Development and validation of an inventory to evaluate the implementation of main educational elements in promoting higher-order thinking skills

Che Md Ghazali Nor Hasnida, Mat Rabi Norfishah, Md Hassan Nurul Huda,

Full Text

A valid, reliable and practical instrument is needed to evaluate the implementation of higher order thinking skills (HOTs) amongst teachers in primary schools. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of an inventory in promoting HOTs. The inventory was adapted from Nurasyikin (2016), Gulistan et. al (2016) and Gonzales and Fugan (2012). The instrument in the form of questionnaire was distributed to a sample of 220 primary school teachers teaching Islamic education subject. The content validity was assessed by a group of experts, and the construct validity was measured by an Exploratory Factor Analysis. The reliability of the instrument was measured by the alpha coefficient reliability or Cronbach Alpha. Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis suggested that 12 items needed to be removed due to their non-dimensionality as they had more or less equal loadings on several factors. The instrument developed yielded high values of internal consistency as reflected by the Cronbach alpha values. The final draft of the instrument contained 107 items which was considered valid and reliable. Even though the validity and reliability of the instrument were within the acceptable range, more data needed to be gathered with a bigger sample, and further analysis using an Item Response Theory (IRT) model could be used to explore deeper into the psychometric characteristics of the items.

References

1. Barroon, I. A., & Abd Rahman, A. (2015). Reliability and validity of a questionnaire to evaluate diabetic patients’ intention to adopt health information technology: A pilot study, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 2(72), 253-258. 2. Constantinou, M., & Kuys, S. S. (2013). Physiotherapy students find guided journals useful to develop reflective thinking and practice during their first clinical placement: A qualitative study. Physiotherapy, 99(1), 49-55. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2011.12.002 3. Costa, A. L. (1999). Changing Curriculum means changing your mind. Palatine, IL: Skylight Publishing Inc. 4. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). 5. Gonzales, R., & Fugan, C. (2012). Exploring the conceptual and psychometric properties of classroom assessment. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 9(2). 6. Gulistan Ahmed, M. A. (2016). Development of a Higher Order Thinking Teaching Models for basic education students in Science (Doctoral thesis). University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 7. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International, Inc. 8. Haris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development introduction: TPACK. Information Technology in Teacher Education, 2009, 99-108. 9. Ivie, S. D. (1998). Ausubel's learning theory: An approach to teaching higher order thinking skills. The High School Journal, 82(1), 35-42. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.um .edu.my:2057/stable/pdfplus/10.2307/40364708.pdf?acceptTC=true 10. Lian, L. H., Yew, W. T., & Meng, C. C. (2016). Preservice teachers’ assessment knowledge: Do teaching experiences make a difference? Teacher Education, 6(2), 16-22. 11. McMillan, J. H. (2001). Secondary teachers’ classroom assessment and grading practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practises, 20(1), 20-32. 12. Ministry of Education Malaysia (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (Preschool to Post-Secondary Education). Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. 13. Miri, B., David, B.C., & Uri, Z. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 353-369. 14. Muijs, D. (2011). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. 15. Norman, G. (2009). Problem‐solving skills, solving problems and problem‐based learning. Medical Education, 22(4), 279-286. 16. Ratnavadivel, N., Hoon, C. L., Salih, M., Low, J., & Karuppiah, N., Omar, A., Md. Yasin, S., Dawi, A. H, Saad, N.S., & Hashim, A. T. M. (2014). Curriculum framework for preparing quality teachers for the future: Developing guiding principles. Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education, 4(2), 32-44. 17. Nurasyikin Abdul Rahman (2016). Kajian penilaian tahap kefahaman RPH di kalangan pelajar (Master thesis). Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak. 18. Ornstein, A. C., & Lasley, T. J. (2000). Strategies for effective teaching. USA: The McGraw-Hill Co. 19. Ozgelen, S. (2012). Students’ Science process skills within a cognitive domain framework. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(4), 283-292. 20. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (3rd ed.). New South Wales: Allen and Unwin. 21. Rajendran, N. S. (2016). Teaching and acquiring HOTS, theory and practice. Tanjong Malim: Penerbit UPSI. 22. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of classroom in teaching and learning (CSE Tech. Report 517). Los Angeles, CA: University of California. 23. Suah, S. L., Ong, S. L. & Osman, S. (2010). Pentaksiran pembelajaran pelajar: Amalan guru-guru di Malaysia. Malaysian Education Dean’s Council Journal, 5, 68-83. 24. Wan Ismail, W. A., Muhammad, W. I, Lubis, M. A., & Hamzah, M. I. (2016). Kesediaan guru PI sekolah rendah di Selangor. Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, 3(1), 79-92. 25. Yaacob, A., Walters, L. M., Md. Ali, R., Shaik Abdullah, S., & Walters, T. (2014). Reflecting on Malaysian teacher trainees’ journals. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 11, 1-21.