The Social Learning Theory Combine with Origami Training Program for Enhancing the Inhibitory Control Among High School Student
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This quasi-experimental research study aimed to: 1) compare the inhibitory control scores of high school students who received the intervention during the pretest, posttest and follow-up; and 2) compare the inhibitory control scores of high school students between the experimental group and the control group in posttest and follow-up. The sample group comprised high school students from a private school, aged 12-17 years, without vision or hearing impairments. Participation were voluntary and parental consent was obtained. Students were tested using a go/no-go task and matched into two groups based on their scores, with 18 participants per group. Random selection determined the assignment of participants to the control and experimental groups. The experimental group underwent a six-session intervention, lasting 50 minutes per session, conducted three times a week over two consecutive weeks. The study included three phases: pretest, posttest, and follow-up after three weeks. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare one variable between groups and one variable within groups, with pairwise comparisons conducted using the Bonferroni method. The results indicated that the experimental group showed significantly improved inhibitory control in the posttest compared to the pretest and outperformed the control group (p < 0.05). It can be concluded that the application of social learning theory combined with an origami training program can enhance inhibitory control.
Article Details
References
B.J. Winer, D. R. B., Kenneth M. Michels. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design (3ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bandura, A. (1969). Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. Handbook of socialization theory and research, 213, 262.
Bandura, A., & Barab, P. G. (1971). Conditions governing nonreinforced imitation. Developmental Psychology, 5(2), 244-255. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031499
Bezdjian, S., Baker, L. A., Lozano, D. I., & Raine, A. (2009). Assessing inattention and impulsivity in children during the Go/NoGo task. Br J Dev Psychol, 27(2), 365-383. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151008x314919
Cragg, L., & Nation, K. (2008). Go or no‐go? Developmental improvements in the efficiency of response inhibition in mid‐childhood. Developmental Science, 11(6), 819-827.
Department of Mental Health. (2021, Fenuary 3). Why are children having more Pseudo-ADHD?. https://dmh.go.th/news-dmh/view.asp?id=30174 (in Thai)
Diamond, A. (2002). Normal development of prefrontal cortex from birth to young adulthood: Cognitive functions, anatomy, and biochemistry. Principles of frontal lobe function, 466-503.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol, 64, 135-168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
Duncan, J., Burgess, P., & Emslie, H. (1995). Fluid intelligence after frontal lobe lesions. Neuropsychologia, 33(3), 261-268.
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & psychophysics, 16(1), 143-149.
Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta psychologica, 136(2), 189-202.
Howell, D. C. (2012). Statistical methods for psychology. Cengage Learning.
Imaroonrak, S., Phunwutikorn, P., Phattharayuttawat, S., Ngamthipwatthana, T., Sumalrot, T., & Auampradit, N. (2018). The Effects of Origami Training on Creativity and Visual-motor Integration in Preschool Children. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 101(1), S85-S89.
Jones, L. B., Rothbart, M. K., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Development of executive attention in preschool children. Developmental Science, 6(5), 498-504.
Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2, 174-207.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological bulletin, 109(2), 163-203.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive psychology, 41(1), 49-100.
Mueller, S. T. (2011). The PEBL Go/No-Go test. Computer software. Retrieved from http://pebl.sf.net/battery.html
Mullane, J. C., Corkum, P. V., Klein, R. M., & McLaughlin, E. (2009). Interference control in children with and without ADHD: A systematic review of Flanker and Simon task performance. Child neuropsychology, 15(4), 321-342.
National Statistical Office Thailand. (2022, May 17). Summary the survey results on the use of information and communication technology in households 2021. (n.p.) https://www.nso.go.th/nsoweb/nso/survey_detail/jJ?set_lang=th (in Thai)
Posner, M. I., DiGirolamo, G. J. (1998). Executive attention: Conflict, target detection, and cognitive control. In: R. Parasuraman (Ed.),The attentive brain(pp. 401-423). Cambridge-Massachusetts, London-England: A Bradford Book, The MIT Press.
Riviere, J., & Lecuyer, R. (2003). The C-not-B error: a comparative study. Cognitive Development, 18(3), 285-297.
Theeuwes, J. (1991). Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The effect of visual onsets and offsets. Perception & psychophysics, 49(1), 83-90.
Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 2(4), i-109. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092987
Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008). Automatic and controlled response inhibition: associative learning in the go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 649.
Waltz, J. A., Knowlton, B. J., Holyoak, K. J., Boone, K. B., Mishkin, F. S., de Menezes Santos, M., Thomas, C. R., & Miller, B. L. (1999). A system for relational reasoning in human prefrontal cortex. Psychological science, 10(2), 119-125.
