View of Analysis of critical thinking: potential variable differences between Malaysia and Indonesia

(1)

Technium

43/2023

2023 A new decade for social changes

Social Sciences

Technium.

(2)

Analysis of critical thinking: potential variable differences between Malaysia and Indonesia

Siti Mujanah ^1,*, Tri Ratnawati¹, Sumiati ¹, Rohani Mohd ², Nor Intan Adha Hafid ²

1Economic and Business Faculty, Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya, Indonesia, ² Business and Management Faculty, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Syah Alam, Malaysia

[email protected],¹⁾, [email protected]²⁾,sumiatife@untag- sby.ac.id³⁾[email protected]⁴⁾[email protected] ⁵⁾

Abstract. This research aimed to analyze factors that can influence the critical thinking of Indonesian and Malaysian to meet the competitive needs in the global market faced by college graduates. The population of this study were the students from several universities which were 116 from Malaysia and 175 from Indonesia. This research used a quantitative approach to analyze data to test hypotheses. Descriptive explanatory research methode used by finding the cause of the emergence of students’ critical thinking With this research, The data were collected using the survey method, which is a questionnaire as an instrument for gathering data. The findings indicate that factors that determine on Critical thinking of Indonesian and Malaysian were educational factors and personal factors. However, family factor and healthy food do not affect them substantially. Interestingly, in terms of education and family conditions, there were differences between Indonesian and Malaysian respondents, and Indonesian respondents' conditions are more favorable than those of Malaysians. Furthermore, students' factors and healthy food have significant differences. In this respect, Malaysian respondents show higher results than Indonesian respondents.

Keywords. Critical thinking, Educational factor, Family factors, Healthy food, Personal Factor

1. Introduction

Globalization as a phenomenon has drawn attention to all aspects of life, demanding change not only in the organization or infrastructure but also in mindset and education. Besides that, the demand for the workforce's quality in the job market is increasing so that teachers must think that teaching is not only transferring knowledge to students but also preparing them to face the workforce's competition. It also makes them ready to meet their life in society, with the complexity and tight game. Therefore, society needs a variety of skills. In addition to scientific academic abilities, it also needs skills that must solve problems that are difficult to solve, help it in finding problem-solving solutions, and enable it to be reflective and evaluative in its thinking; these include skills to think critically and creatively. Thinking skills are some of the life skills that need to be developed because they are crucial as a provision to compete in the global world. According to Islam (2015), the global knowledge economy is supported by Technium Social Sciences Journal

Vol. 43, 160-172, May, 2023 ISSN: 2668-7798 www.techniumscience.com

(3)

information and technology; this means that everyone must be able to deal with change quickly and effectively, because of the new economic conditions that threaten flexible knowledge and the ability to inform and integrate various sources of knowledge in solving problems, which can be done by those who have critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking is described as an organized mental process, and it plays a role in making decisions to solve problems. By having essential thinking competence, people expect to make decisions, solve problems, and find reasons needed in the work environment (Suparni, 2016). With critical thinking, they can examine other people's thinking processes and then find the truth about the flow of their thought, whether others use their senses or not. Besides, critical thinking can encourage someone to come up with new ideas or thoughts about the problems he or she is facing. Finally, they expect to provide solutions for any questions, both arising from themselves or the surrounding social community. In previous studies, many have examined how to develop a person's critical thinking without knowing factors that can affect the development of critical thinking.

Developing critical thinking skills can help people conclude by considering data and facts they can find in the field. One of the potentials that must be developed and fostered by tertiary institutions for students is critical thinking, by equipping them with the ability to think critically so that graduates can interpret data systematically and scientifically to achieve (Pitt et al., 2015). Students of educational institutions with high critical thinking will face all problems they face when they graduate and enter the world of work. This follows research results by Azizi (2018), which indicate that from three dimensions there are creativity, maturity, and commitment also critical thinking has a significant relationship with discipline and academics.

It shows that college graduates have crucial, creative thinking, namely having a mature, committed, and disciplined attitude to develop their potential in the field.

This research aimed to analyze factors that can influence critical thinking between Indonesian and Malaysian to meet competitive needs in the global market faced by college graduates. This study on critical thinking includes student achievement in tertiary institutions;

there are many studies on this field, but most of them are substantially interested in curriculum and learning methods. Therefore, this study combines several substantial ones into one model, comparing Indonesian and Malaysian with different cultures from each nation regarding educational background, students’ factors, family, and food factors. There are also not many studies linking food consumed with critical thinking. Several research gaps exist, including this study, which develops four factors controlled by critical thinking. Other studies tend to focus on only one or two variables related to students' critical thinking.

2. Theoretical framework 2.1. Critical thinking

With high necessary thinking skills, a student believes in better understanding than another student with low critical thinking skills (D’Alessio, Avolio, & Charles, 2019). Those students are capable of making decisions. Hence, critical thinking stimulates students' cognitive reasoning to gain knowledge and develop ideas for thinking about problems, solving them, and making decision learning (Diharjo, Budijanto, & Utomo, 2017). Thus, the ability to think critically is the ability to solve problems and make decisions appropriately. As stated by Paul and Elder (2008), critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking to improve it.

Some researchers claim that critical thinking is an intellectual process. In the process, a person conceptualizes, implements, analyzes, synthesizes, and evaluates actively collected information. First, the person observes and then reflects on his or her experiences, reasons, and Technium Social Sciences Journal

(4)

then communicates the solution or decision; all these steps are called activities of critical thinking (Paul & Elder, 2008). Hence, it is appropriate to say that critical thinking is an art of thinking. In other words, critical thinking is like healthy skepticism, which involves analyzing the result of our thinking processes and ideas to turn them into the right decision or solution to solve problems in the right way (Nault & Stapleton, 2011). Thus, critical thinking can be considered to be a survival skill in life or at work; hence, it should be effectively applied in all aspects of life (Slameto, 2017). For example, someone with a critical thinking ability will have more opportunities in his or her professional, academic, and daily life (Franco et al., 2017).

Critical thinking is not an instant application that is easy to get; critical thinking is a behavior that is developed by children as they grow up. Consequently, many things must motivate them to think critically because the development of essential thinking skills is closely related to learning factors (Tsui, 2002). Critical thinking skills result in children's logical thinking, a reflective, productive, and systematic attitude in developing their ability to make decisions. Necessary thinking skills are also useful for improving analytical skills, stimulating creativity, and encouraging us to reflect (Hidayah, Salimi, & Susiani, 2017). Additionally, someone with critical thinking skills has six abilities: interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation, and self-regulation (Facione, 2015).

2.2. Educational factor and critical thinking

There are several previous studies related to critical thinking. Factors affecting students' necessary thinking skills include educational factors that involve teaching methods, media for education, and the educational environment. Other factors include learning outcomes, reading skills, motivation for success, intention to learn, learning attitude, and emotional intelligence.

Thus, potential factors determining critical thinking are education, personality, and family matter. Other factors influencing critical thinking are cultural background, family background, and learning strategy (Mahapoonyanonta, 2012). Further research studies also touched on effective learning strategies that can foster students' critical thinking. Effective learning strategies can significantly contribute to developing students' necessary thinking skills (Indah

& Kusuma, 2016). This shows that a learning strategy substantially affects students' critical thinking (Sadia, 2012).

Likewise, Yustitia, Wardani, & Juniarso (2019) found that learning develops critical thinking skills, especially analysis, problem-solving, logical thinking, and following up on existing issues. This indicates that developing critical thinking can be done through strategies and learning processes that are given. This study considers the findings of Mahapoonyanonta (2012), that educational factors are ones that can influence critical thinking, including teaching methods, education media, and education atmosphere.

H-1: The higher precisely the education, the higher the level of critical thinking of Indonesian and Malaysian.

2.3. Student’s factor and critical thinking

The Student’s factor can also influence critical thinking. For example, anxiety can reduce one's essential thinking skills. Additionally, they also claimed that habits and routines could reduce critical thinking as they hinder a person from performing exercises (Rubenfeld &

Scheffer, 2006). A person must recognize and realize how feelings can influence their thinking and modify the circumstances that contribute to feelings. In this context, the experience indeed needs. Other stated that Student's factors consisted of learning outcomes, reading ability, motivation for success, intention to study, learning attitude, and emotional intellect. The sub- factor with the most significant influence on critical thinking skills was reading ability (Mahapoonyanont, 2012).

Technium Social Sciences Journal Vol. 43, 160-172, May, 2023 ISSN: 2668-7798 www.techniumscience.com

(5)

Motivation can manifest in students who always come to class, attend lectures actively, take notes diligently, do assignments given by the teacher on their initiative and awareness, read or borrow from the library, and use free time to study. Besides, students who have high motivation have high achievement targets, self-respect, and achievement competitiveness among classmates, which is crucial for their future success (Slameto, 2017). Thus, the student factor can determine the critical thinking of students based on their motivation to learn and attend school to get high learning outcomes.

H-2: The better the student's personal, the higher the critical ability of Indonesian and Malaysian.

2.4. Family factor and critical thinking

The family environment has a positive influence on students' thinking skills. It is a dominant factor influencing critical thinking skills. The family environment is the first environment where a student gains knowledge, builds up his or her character, and develops his or her habits following trends (Kurniawan & Maryani, 2016). The family environment has a positive effect on students' thinking skills. This means that the more conducive the family environment is, the better the students' critical thinking skills are, and vice versa (Kurniawan &

Maryani, 2016). The results indicated that the family environment positively and significantly affected learning achievement (Sutriayu, Makhdalena, & Sumarno, 2020; Putriana, 2015).

Otherwise, Schunk (2012) stated that contextual factors could influence children's development and learning, including the family environment and the school environment. This indicates that family factors have an essential role in improving students' critical thinking skills.

Moreover, Wang, Nakamura, & Sanefuji (2020) stated that the optimal parenting style for bonding parents is associated more with a higher critical thinking disposition than with the limits of affection and bonding absence. These findings provide the first evidence of a pathway from parenting to essential natures of thinking. According to Slameto (2017), “family factors are measured through the way parents educate children, relationships between family members, household atmosphere, family economic conditions, understanding of parents, and different cultural backgrounds.” If they can carry out their respective functions and roles properly, these factors are likely to create situations and conditions that can improve students' abilities.

H-3: The more conducive the family's condition, the higher the critical thinking Indonesians and Malaysians have.

2.5. Healthy food factors and critical thinking

Several factors can influence critical thinking, such as children's personalities, family environment, and healthy and nutritious food. Thus, healthy food, the content of hygienic food, free from chemicals, is also an essential factor of critical thinking. By contrast, nutritious food means food that can meet the nutritional requirements of human beings. For example, eating healthy and nutritious food can make a child grow healthy because it helps the body form antibodies and immunity to fight viruses and bacteria and avoid various germs (Abdullah &

Richardo, 2017). Many problems arise because parents are ignorant; they do not care about the food consumed by their children. Unsafe and non-nutritious foods can cause disease and inhibit growth. According to Devi, Sartono, and Isworo (2013), most respondents made mistakes in choosing packaged food; this indicates that not many of our people care about healthy and nutritious food. Maintaining healthy living is not only about choosing nutritious foods but also about preserving cleanliness, such as cleaning the table before arranging food and looking for information about the food that will be consumed, such as that in labels on cans or food wrappers.

(6)

Anderson et al. (2007) stated that healthy food typically contains nutrients, is commonly consumed, and is culturally acceptable. Other practical considerations include consumption convenience, price, and employment relationships. Foods that are enriched with healthy nutrients include fruits, bread and cereals, fish/meat, milk, fatty foods, and sweet foods. Healthy food is a hygienic and nutritious food. Clean food is food that does not contain germs and does not contain toxins that can endanger health. The food we are going to eat must include a complete nutritional composition, consisting of carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, minerals, and water (Fitriani, 2011). It means that if students consume hygienic, nutritious, and chemical-free healthy foods, they can increase intelligence and ultimately have a high critical value.

H-4: The healthier the food consumed, the higher the critical thinking ability of Indonesians and Malaysians.

3. Research methods

3.1. Research methods and participants

This research used a quantitative approach as it involves testing hypotheses and quantitative research is used in the form of numeric data to find what one wants to know. This research was carried out based on the problems faced by higher education graduates. From this phenomenon, a literature review is carried out through formulation of research hypotheses, selection of an appropriate research method, and data analysis using inferential statistics with SmartPLS techniques to test the hypotheses, draw conclusions and determine precise implications that can be used as considerations in policymaking.

The population in this study was higher education students and alumni from several universities in Indonesia and Malaysia. This study calculated the sample size based on the suggestion by Hair et al. (2010), which is calculating the sample size by multiplying the number of indicators by 5. There were 5 variables and 21 indicators in this research, and it was described in a questionnaire totaling 46 questions. The respondents of this study were 290 in total, consisting of 175 Indonesian students and alumni (60.14%) and 116 (39.86%) Malaysian students and alumni. This number exceeds the amount suggested by (Hair et al., 2010).

The respondents' classification by gender indicates that most of them were female 63.23%, and the remainder 36.77%, of the respondents, were male. Thus, the majority of the respondents in this study were female. Regarding the respondents' academic status, the semesters they were in are the fourth, fifth, and sixth semester, while the remaining were alumni. The researchers intentionally did not want to include new students, especially those in the beginning semester. This is because those students have not been attending classes for long.

It is assumed that the education they have obtained in college is not enough to form a critical mind that can affect their thinking differently.

3.2. Data collection tools

Data collection was carried out by survey or questionnaire methods to test its validity and reliability. Questionnaires were distributed using the incidental sampling method, whereby students from several universities in Indonesia and Malaysia complete a Google Form.

Respondents' answers were categorized using a five-point Likert scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). Validity and reliability tests were conducted, and the results were found to be valid and reliable. Data analysis was performed using SmartPLS software to test the formulated hypotheses. An investigation to determine differences in critical thinking between the Technium Social Sciences Journal

(7)

respondents from Indonesia and Malaysia was conducted. The data were collected through a survey using a questionnaire formulated based on each variable's indicators.

3.3. Data analysis

The analysis technique used in this research is SmartPLS, which produces the outer and inner models. The outer model's evaluation should determine convergent validity. Meanwhile, the inner model's evaluation determines whether there is a relationship between variables used in this study. The calculation results indicate that the indicators are valid or have fulfilled convergent validity because all the values are greater than 0.5. In the outer model, there is an analysis of the validity and reliability of the PLS indicators. The indicator validity consists of convergent validity and discriminant validity, and reliability can be seen from composite reliability. For discriminant validity, measurement assesses based on cross-loading with constructs by comparing AVE roots of each construct with a correlation between one construct and another in the model. A model is said to have sufficient discriminant validity if the AVE root for each construct is greater than the correlation between the constructs and the other constructs' constructs.

The result of convergent validity and reliability is indicated by the AVE value, Composite Reliability, and Cronbach’s Alpha. The results indicate that all constructs have AVE values above 0.5; likewise, the square AVE value gets a cost of more than 0.5, so indicators in this study have met a good standard of validity. The results of the composite reliability are considered to be good if they are above 0.7. By contrast, the value of the composite reliability in this study for all constructs is above 0.7; this means that all the constructs in the estimated model meet the criteria for discriminant validity because the lowest combined reliability value is 0.800 in the student factor construct. The reliability test can be strengthened by the results of the Cronbach's Alpha value; the SmartPLS output indicates that all indicators in each variable have a number above 0.6, and the value of Communality Measurement, which results in each construct reaching a value above 0.5.. Thus, validity testing for reflective indicators uses a display between the item score and the construct score. Measurements with reflective indicators indicate a change in an indicator in a construct if other indicators of the same construct change (or are removed from the model). Reflective indicators are suitable for measuring perceptions, so this study uses reflective indicators. The calculation results indicate that all variables have a loading factor with a value above the recommended amount of 0.5. The smallest value is 0.560.

This means that the indicators used in this study are valid or have met convergent validity.

4. Results

4.1. Variable description

Based on the data collection results obtained through the tabulation and coding process of respondents' answers, the respondents identified several factors that influence the level of critical thinking of Indonesian and Malaysian students. The educational factors in this study are a suitable category or an average of 3.56. This indicates that the educational process for educating students to have a critical thinking ability is classified as useful, but it still needs an optimum increase. Personal factors get had an average value of 3.41 or were in the moderate category. Family factors are getting an average of 3.59 in either category, food factors influence respondents' critical thinking had an average value of 3.63 or was in the excellent category, its indicating that most respondents consume healthy food and hygienic food. The critical thinking variable, on the whole, has an average value of 3.64, which is in the high category (Table 1).

(8)

Table 1

Average value of factor critical thinking

Factor Average value

Educational 3.56

Personal 3.41

Family 3.59

Healthy Food 3.63

4.2. Hyp

othesis Testing

SmartPLS was applied to test the hypotheses. Outer model's evaluation needs to determine the convergence. Meanwhile, the inner model's evaluation determines whether there is a relationship between the variables used in this study. The calculation results illustrated in Figure 1 indicate that the indicators are valid or have fulfilled convergent validity because all the values are greater than 0.5 (Ghozali, at al (2012).

The indicator validity consists of convergent validity and discriminant validity, whereas reliability can be seen from composite reliability. Additionally, discriminant validity assesses based on cross-loading with constructs by comparing AVE roots of each construct with a correlation between one construct and another in the model. A model is said to have sufficient discriminant validity if the AVE root for each construct is greater than the correlation between the constructs and the other constructs' constructs.

After the estimated model meets the outer model criteria, the next step is testing the structural model (inner model). Here are the R-Square values of the construct after the estimated model meets the outer model criteria; the next step is testing the structural model (inner model).

R-square results indicate a value of 0.331 for the critical thinking construct; this means that education, student personal factor, family factor, health factor can explain the critical thinking variance of 33.1%. The results of the path analysis calculations performed using the SmartPLS program as seen in Figure 1.

This study indicates that t-statistics value to test the hypotheses to determine whether there is influence from the research variables. If the t-statistics value is ≥1.96, then there is a significant influence of the exogenous variables on the endogenous variables. Conversely, if the t-statistic is <1.96, there is no influence of the exogenous variables on the endogenous variables. Calculation of the t-statistics value in evaluating the inner model is used to test the hypotheses to investigate the effect between variables.

Figure 1 illustrates the data analysis results shown in Table 3, that educational factors significantly influenced critical thinking. The degree of influence was 0.187. This was proved by the statistical value, which was 3.192 (p ≥ 0.196). This means that the first hypothesis is accepted. In other words, improving the educational factor will significantly influence Indonesian and Malaysian students' critical thinking levels.

Table 2 indicates that data analysis results of personal factors have an effect of 0.382 on critical thinking. This positive influence has a statistical score of 5.661 (p ≥ 0.196).

Consequently, the second hypothesis is accepted. An improvement in personal factors will also significantly influence the level of critical thinking of Indonesian and Malaysian students.

Third, the data analysis indicates that the family factor has an influence of 0.046 on critical thinking. This influence is positive and accompanied by a statistical value of 0.600 (p <

1.96), which indicates that the third hypothesis is rejected. In other words, an improvement in Technium Social Sciences Journal

(9)

family factors does not significantly influence to the critical thinking of Indonesian and Malaysian students (Table 2).

Fourth, the health factor has an influence of 0.118 on critical thinking. This influence was positive and accompanied by a statistics value of 1.518 (p < 1.96). This means that the fourth hypothesis is rejected. In other words, an improvement in the health factor does not significantly influence the level of critical thinking of Indonesian and Malaysian students (Table 3).

Fig. 1. Evaluation of Outer Loading Table 2

Test of hypotheses

Original

Sample (O)

Sample Mean (M)

Standard Error (STERR)

T-Statistics (|O/STERR )

P-value Note

Edu→CT 0.187 0.193 0.059 3.192 >1.96 H-1: Supported

Pers_Fac→CT 0.382 0.379 0.067 5.661 >1.96 H-2: Supported Fam_Fac→CT 0.046 0.062 0.077 0.600 <1.96 H-3: Rejected Healthy Food→CT 0.118 0.115 0.078 1.518 <1.96 H-4: Rejected

Table 3 presents the results of critical thinking between Malaysian and Indonesian respondents; based on its variables, this analysis was conducted using the T-group Test. Each data's paths calculate to find the statistical value and standard error value of statistical significance. After that, each cost is calculated manually using the t-test.

The education factors of Malaysian and Indonesian respondents significantly differ upon critical thinking, with a value of 2.690 and Indonesia being greater than Malaysian students. Furthermore, the student's factors of Malaysian and Indonesian respondents are significantly different, showing an amount of T-group value being −15.107, which is lower than

−1.96. This indicates that Malaysia's respondents have higher learning outcomes, are more Technium Social Sciences Journal

(10)

motivated to learn, are interested in learning, have a more positive learning attitude, and have higher emotional intelligence than Indonesian respondents. Simultaneously, the family factor of Indonesian respondents has a significant difference in critical thinking compared with Malaysian respondents. However, the family factor of Malaysian students has a significant difference in terms of its effect on critical thinking (Table 4).

The difference in critical thinking based on family factors is significant between Malaysia and Indonesia, and the family factor of Indonesian respondents is higher than that of Malaysian respondents. Next, the difference between critical thinking based on Indonesian and Malaysian respondents' healthy food factors was also significant, as indicated by the T-group calculation result of −2.185. This is higher than −2.185; Indonesian and Malaysian respondents' nutritional food factors have significant differences. Malaysian respondents have higher scores compared to those of Indonesian respondents (Table 3).

Table 3

Differences of critical thinking based on influencing variables

Variables T-statistic Standard Error T-group Note

1. Education Factor

Indonesia 2.611 0.098

2.690 Significance

>Indonesia

Malaysia 2.269 0.081

2. Personal Factor

−15.107 Significance

>Malaysia

3. Family Factor

21.622 Significance

>Indonesia

4. Healthy Food

−2.185 Significance

>Malaysia

5. Disc

ussion

The educational factor has a significant influence on critical thinking; thus, the first hypothesis is accepted. In other words, improving the educational aspect will influence the essential review of Malaysian and Indonesian respondents. This is probably because the formation of students' critical thinking skills cannot be separated from the role of education in higher education through a given curriculum, learning method, a teaching and learning process, and the academic atmosphere. This research supports the findings of Buhaerah (2012), Asnewastri and Mursid (2016), and Slameto, (2017). This indicates that the learning process must be equipped with a conducive atmosphere to support a quality learning process to produce effective learning. It is for students to optimally develop their abilities, competencies, and potential, including critical thinking, because the provision of quality learning can improve students' critical thinking.

The results of the data analysis indicate that the student factor significantly affects critical thinking. This means that the second hypothesis is accepted. In other words, an improvement in student factors, namely the student's factor, will determine the students' level of critical thinking. Furthermore, students who have access to the above are serious about Technium Social Sciences Journal

(11)

learning for a better future. This study's findings supported Rubenfeld and Scheffer (2006), who claimed that people's anxiety, habit, and routine factors could reduce critical thinking and intellectual development. Another factor, namely feeling or emotion, is typically identified as one word: sad, relieved, happy, frustrated, confused, angry, and so on. This also support the study of Anggraini, (2011) and Slameto, (2017) that motivation is one of the factors that arise from a student him/herself; motivation means that the student's motor power is active at a specific time to achieve the desired goal.

Family factors have an influence on critical thinking. This means that the third hypothesis of this study is rejected. In other words, a supported of family factors does not significantly affect the level of critical thinking of Indonesian and Malaysian students. It may imply that students in this study are more independent in their learning. That is, they do not depend much on their parents, although they will not have their parents' attention and motivation, this will not affect their critical thinking level. These findings did not support Rubenfeld and Scheffer's (2006) research outcomes, who claimed that the family factor significantly influences students' critical thinking. Also did not support the research outcomes of Kurniawan et al. (2015). Nevertheless, the Family factors are significantly different between Malaysia and Indonesia. The family factor of Indonesian respondents was higher than that of Malaysian respondents. This means that Indonesian respondents' parents give more attention and motivation to their children. Likewise, Indonesian and Malaysian respondents' healthy food factors indicated that the T-group calculation results indicate a different situation; nutritional food factors between Indonesian and Malaysian respondents show significant differences.

Malaysian respondents have higher scores compared to those of Indonesian respondents.

The data analysis indicates that the healthy food factor has no influence on significant and positive influence value. This means the fourth hypothesis of this study is rejected. In other words, an improvement in the healthy food factor does not significantly influence the level of critical thinking of Malaysian and Indonesian students. Many respondents likely have a habitual liking for food that is easy to get, such as junk food or outside food that is easily ordered online.

Some live in boarding houses, so they eat potluck, but they are still eager to learn because of the demands of lectures that must follow. Thus, the findings of this study did not support the research outcomes of Abdullah and Richardo (2017) and Ardi, Andullah, and Al-Tamimi (2016), who claimed that other factors influence critical thinking such as students' personality, their family environment, and healthy and nutritious food. Packaged food or beverage products have not become a culture in our society. It is crucial to know the nutrients contained in these products. Another benefit can also be to limit the intake of sugar, salt, and fat per day; whether a diet like this can affect students' critical thinking, researchers will conduct research to determine that. In this case, the healthy food factor does not significantly influence students' critical thinking. Hence, the finding did not support the research outcomes of Abdullah and Richardo (2017) and Ardi, Andullah, and Al-Tamimi (2016).

The research results indicate that there is significantly difference in critical thinking based on different factors between Indonesian and malaysian, the education factor of Indonesian respondents has a score higher than that of Malaysian respondents. This means that education is an essential factor that can make people acquire high critical thinking ability. Indonesian respondents are higher than Malaysian respondents in terms of student factors. The student's aspect of Indonesian and Malaysian respondents indicates significantly different values. It indicates the results of the calculation of the difference test. It suggests that respondents from Malaysia have higher learning outcomes, are more motivated to learn, have more interest in Technium Social Sciences Journal

(12)

learning, have a more positive learning attitude, and have higher emotional intelligence than those of Indonesian respondents.

Both Indonesian and Malaysian respondents have high necessary thinking abilities, and factors that influence critical thinking such as education, family, and healthy food are at desirable levels. However, the personal aspects of students are only in the excellent category.

The factors that influence critical thinking in this study are education, student factors, family, and healthy food. The results indicate that the educational factor significantly affects critical thinking. Also, student factors have a significant influence on critical thinking.

6. Conclusion

The level of critical thinking between Indonesian and Malaysian respondents was significantly different. The difference resulted from the education factor and family factor for Indonesian respondents, which were higher than those of the Malaysian respondents. This can imply that educational factors help shape critical thinking. Critical thinking will enhance after the development of the curriculum with learning that can lead to the students' critical thinking, the use of learning methods and processes that refer to case-based learning, or discussion that stimulates vital thinking, thus creating the right academic atmosphere. The family's attention needs by the respondents, even though they are already at the college level or in the workplace as employees or entrepreneurs. To achieve an optimum outcome in developing critical thinking ability, the individual still needs the family members' or parents' attention.

The implication of this study that educational factors for shaping critical thinking need to be improved by developing the curriculum with learning that can lead to the students’ critical thinking, the use of learning methods and processes that refer to case-based learning or discussion so as to enhance critical thinking and create an atmosphere academic right. Besides that, It also needs attention from the family even though it is at the college level or even work as employees or entrepreneurs. To get optimal results in developing critical thinking, the persons still need attention from the family or parents. Further study sugest as regard on this study which are other factors that influence to critical thinking sucs as talent, creativity, and personality within the Asean countries.

Acknowledgment

This research's teams are the lecturers conducted due to a collaboration initiative between the Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 (UNTAG) Surabaya and the Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) Malaysia. At this moment, we express our gratitude to UNTAG Surabaya and UiTM Malaysia. They have facilitated to complete this research and get it published in academic journals.

References

[1] Abdullah, A. A., & Richardo, R. (2017). Menumbuhkan kemampuan berpikir kritis siswa dalam memilih makanan sehat dengan pembelajaran literasi matematika berbasis konteks. Jurnal Gantang, 2(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.31629/jg.v2i2.193.

[2] Anderson, A. S., Dewar, J., Marshall, D., Cummins, S., Taylor, M., Dawson, J., &

Sparks, L. (2007). The development of a healthy eating indicator shopping basket tool (HEISB) for use in food access studies - Identification of key food items. Public Health Nutrition, 10(12), 1440–1447. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980007000092.

[3] Anggraini, I. S. (2011). Motivasi belajar dan faktor-faktor yang berpengaruh: Sebuah kajian pada interaksi pembelajaran mahasiswa. Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar dan Technium Social Sciences Journal

(13)

Pembelajaran, 1(2), http://doi.org/10.25273/pe.v1i02.39.

[4] Ardi, M. N., Abdullah, F., & Al-Tamimi, S. (2016). Al-Biruni: A muslim critical thinker. International Journal of Nusantara Islam, 4(1), 1-12.

https://doi.org/10.15575/ijni.v4i1.490.

[5] Asnewastri, A., & Mursid, R. (2016). Pengaruh strategi pembelajaran dan kemampuan berpikir logis terhadap hasil belajar sejarah siswa jurusan IPS SMA Negeri 2 Pematangsiantar. Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan (JTP), 9(2), 1–10.

https://doi.org/10.24114/jtp.v9i2.4900

[6] Azizi, N. (2018). The Employability of Graduate Students: How Critical Thinking is effectively taught in Master Course. Paper presented in International VET conference:

Crossing Boundaries in Vocational Education and Training: Social Dimensions and ParticipationAt: Rostock, Germany.

[7] Buhaerah, B. (2012). Model pembelajaran yang efektif untuk meningkatkan keterampilan berpikir kritis (Suatu persepsi guru). Gamatika, 2(2), 00-00.

[8] D’Alessio, F., Avolio, B. E., & Charles, V. (2019). Studying the impact of critical thinking on the academic performance of executive MBA students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 275–283.

[9] Devi, V. C., Sartono, A., & Isworo, J. T. (2013). Hubungan antara karakteristik individu dan pengetahuan label gizi dengan membaca label gizi produk pangan kemasan pada konsumen di 9 supermarket wilayah kota Tangerang Selatan tahun 2016. Jurnal Gizi, 2(2), 1–12.

[10] Diharjo, R. F., Budijanto, B., & Utomo, D. H. (2017). Pentingnya Kemampuan Berfikir Kritis Siswa dalam Paradigma Pembelajaran Konstruktivistik. Prosiding PKP, 445–449.

[11] Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. In insight assessment. 44, Issue 1, pp. 1–25). California: Measure reason LCC.

[12] Fitriani, S. (2011). Promosi kesehatan. Jakarta: Graha Ilmu.

[13] Franco, A. R., Costa, P. S., Butler, H. A., & Almeida, L. S. (2017). Assessment of undergraduates’ real-world outcomes of critical thinking in everyday situations.

Psychological Reports Journal, 120(4), 707-720.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117701906.

[14] Ghozali, I., & Latan, H. (2012). Partial least square: Konsep, teknik dan aplikasi SmartPLS 2.0 M3. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.

[15] Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998).

Multivariate data analysis 7th edition. (Vol. 5, Issue 3). New York: Pearson. Education Limited. Harlow.

[16] Hidayah, R., Salimi, M., & Susiani, T. S. (2017). Critical thinking skill: Konsep dan indikator penilaian. Jurnal Pendidikan Ke-SD-An, 1(2), 127–133.

http://dx.doi.org/10.30738/tc.v1i2.1945.

[17] Indah, R., & Kusuma, A. W. (2016). Factors affecting the development of critical thinking of indonesian learners of english language. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 21(6), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2106088694.

[18] Islam, S. M. R. (2015). What are the importance and benefits of "Critical thinking skills"?. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-importance-benefits-critical-thinking- skills-islam. Accessed December 21, 2020.

[19] Kurniawan, I. S. (2015). Implementasi problem based learning open ended dan kemampuan berpikir kritis siswa pada materi sistem sirkulasi pada sekolah di perkotaan Technium Social Sciences Journal

(14)

dan di pedesaan. Master Thesis. Bandung: Indonesia University of Education.

[20] Kurniawan, T., & Maryani, E. (2016). Pengaruh lingkungan keluarga dan lingkungan sekolah terhadap keterampilan berpikir tingkat tinggi peserta didik dalam pembelajaran

IPS. Jurnal Pendidikan Ilmu Sosial, 24(2), 209.

https://doi.org/10.17509/jpis.v24i2.1457

[21] Mahapoonyanont, N. (2012). The causal model of some factors affecting critical thinking abilities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 146–150.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.084

[22] Nault, S., & Stapleton, P. (2011). The community participation process in ecotourism development: A case study of the community of Sogoog, Bayan-Ulgii, Mongolia.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(6), 695–712.

[23] Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(1), 34–35.

[24] Pitt, V., Powis, D., Levett-Jones, T., & Hunter, S. (2015). The influence of critical thinking skills on performance and progression in a pre-registration nursing program.

Nurse Education Today, 35(1), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.08.006 [25] Putriana, N. (2015). Pengaruh lingkungan keluarga dan lingkungan sekolah terhadap

prestasi belajar siswa pada mata pelajaran akuntansi di kelas XI IPS SMA Pasundan 8 Bandung. Jurnal Pendidikan Akuntansi & Keuangan, 3(1), 13.

https://doi.org/10.17509/jpak.v3i1.15383

[26] Rubenfeld, M. G., & Scheffer, B. K. (2006). Berpikir kritis dalam keperawatan, edisi 2. Jakarta: Penerbit EGC.

[27] Sadia, I. W. (2012). Model pembelajaran yang efektif untuk meningkatkan keterampilan berpikir kritis (Suatu persepsi guru). Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran Undiksha, 2(2), 19–237.

[28] Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Yogyakarta:

Pustaka Pelajar.

[29] Slameto, S. (2017). Critical thinking and its affecting factors. Jurnal Penelitian Humaniora, 18(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.23917/humaniora.v18i2.5187.

[30] Suparni, S. (2016). Upaya meningkatkan kemampuan berpikir kritis mahasiswa menggunakan bahan ajar berbasis integrasi interkoneksi. Jurnal Derivat, 3(1), 40–58.

https://doi.org/10.31316/j.derivat.v3i2.716.

[31] Sutriayu, S., Makhdalena, M., & Sumarno, S. (2020). Effect of family environment and education costs on student achievement with interest in reading as an intervening variable. Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1), 164.

https://doi.org/10.31258/jes.4.1.p.164-175

[32] Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from four institutional case studies. The Journal of higher Education, 73(2), 740-763.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777179.

[33] Wang, Y., Nakamura, T., & Sanefuji, W. (2020). The influence of parental rearing styles on university students’ critical thinking dispositions: The mediating role of self-

esteem. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100679.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100679

[34] Yustitia, V., Wardani, I. S., & Juniarso, T. (2019). The effect of brain based learning model on student’s high order thinking skills. EduHumaniora: Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar, 11(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.17509/eh.v11i1.14058.