student development is a funding problem so that activities in the
field of students cognitive are considered to receive less serious attention so that it has an impact on student
achievement [11]. Then, the research of Saputra, Kusmanto, and Turnip revealed that student development in
higher education has not been carried out optimally due to the fact that the standard operating procedures in
the field of student affairs have not been carried out properly [12].
The gap between theory and implementation shows that there are problems with student
development activities in higher education. This study aims to explain the effectiveness of developing student
activities through online-based scientific discussion programs in universities. The results of the research will
be a recommendation to improve the quality of the implementation of student activity development programs
in the future.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Critical thinking
Critical thinking ability is a means to reason and make better decisions to avoid reasoning and
decision-making biases that aim to produce interpretations, analysis, evaluations, and inferences, as well as
explanations of evidentiary, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations that
become assessment basis [13]. Critical thinking skills train a person to analyze problems, think based on
evidence, see problems comprehensively, question assumptions, and identify the relevant context needed for
a solution [14]. Meanwhile, according to previous research, critical thinking encourages a person to think
clearly and rationally about what to do and the potential consequences of each action, encouraging reflective
and independent thinking [15].
Someone who has the ability to think critically is expected to be able to demonstrate competence in
understanding logical relationships between ideas; categorizing the applications and consequences of ideas;
contemplating the rationalization of one’s own thoughts and principles; identify, construct, and estimate
arguments; distinguish inconsistencies and common errors in reasoning; and finally, can solve problems
systematically [15]. That’s why universities continue to improve students’ critical thinking skills.
Empowerment of critical thinking skills is one of the goals of education in the 21st century [16].

2.2. Problem solving

One of the 21st century skills tested in this study is problem solving skills. The definition of
problem solving itself varies. By definition, problem solving is the ability to understand the environment,
identify complex problems, and analyze information, evaluate strategies and find solutions [17]. Problem
solving can also be defined as a thought process. According to Gürsan and Yazgan, problem solving is a part
of the thinking process to solve complex problems using higher order thinking skills [18].

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 12, No. 3, September 2023: 1645-1653
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  1647

Meanwhile, problem solving skills are the ability to find new solutions and ideas. To improve this
ability, one needs to hone thinking skills, generate more solutions so that it is possible to find ideas that are
considered new [19]. Problem solving skills can be defined as the ability to solve problems by thinking
creatively and integratively with knowledge in several functional areas [20].
Problem solving abilities can encourage students’ thinking skills at school. The results of Malcok
and Ceylan’s research showed that the effect of STEM activities on the problem solving skills of 6 year old
preschoolers has a positive impact [21]. This means that students’ problem solving abilities can be improved
through technology-based learning activities.

2.3. Communication
Communication is the process of expressing, receiving, and understanding messages that contain
factual information, emotions, ideas, and needs by two or more individuals [22]. While communication skills
are related to the ability to listen actively, give and receive feedback, understand body language (nonverbal
cues), sympathy, persuasion, questioning, and speaking so as to be able to understand and be understood by
others [23], the ability to listen effectively , use correct grammar in oral and written communication and write
clearly, concisely, correctly and completely [24].
Strategies to develop communication skills are diverse. Good communication skills strategies are a
source of confidence, enabling a person to exercise more control in their life by acquiring knowledge,
researching effectively, conceptualizing, organizing, and presenting ideas and arguments [25]. In the context
of education, students’ communication skills can be done through discussions, class presentations, or getting
used to communicating in the real world [26].

3. RESEARCH METHOD
3.1. Types of research methodology and design
This development research model employed a mix method approach. Mix method is a research
approach that combines qualitative and quantitative method [27]. The research model uses an explanatory
sequential design model. In this model, there are two interactive sequential or sequential research phases. The
first phase, the researcher collects and analyzes quantitative data which has priority to answer research
questions. The second phase, the researcher collects qualitative data following the previous phase, the
researcher interprets the qualitative data to help explain the results obtained in the quantitative phase.

3.2. Population and sample

The population of this research is students of the first year education management master program
(even semester 2021-2022) with 38 populations. The reason for choosing first year students for even semester
2021-2022 is that students become participants in online-based student development activities through
scientific discussion programs, participants are students studying in postgraduate programs so that they have
basic knowledge and skills in the application of critical thinking, problem solving and communication skills.
In quantitative research, the sampling technique used is the non-probability sampling technique of
the saturated sampling model. Saturated sampling model is a sampling technique when all members of the
population are used as samples [28]. This technique was chosen because the population is relatively small,
about 30 people. The saturated sampling subjects in this study were students of the first year education
management master’s program (even semesters 2021-2022) with 38 populations. They are students,
participants in online-based scientific discussions with material on critical thinking, problem solving and
communication skills.
In qualitative research, the subject selection technique used is a probability sampling technique with
a simple random sampling model. The taking of sample members from the population is carried out
randomly without regard to the strata that exist in the population [29]. This technique was chosen because the
population is relatively homogeneous, namely students of the first year educational management master’s
program in the even semester of 2021-2022.

3.3. Data collection techniques and instruments

Techniques and instruments in collecting data are divided into two parts, namely quantitative data
collection and qualitative data collection. Quantitative data obtained through a questionnaire. The instrument
used in the questionnaire is based on aspects of critical thinking, problem solving and communication skills.
Questionnaires are given to identify the level of success in aspects of critical thinking, problem solving and
communication skills in scientific discussion programs. Meanwhile, qualitative data were obtained through
interviews with randomly selected participants. The interview instrument aims to explore the success rate of
scientific discussions in terms of critical thinking, problem solving and communication skills.

Online-based activities to improve students’ critical thinking, problem solving, and … (Marinu Waruwu)
1648  ISSN: 2252-8822

3.4. Data analysis technique

Data analysis in this study consisted of quantitative data analysis and qualitative data analysis.
Quantitative data analysis was processed descriptively by calculating the average and categorization, and
testing the validity, reliability and standard deviation of aspects of scientific discussion management, critical
thinking, problem solving and communication skills. The qualitative data analysis technique was carried out
through three stages, namely data reduction, data presentation, and drawing conclusions [28]. Table 1 shows
the categorization guidelines.

Table 1. Categorization guidelines

Category Average value
Very not good 1 to 1.75
Not good >1.75-2.75
Good >2.75-3.50
Very good >3.50-4.00

4. RESULTS
4.1. Online based scientific discussion platform
Scientific discussion platform on the student’s development program used is the Zoom meeting
application and the Google Form. The scoring aspect upon the online based scientific discussion platform are
the aspects of preparation, conduct and evaluation. The aspect of preparation covers the objective, topic, time
and facility. The aspect of conduct covers the materials, keynote speakers, committee, facility, participation
and time. The aspect of evaluation covers the conclusion and the follow up.
Based on the result of the recapitulation, it shows that the score of the online based discussion
platform overall is 3.34, where based on the guide of the categorization is in the category of “good”. The
lowest average score from the online discussion platform is on the aspect of “Recommendation to be
followed up is available” with the average score of 3.06 and is in the category score of “good”. Meanwhile,
the highest average score is in the aspect of “The online facilities ease the conduct of discussion” with the
average score of 3.44. Besides, a research instrument is said to have a good validity score if it has a score
higher than 0.3 and is said to be reliable if it has the reliability coefficients score (Cronbach alpha) larger than
0.3 and having the coefficients score larger than 0.7. The result of the scoring of the online based scientific
discussion platform is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Management of online based scientific discussion

Standard
Aspects Description RT % Validity Reliability
deviation
Preparation
1. Objective The objective of the scientific discussion is clear. 3.44 86 0.826 0.907 0.504
2. Topic The determination and formulation of the topic is 3.41 85 0.789 0.909 0.615
appropriate.
3. Time and facilities The time and facilities are prepared well. 3.34 84 0.790 0.909 0.545
Conduct
1. Content The content is easy to be understood. 3.31 83 0.728 0.913 0.471
2. Keynote speakers The keynote speakers have the expertise in its 3.31 83 0.844 0.906 0.592
field.
3. Committee The moderator and committee lead the flow of 3.41 85 0.644 0.917 0.499
discussion well.
4. Facilities The online facilities ease the conduct of 3.50 88 0.603 0.919 0.508
discussion.
5. Participation The platform encourages participation. 3.31 83 0.880 0.903 0.592
6. Time The conduct is done on time. 3.31 83 0.681 0.915 0.535
Evaluation
1. Conclusion Conclusion of the discussion is available. 3.28 82 0.746 0.912 0.457
2. Recommendation Recommendation to be followed up is available. 3.06 77 0.694 0.919 0.716
Average score 3.34

4.2. Critical thinking skill

Critical thinking is measured using eight aspects of indicator. The critical thinking aspects are open
minded and able to interpret, formulate and limit the question, also able to test and analyze, along with the
ability to answer questions and statements, able to consider, and draw conclusion, as well as to identify the
assumptions and facts, and finally determine the actions accordingly. Based on the recapitulation result on

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 12, No. 3, September 2023: 1645-1653
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  1649

Table 3, it shows that the improvement of critical thinking skill of the students overall is at the score of 3.34,
which means that it falls on the category of “good”. The lowest average score is from the aspect of critical
thinking is on the “ability in testing and analyzing” with the average score of 3.19, which falls on the
category of “good”. Meanwhile, the highest average score is related to “growing open mindedness and
interpretation appreciation” with the average score of 3.50. In the other hand, the result of validity test
indicates the validity coefficients score of all indicators of critical thinking skill improvement is larger than
0.3 and having the reliability coefficients score that is larger than 0.7. With that, it can be concluded that all
indicators in this variable here have good validity and reliability degree. The improvement on the critical
thinking skill seen from the eight aspects are shown on Table 3.

Table 3. The improvement of critical thinking

No Aspect Indicator RT % Validity Reliability Standard deviation
1 Growing open mindedness The discussion encourages me to be 3.50 88 0.734 0.871 0.508
and interpretation open minded and to appreciate
appreciation various interpretation.
2 Formulate and limit the The discussion helps me to 3.22 81 0.704 0.875 0.491
questions formulate and limit the questions.
3 Testing and analyzing The discussion helps me in testing 3.19 80 0.669 0.885 0.592
the scientific data and analyzing
different statements.
4 Answering questions and The discussion helps me to answer 3.28 82 0.722 0.872 0.457
statements the questions about an explanation
and statement.
5 Considering ideas The discussion helps me to consider 3.28 82 0.769 0.866 0.457
whether an idea is reliable or not.
6 Drawing conclusion The discussion improves my skill in 3.44 86 0.813 0.861 0.504
drawing conclusion from various
ideas and to judge a certain issue.
7 Identifying assumptions The discussion improves the skill in 3.44 86 0.770 0.867 0.504
and facts identifying the assumptions and
also facts.
8 Determining the action The discussion improves my skill in 3.38 85 0.799 0.863 0.49
determining the action upon the
different statements and interacting
with the other individuals.
Average score 3.33

4.3. Problem solving skill

Problem solving skill is measured using five aspects of the ability. Those are identifying the
questions, analyzing the problem, formulating the solution, choosing the solution, and evaluating the
solution. Based on the recapitulation result on Table 4, it shows that the scoring on the overall problem
solving skill of the students is at the score of 3.30, which means that it falls on the category of “good”. The
lowest average score is from the aspect of critical thinking is on the “choosing the solution” with the average
score of 3.28, which falls on the category of “good”. In the other hand, the result of validity test indicates the
validity coefficients score of all indicators of problem solving skill improvement is larger than 0.3 and having
the reliability coefficients score that is larger than 0.7. With that, it can be concluded that all indicators in this
variable here have good validity and reliability degree. The result of the five aspects of problem solving skills
can be observed on Table 4.

Table 4. The improvement of problem solving skill

Standard
No Aspect Indicator RT % Validity Reliability
deviation
1 Identifying the The scientific discussion improves my skill to 3.31 83 0.867 0.937 0.535
questions identify the questions regarding the discussion topic.
2 Analyzing the The scientific discussion improves my skill in 3.31 83 0.927 0.921 0.471
problem analyzing a problem.
3 Formulating the The scientific discussion improves my skill to 3.31 83 0.893 0.930 0.535
solution formulate the solution upon the emerging problem.
4 Choosing the It improves my skill in choosing the alternative 3.28 82 0.906 0.929 0.581
solution solution to solve the problem of a discussion topic.
5 Evaluating the The scientific discussion pushes me to be good at 3.31 83 0.927 0.921 0.471
solution evaluating the solution chosen.
Average score 3.30

Online-based activities to improve students’ critical thinking, problem solving, and … (Marinu Waruwu)
1650  ISSN: 2252-8822

4.4. Communication skill

Communication skill is measured using five aspects. Those are the ability in training the content
delivery, pushing the interactive discussion, the opportunity in delivering idea/statement, the discussion is
clear, concise and easy to be understood, as well as the mastery in delivery language. Based on the
recapitulation result on Table 5, it shows that the overall improvement of communication skill of the students
is at the score of 3.35, which means that it falls on the category of “good”. The lowest average score is from
the aspect of communication skill is on the “training in content delivery” and the “language mastery” with
the average score of 3.19, which falls on the category of “good”. Meanwhile, the highest average score is
related to “opportunity in delivering idea/statement” with the average score of 3.41.
In this case, the impact on the improvement of communication skill, according to the respondents, is
good. The result of validity test indicates the validity coefficients score of all indicators of communication
skill improvement is larger than 0.3 and having the reliability coefficients score that is larger than 0.7. With
that, it can be concluded that all indicators in this variable here have good validity and reliability degree. The
evaluation results upon the five aspects of communication skill can be observed in Table 5.

Table 5. The improvement of communication thinking

No Aspect Indicator RT % Validity Reliability Standard deviation
1 Training the content The scientific discussion trains to 3.31 83 0.873 0.835 0.535
delivery deliver an ideal content
2 Encouraging The management of the scientific 3.38 85 0.805 0.861 0.554
interactive discussion discussion pushes the discussion to be
interactive among the students
3 Opportunity in The scientific discussion gives the 3.41 85 0.756 0.872 0.499
delivering opportunity in delivering the idea or
idea/statement statement
4 Discussion is clear, The scientific discussion pushes clear 3.34 84 0.887 0.832 0.483
concise and easy to discussion, that is concise and is easy to
be understood be understood
5 Language mastery The scientific discussion pushes the 3.31 83 0.814 0.870 0.644
correct use of language
Average score 3.35

5. DISCUSSION
The management aspect of the online based scientific discussion indicates that every indicator gets
the score with the category of “good”. The aspect of planning, conducting, evaluating and the following up
gained responses that is very satisfying. The satisfaction is the success indicator in the phase of management
of the online discussion platform that covers the preparation, conduct and evaluation as well as the follow up
for the discussion. This is relevant to the statement of Ragupathi that an online discussion needs to be
designed in terms of concept and topic, preparation, facilitators and the moderator are able to facilitate the
discussion, stimulating participant to raise questions, participate and making the discussion structured [30].
With the better management on the learning discussion, then the online based discussion may give
impact on the development of the remote community, the improvement of the quality of the scientific online
discussion and the improvement of the participants [31]. The learning of online scientific discussion has the
advantage because it is more flexible and more independent [32], [33]. The online facility gives the
advantage on scientific discussion. Every participant can communicate remotely, the information is clearer,
more cost effective, and it teaches independence [34].
On the aspect of critical thinking, the findings show that there is improvement in each indicator with
the score of the category of “good”. According to Semadi, the discussion method can improve the critical
thinking skill of the students [35]. The critical thinking skill of the students in the discussion experiences
some improvements. Then, the study of Helterbran explained that the discussion method through debate can
grow the critical thinking on the students, so that it can improve their independence, capability, skill in
interpreting, analyzing, evaluating, and drawing conclusion [36].
The findings of this research and the previous researches are supported by the theory of Reinstein
and Bayou, that the improvement of critical thinking is marked with the ability in analyzing issues, the skill
in judging critically upon the conclusion drawn, it needs the checking on logic and sensible conclusion [37].
These findings are different from what mentioned by Jiwandono. According to Jiwandono, the improvement
in critical thinking of students is still lacking [38]. Also, Haryandi et al. [39] mentioned that the critical
thinking skill of the students are still at the low level, that is shown from two sub-indicators that are drawing
conclusion from the investigation and conducting the evaluation (formulating the alternative solution) that is
still low [39].

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 12, No. 3, September 2023: 1645-1653
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  1651

On the aspect of problem solving, the findings of the research showed the improvement in the skill
of the students with the satisfaction level of “good”. These findings have the similarity to the research of
Lutfauziah et al. [40] that revealed that there are improvements on the problem solving skill of the students
through the discussion method on the subject of structure and development of plants. Then, the research of
Moma [41], shows that the improvement of the achievement in the problem solving skill on the students
using the discussion model is better than those experienced the conventional learning [41]. This is relevant to
the theory of Valentine, Belski, and Hamilton [19] that one who own the problem solving skill has the skill in
thinking, producing more solutions so that it enables one to discover ideas considered new [19]. One of the
strategies in improving the problem solving skill on the students is the scientific discussion.
On the aspect of communication skill, the findings of this research showed that the satisfaction of
the participants is in the level of “good”. These findings have the similarities to those of Dallimore,
Hertenstein, and Platt that revealed that the online discussion method can increase the communication skill of
the students [42]. Then, the research of Rahmawati and Farozin [43] showed that the discussion method can
improve the interpersonal communication skill on the students [43]. This is relevant to one mentioned by
Iksan et al. [26] that the communication skill of the students can be trained through discussion, class
presentation, or self habituation to communicate in real world. Scientific discussion can improve the
communication of the students. Communication skill is seen on the skill of active listening, giving and
accepting feedback, understanding some body language (non-verbal communication), sympathy, persuasion,
questioning, and speaking so that it enables one to understand and being understood by other people [23].

6. CONCLUSION
This study aims to identify the effectiveness of the program of student’s development using online
discussion to increase critical thinking, problem solving and communication skill. The conclusion that can be
drawn from the research are: i) The management of the online scientific discussion that covers the aspects of
preparation gained the scores in the category of “good”; ii) The aspect of critical thinking skill in the category
of “good”; iii) The aspect of problem solving in the category of “good”; and iv) The aspect of communication
skill in the category of “good”. Overall, it can be concluded that the activity of online based students’
development program has some impacts on the improvement on the skills of critical thinking, problem
solving and the communication of the students, but it still needs some improvement on several indicators.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researchers are grateful to Department of Education Administration, Faculty of Teacher
Training and Education, Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana for the support so that this research is
successfully conducted.

REFERENCES
[1] S. Rögele, B. Rilling, D. Apfel, and J. Fuchs, “Sustainable development competencies and student-centered teaching strategies in
higher education institutions: the role of professors as gatekeepers,” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1366–1385, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-02-2021-0069.
[2] K. Bista and C. Foster, Exploring the Social and Academic Experiences of International Students in Higher Education. IGI Global
Publisher of Timely Knowledge, 2016.
[3] S. Strachan et al., “Reflections on developing a collaborative multi-disciplinary approach to embedding education for sustainable
development into higher education curricula,” Emerald Open Research, vol. 3, p. 24, Sep. 2021, doi:
10.35241/emeraldopenres.14303.1.
[4] C. J. Margerison and M. D. Ravenscroft, “Coordinating character and curriculum for learning and development,” Journal of
Work-Applied Management, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 97–104, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1108/JWAM-11-2019-0034.
[5] Z. Abdullah, T. L. Cheng, and S. A. Alsagoff, “Developing a student development index: An evidence from Malaya,” Global of
Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 56–60, 2014.
[6] N. Murtuza, “Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice,” Master Thesis, Central Michigan University,
Jun. 2018.
[7] E. Lawrence, M. W. Dunn, and S. Weisfeld-Spolter, “Developing leadership potential in graduate students with assessment, self-
awareness, reflection and coaching,” Journal of Management Development, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 634–651, Nov. 2018, doi:
10.1108/JMD-11-2017-0390.
[8] Republic of Indonesia Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology. “Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 12
of 2012 concerning Higher Education,” Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology, (in Indonesian),” 2012.
[9] H. Hemafitria, R. Rohani, and F. Novianty, “Student Character Development through Student Organizations at STKIP-PGRI
Pontianak,” (in Indonesian), Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 205–216, 2014, [Online]. Available:
https://journal.ikippgriptk.ac.id/index.php/edukasi/article/view/156.
[10] C. Sinuraya, R. Oloan Rajagukguk, and R. Fabian, “Student development survey: A case study from Maranatha Christian
University, Indonesia,” International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 51–57,
2020, doi: 10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.66.1005.

Online-based activities to improve students’ critical thinking, problem solving, and … (Marinu Waruwu)
1652  ISSN: 2252-8822

[11] S. Anwar and R. El Fiah, “Study on the Development of Policy Directions to Strengthen Student Activities at State Islamic
University in the Field of Talent Development, Interests, Reasoning and Entrepreneurship of UIN Raden Intan Lampung
Students,” (in Indonesian), Al-Tadzkiyyah: Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2018, doi: 10.24042/atjpi.v9i1.2602.
[12] A. Saputra, H. Kusmanto, and K. Turnip, “Implementation of the minister of education and culture of the republic of Indonesia in
the development of student organizations Agung,” (in Indonesian), Jurnal Administrasi Publik : Public Administration Journal,
vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2016, doi: 10.31289/jap.v6i1.1052.
[13] L. M. van Peppen, P. P. J. L. Verkoeijen, A. E. G. Heijltjes, E. M. Janssen, and T. van Gog, “Enhancing students’ critical thinking
skills: is comparing correct and erroneous examples beneficial?” Instructional Science, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 747–777, Dec. 2021,
doi: 10.1007/s11251-021-09559-0.
[14] W. F. Heinrich, G. B. Habron, H. L. Johnshon, and L. Goralnik, “Critical Thinking Assessment Across Four Sustainability-
Related Experiential Learning Settings,” Journal of Experiential Education, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 373–393, 2015, doi:
10.1177/1053825915592890.
[15] J. Lau, An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011.
[16] E. Susetyarini and A. Fauzi, “Trend of critical thinking skill researches in biology education journals across Indonesia: From
research design to data analysis,” International Journal of Instruction, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 535–550, Jan. 2020, doi:
10.29333/iji.2020.13135a.
[17] C. Fissore, M. Marchisio, F. Roman, and M. Sacchet, “Development of Problem Solving Skills with Maple in Higher Education,”
in Maple in Mathematics Education and Research. MC 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 1414,
Springer, Cham, 2021, pp. 219–233, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81698-8_15.
[18] S. Gürsan and Y. Yazgan, “Non-Routine problem solving skills of ninth grade students: An experimental study,” Academy
Journal of Educational Sciences, pp. 23–29, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.31805/acjes.632560.
[19] A. Valentine, I. Belski, and M. Hamilton, “Developing creativity and problem-solving skills of engineering students: a
comparison of web- and pen-and-paper-based approaches,” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1309–
1329, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2017.1291584.
[20] B. Martz, J. Hughes, and F. Braun, “Creativity and problem-solving: Closing the skills gap,” Journal of Computer Information
Systems, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 39–48, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1080/08874417.2016.1181492.
[21] B. A. Malcok and R. Ceylan, “The effects of STEM activities on the problem-solving skills of 6-year-old preschool children,”
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 423–436, Aug. 2021, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2021.1965639.
[22] Z. Sikiti, English communication: an outcomes based approach. East London: Umzwangedwa Publications, 1998.
[23] S. S. Sabbah, F. Hallabieh, and O. Hussein, “Communication skills among undergraduate students at Al-Quds University,” World
Journal of Education, vol. 10, no. 6, p. 136, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.5430/wje.v10n6p136.
[24] H. Hasanah and M. N. Malik, “Blended learning in improving students critical thinking and communication skills at university,”
Cypriot Journal of Educational, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1295–1306, 2020, doi: 10.18844/cjes.v15i5.5168.
[25] M. Abdikarimova, N. Tashieva, A. T. kyzy, and Z. Abdullaeva, “Developing Students Verbal Communication Skills and Speech
Etiquette in English Language Teaching,” Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, vol. 11, no. 01, pp. 83–89, 2021, doi:
10.4236/ojml.2021.111007.
[26] Z. H. Iksan et al., “Communication skills among university students,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 59, pp. 71–
76, Oct. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.247.
[27] J. W. Creswell, Research Design, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Fourth ed. United State of America: Sage
Publications, 2014.
[28] M. B. Miles, A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldana, Qualitative data analysis, a methods sourcebook, 4rd ed. Arizona State University,
USA: Sage Publications., 2014.
[29] R. B. Johnson and L. Christensen, Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches, California: Sage
Publications, Inc, 2014.
[30] K. Ragupathi, “Facilitating effective online discussions: Resource Guide,” Centre for Development of Teaching and Learning
(CDTL), pp. 1–15, 2018, [Online]. Available: http://www.nus.edu.sg/cdtl/docs/default-source/professional-development-
docs/resources/facilitating-online-discussions.pdf.
[31] D. P. R. de Lima, M. A. Gerosa, T. U. Conte, and J. F. José, “What to expect, and how to improve online discussion forums: the
instructors’ perspective,” Journal of Internet Services and Applications, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 22, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1186/s13174-
019-0120-0.
[32] V. Tiwari and A. Tiwari, “A study of effectiveness of online learning,” International Journal of Future Generation
Communication and Networking, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 2177–2190, 2021.
[33] R. Seethamraju, “Effectiveness of using online discussion forum for case study analysis,” Education Research International,
vol. 2014, pp. 1–10, 2014, doi: 10.1155/2014/589860.
[34] S. Bali and M. C. Liu, “Students’ perceptions toward online learning and face-to-face learning courses,” Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, vol. 1108, no. 1, p. 012094, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1108/1/012094.
[35] Y. P. Semadi, “Improving the critical thinking skill through discussion method empowerment by using public controversy text in
teaching reading,” Journal of Applied Studies in Language, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 197–204, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.31940/jasl.v5i1.2444.
[36] V. R. Helterbran, “Promoting critical thinking through discussion,” Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), vol. 4, no. 6,
Jun. 2007, doi: 10.19030/tlc.v4i6.1569.
[37] A. Reinstein and M. E. Bayou, “Critical thinking in accounting education: processes, skills and applications,” Managerial
Auditing Journal, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 336–342, Oct. 1997, doi: 10.1108/02686909710180698.
[38] N. R. Jiwandono, “Critical Thinking Ability of Fourth Semester Students in Psycholinguistic Courses,” (in Indonesian), Ed-
Humanistics: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, vol. 4, no. 1, 2019, doi: 10.33752/ed-humanistics.v4i1.351.
[39] S. Haryandi, Misbah, Mastuang, D. Dewantara, and S. Mahtari, “Analysis of Students’ Critical Thinking Skills on Solid Material
Elasticity,” Kasuari Physics Education Journal (KPEJ), vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 89–94, 2019, doi: 10.37891/kpej.v2i2.95.
[40] A. Lutfauziah, M. H. I. Al-Muhdhar, S. Suhadi, and F. Rohman, “The learning methods of problem solving skills in Islamic
boarding school: discussion, exercise, and modeling,” Jurnal Pena Sains, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 32–39, May 2020, doi:
10.21107/jps.v7i1.6811.
[41] L. Moma, “Developing Mathematical Creative thinking and Problem Solving Ability Through Discussion Method,” (in
Indonesian), Cakrawala Pendidikan, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 130–139, 2017, doi: 10.21831/cp.v36i1.10402.
[42] E. J. Dallimore, J. H. Hertenstein, and M. B. Platt, “Using discussion pedagogy to enhance oral and written communication
skills,” College Teaching, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 163–172, Jul. 2008, doi: 10.3200/CTCH.56.3.163-172.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 12, No. 3, September 2023: 1645-1653
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  1653

[43] E. Rahmawati and M. Farozin, “Improving interpersonal communication skills through group discussion techniques in grade VIII
students of SMP Negeri 1 Wates and SMP Negeri 3 Wates,” Joint proceedings of the International Conference on Social Science
and Character Educations (IcoSSCE 2018) and International Conference on Social Studies, Moral, and Character Education
(ICSMC 2018), 2019, doi: 10.2991/icossce-icsmc-18.2019.47.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Marinu Waruwu is an Assistant Professor, lecturer of Education Management,

Organizational Leadership, Education Change Management and Education Policy of the
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana of Salatiga,
Indonesia. Marinu is the Editorial Board of the Jurnal Kelola, Education Management Journal,
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana. The
interests of research are including on the research of Evaluation, Leadership Development,
Education Policy. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Yari Dwikurnaningsih is an Associate Professor, lecturer of Education

Management, Organizational Leadership, Education Change Management and Educational
Innovation of the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Universitas Kristen Satya
Wacana of Salatiga, Indonesia. Yari is the Editor in Chief of the Jurnal Kelola, Education
Management Journal, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Universitas Kristen Satya
Wacana. Yari is also the Head of Master Program of Education Administration, Faculty of
Teacher Training and Education of Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana. Yari’s interests in
research are including the Research on Evaluation, Leadership Development, Education
Change Management, and Innovational Education. She can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Sophia Tri Satyawati is an Assistant Professor, lecturer of Education

Management, Organizational Leadership, Education Change Management and Education
Policy of the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana
of Salatiga, Indonesia. Sophia is the Managing Editor of the Jurnal Kelola, Education
Management Journal. She can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Online-based activities to improve students’ critical thinking, problem solving, and … (Marinu Waruwu)