|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Full Text : |
| The trend results of TIMSS and PISA shows that students' achievement is low in the field of mathematics, especially in answering questions that require Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS). Thus Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 suggested transitions in mathematics education from focusing on cognitive algorithm skills to the implementation of HOTS in teaching and learning of mathematics. A holistic framework in the form of comprehensive processes of fostering HOTS in mathematics teaching and learning is needed to guide teachers in implementation suitable activities in the classroom. Therefore, this research is intended to develop a Guiding Principles of Fostering Higher Order Thinking Skills (GP-HOTS) in teaching and learning of mathematics for secondary school students. Specifically, this article discusses the analysis of HOTS inculcation development in teaching and learning in general and in mathematics education to generate items and themes for GP-HOTS. This qualitative analysis document involves two strategies. Firstly, the electronic databases and journals used to find related articles. In addition, the journals related to HOTS are analyzed to identify more relevant journals. Keywords used for search is HOTS, creative thinking, critical thinking,methods/strategies/techniques for teaching in the 21st century, and the methods/strategies/techniques for effective teaching. At the second stage, the method of snowballing is used to identify the items and themes for GP-HOTS. The themes and items for GP-HOTS were then tested for the content validity and reliability by determing the content validity and the alpha Cronbach indices. The results showed that there are seven main themes of how teachers can foster HOTS in teaching and learning of mathematics namely determining the learning outcomes, planning questioning strategies, practicing active learning, developing habits of mind, practicing reflective thinking, implementing optimally assessment for learning and integrating information, communication and technology. The themes and its items have satisfied level of content validity indices for the face and content validities as well as revealed excellent acceptable level of reliability index. Those themes and it items which contributed to GP-HOTS are important in helping to improve teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching, hence creating futuristic minded students. |
| References |
1. Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition, New York: Longman.
2. Adnot, M., Dee, T., Katz, V., & Wyckoff, J. (2016). Teacher Turnover, Teacher Quality, and Student Achievement in DCPS (CEPA Working Paper No.16-03). Available at http://cepa.stanford.edu/wp16-03.
3. Barber, M. & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the World's Best Performing Schools Come Out on Top. London: McKinsey and Company.
4. Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating Mathematical Futures through an Equitable Teaching
Approach: The Case of Railside School. Teachers College Record. 110(3), 608–645.
5. Brookhart, S. (2010), How to Assess Higher Order Thinking Skills in Your Classroom, ASCD, Available at http://www.ascd.org/Publications/Books/Overview/How-to-Assess-Higher-OrderThinking-Skills-in-Your-Classroom.aspx
6. Chan, S. H. & Yan, Z. (2015). Framework of Assessment for the Evaluation of Thinking Skills of Tertiary Level Students. Advances in Language and Literary Studies. 6(5), 67-72. Doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.5p.67
7. Collins, R. (2014). Skills for the 21st Century: teaching higher-order thinking. Curriculum & Leadership Journal, An Electronic Journal for Leaders in education. 12 (14). Available http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/vol_12_issue_14,37386.html?issueID=12910
8. Creswell, R. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. USA: Sage Publications
9. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement. Education Policy Analysis. 8(1). Available at http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392/515>.
10. Elliott, K. (2015). Teacher Performance Appraisal: More about Performance or Development? Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 40(9). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n9.6
11. Franco, C., Sztajn, P., & Ramalho, M.I. (2007) Mathematics teachers, reform and equity: Results from the Brazilian National Assessment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 38(4),393-419.
12. Ghasempour, Z., Bakar, M. N., & Jahanshahloo., G. B. (2013). Innnovation in teaching and learning through problem posing tasks and metacognitive strategies. International Journal of Pedagogical Innovations, 1(1), 53-62.
13. Hino, K. (2016). Listening and Responding to Children's Reflective Thinking: Two Case Studies on
the Use of the National Assessment in Japan. In Developing 21st Century Competencies In The Mathematics Classroom: Yearbook 2016, Association of Mathematics Educators (pp. 109-132).
14. Jensen, B. (2010). Investing in Our Teachers, Investing in Our Economy, Melbourne: Grattan Institute.
15. King, F. J., Goodson, L., & Rohani, F. (2012). Higher order thinking skills. CALA, Florida State University, Available at http://www.cala.fsu.edu/files/higher_order_thinking_skills.pdf
16. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2012). Buku Panduan Program i-THINK.Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, KPM.
17. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2013). Pelan Pembanguan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013-2025.
18. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
Kong, S.C. (2015). An experience of a three - year study on the development of critical thinking skills in flipped secondary classrooms with pedagogical and technological support. Computers and Education . 89 (1), 16 – 31.
19. Kwan, Y.W. & Wong, F.L. (2014). The constructivist classroom learning environment and its associations with critical thinking ability of secondary school students in liberal studies. Learning Environments Research, 17 (2),
191–207.
20. Lawshe C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology. 28, 563–575.
21. Limbach, B. & Waugh, W. (2010) . Developing higher level thinking. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies. 3, 1-9. Available at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1097083
22. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional
development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
23. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quatification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35,
382–385).
24. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P. & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. Available at
http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2011/downloads/T11_IR_Mathematics_FullBook.pdf.
25. Nardone, C. L. & Lee, R. G. (2010). Critical inquiry across the disciplines: strategies for studentgenerated problem posing. College Teaching. 59(1), 13-22.
doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.489077
26. Nooriza, K. & Effandi, Z. (2015). Integrasi kemahiran berfikir aras tinggi dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran matematik: Analisis keperluan guru. Prosiding Seminar Education Graduate Regional
27. Page, D. (2008).Systematic Literature Searching and the Bibliographic Database Haystack. The Electronic Journalof Business Research Methods.6(2), 171-180.
28. Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children. Piaget: Development and Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 40 (2), 176-186.
29. Polit, E. D., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being
reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 29, 489–497.doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
30. Rajendran, N. (2008). Teaching & acquiring higher-order thinking skills: theory & practice. Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris.
31. Rosnani. H. & Suhailah, H. (2003). The teaching of thinking in Malaysia (1st ed.). Kuala Lumpur:
Research Centre, International Islamic University Malaysia.
32. Rosyahaida, A. (2014). Asas Kukuh Pendidikan Negara, Harian Metro, (Ahad, 9 November 2014).
33. Ryan, S. (2016). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Multilevel Analysis of Teacher
Credentialization and Student Test Scores in California High Schools. McGill Sociological Review, 5, 1-18.
34. Sanders, S. (2016). Critical and Creative Thinkers in Mathematics Classrooms, Journal of Student Engagement: Education Matters, 6(1), 19-27. Available
at:http://ro.uow.edu.au/jseem/vol6/iss1/4
35. Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding.Mathematics Teaching 77,20– 26.
36. Slavin, R.E. (1988). Educational psychology theory into practice. (2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:Prentice Hall
37. Subedi, B. P. (2016). Using Likert type data in social science research: confusion, issues and challenges. International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences, 3(2). Retrieved from www.ijcas.net |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |