Does the Use of Smart Board Increase Students’ Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)?

Results from international assessments focusing on the use of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) show that Malaysian students perform poorly in Data Handling. At the same time, the Malaysian education system is undergoing a dramatic change in which information and communications technology (ICT) is integrated into the education system in order to enhance the overall quality of education. Smart board has become one of the interactive technology tools that are widely used in schools to facilitate teaching and learning practices. Therefore, this study aims to design and develop an active learning instruction using smart board (ALuSB program) to enhance HOTS in Data Handling among students in Malaysian primary schools. The research was divided into two stages. In the first stage, the ALuSB program was developed by using the ADDIE model which integrated five phases, i.e., analysis, design, development, implement, and evaluate. Then, in the second stage, the quasi-experimental design, a non-equivalent control group design with a pre-test and a post-test, was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the ALuSB program on students’ HOTS. The students were split into three groups equally, i.e., two experimental groups and one control group. Various instruments, including an ALuSB program evaluation form as well as pre-test and post-test rubrics, were used. The results of the analysis suggest that there is a statistically significant difference between the ALuSB program, an active learning instruction and a conventional learning method in enhancing each level of HOTS in Data Handling among students. Although all students from each group show improvements in enhancing HOTS in Data Handling, the ALuSB program is the most effective method compared to the active learning instruction and the conventional learning method. Therefore, the ALuSB program promotes students’ active learning and ownership of learning, supports learning by doing, as well as encourages HOTS and peer sharing.

[1]  Anthony C Holderied.  Instructional design for the active: Employing interactive technologies and active learning exercises to enhance library instruction , 2011 .

[2]  Mohd. Tajudin Nor’ain,et al.  ROLE OF HIGHER ORDER THINKING SKILLS IN ENHANCING TIMSS TASKS , 2015 .

[3]  J. Eison,et al.  Using Active Learning Instructional Strategies to Create Excitement and Enhance Learning , 2010 .

[4]  Frank Ragozzine.  SuperLab LT: Evaluation and Uses in Teaching Experimental Psychology , 2002 .

[5]  P. Westwood,et al.  Effective teaching. , 1978, NLN publications.

[6]  Stephanie Atkinson *,et al.  A Comparison of Pupil Learning and Achievement in Computer Aided Learning and Traditionally Taught Situations with Special Reference to Cognitive Style and Gender Issues , 2004 .

[7]  Gary Beauchamp,et al.  Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[8]  D. Krathwohl.  A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview , 2002 .

[9]  L. Walter.  Research in Education , 1895, Nature.

[10]  Ian Thompson,et al.  Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology , 2005 .

[11]  Robert Schroeder.  Active Learning with Interactive Whiteboards: A Literature Review and a Case Study for College Freshmen , 2008 .

[12]  Zipora Libman,et al.  Integrating Real-Life Data Analysis in Teaching Descriptive Statistics: A Constructivist Approach , 2010 .

[13]  Mal Lee,et al.  The Interactive Whiteboard Revolution: Teaching with IWBs , 2009 .

[14]  Reinaldo J. Moraga,et al.  The study of knowledge retention and increased learning through the use of performance based tasks , 2007 .

[15]  Chris Preston,et al.  Use of "SMART" Boards for Teaching, Learning and Assessment in Kindergarten Science. , 2008 .

[16]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , 2000 .

[17]  Michael J. Meitner,et al.  Critical Thinking, Knowledge Retention and Strife: Reflections on Active-learning Techniques , 2005 .

[18]  Alexandre V. Borovik,et al.  MATHEMATICAL ABILITIES AND MATHEMATICAL SKILLS , 2007 .

[19]  H. M. Marks,et al.  Student Engagement in Instructional Activity: Patterns in the Elementary, Middle, and High School Years , 2000 .

[20]  Ginny Carrigan,et al.  The Use of an Interactive Whiteboard in Promoting Interactive Teaching and Learning , 2005 .

[21]  Russell K. Schutt,et al.  Research Methods in Education , 2011 .

[22]  Michelle K. Smith,et al.  Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Patricia S. Moyer,et al.  Third Graders Learn about Fractions Using Virtual Manipulatives: A Classroom study , 2005 .

[24]  Linda Gattuso,et al.  STATISTICS AND MATHEMATICS: IS IT POSSIBLE TO CREATE FRUITFUL LINKS? , 2006 .

[25]  Stephen P. Gordon,et al.  SuperVision and Instructional Leadership: A Developmental Approach , 2000 .

[26]  John M. Braxton,et al.  The role of active learning in college student persistence , 2008 .

[27]  Lisa Geraci,et al.  Converting an Experimental Laboratory Course from Paper and Pencil to Computer , 2004 .

[28]  Anthony C Holderied.  Instructional design for the active: Employing interactive technologies and active learning exercises to enhance information literacy , 2011 .

[29]  Yaya S. Kusumah,et al.  Cultivating Upper Secondary Students' Mathematical Reasoning-Ability and Attitude towards Mathematics Through Problem-Based Learning , 2016 .

[30]  Farah Naaz,et al.  Is recitation an effective tool for adult learners , 2014 .

[31]  Pamela A. Solvie.  The Digital Whiteboard: A Tool in Early Literacy Instruction , 2004 .

[32]  Mellony Graven,et al.  Strengthening maths learning dispositions through ‘math clubs’ , 2016 .

[33]  Nyaradzo Mvududu,et al.  Using Real Life Examples to Teach Abstract Statistical Concepts , 2011 .

[34]  S. Stephenson.  Creating Significant Learning Experiences , 2019, Journal of College Orientation, Transition, and Retention.

[35]  Eugene G. Kowch,et al.  Designing effective instruction , 2004 .

[36]  Deonarain Brijlall,et al.  Using an inductive approach for definition making: Monotonicity and boundedness of sequences , 2009 .

[37]  W. Duncombe,et al.  The No Child Left Behind Act , 2008, Poverty and Proficiency.

[38]  S. Higgins,et al.  The Impact of Interactive Whiteboards on Teacher--Pupil Interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. , 2006 .

[39]  G. Small,et al.  iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind , 2008 .

[40]  Patricia Ann Mabrouk,et al.  Active learning : models from the analytical sciences , 2007 .

[41]  Teoh Sian Hoon,et al.  The Newman Procedure for Analyzing Primary Four Pupils Errors on Written Mathematical Tasks: A Malaysian Perspective , 2010 .

[42]  Mahani Mokhtar,et al.  Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Problem Solving , 2012 .

[43]  Christine Y. O'Sullivan,et al.  TIMSS 2011 Assessment Frameworks. , 2009 .

[44]  Toni Noble,et al.  Integrating the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy with Multiple Intelligences: A Planning Tool for Curriculum Differentiation , 2004, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[45]  Steve Higgins,et al.  'The visual helps me understand the complicated things': pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards , 2005, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[46]  Karen A. Sobel-Lojeski,et al.  The Effects of Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) on Student Performance and Learning: A Literature Review , 2010 .

[47]  Anna Carlin,et al.  Waking the Dead: Using interactive technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom , 2004, AMCIS.

[48]  David Lester Neumann,et al.  USING REAL-LIFE DATA WHEN TEACHING STATISTICS: STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THIS STRATEGY IN AN INTRODUCTORY STATISTICS COURSE , 2013, STATISTICS EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL.

[49]  Tenneille Terrell Lamberth.  Interactive Whiteboard Use: The Catalyst of Student Achievement , 2012 .

[50]  Rohani Ahmad Tarmizi,et al.  Problem Solving Abilities of Malaysian University Students , 2005 .

[51]  J. Shaughnessy.  Research in probability and statistics: Reflections and directions. , 1992 .

[52]  David Miller,et al.  The Interactive Whiteboard as a Force for Pedagogic Change: The Experience of Five Elementary Schools in an English Education Authority , 2002 .

[53]  David L. Morgan,et al.  Using Single-Case Design and Personalized Behavior Change Projects to Teach Research Methods , 2009 .

[54]  Richard K. Staley,et al.  From Example Study to Problem Solving: Smooth Transitions Help Learning , 2002 .

[55]  Douglas N. Gordin,et al.  Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. , 2000, The Future of children.

[56]  D. Geary.  Mathematics and Learning Disabilities , 2004, Journal of learning disabilities.

[57]  樊希强,et al.  Cooperative Learning , 2020, Teaching High School Physics.

[58]  Rebecca Brent,et al.  ACTIVE LEARNING: AN INTRODUCTION * , 2009 .

[59]  Ann Kenimer,et al.  Active Learning Exercises Requiring Higher-Order Thinking Skills , 2003 .

[60]  Lisa K Kervin,et al.  The interactive whiteboard: Tool and/or agent of semiotic mediation , 2011, The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy.

[61]  Michael J. Prince,et al.  Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research , 2004 .

[62]  Timothy Teo,et al.  A Cross-cultural Examination of the Intention to Use Technology between Singaporean and Malaysian pre-service Teachers: An Application of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) , 2008, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[63]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Toward a design theory of problem solving , 2000 .

[64]  Yalın Kılıç Türel,et al.  Instructional interactive whiteboard materials: Designers’ perspectives , 2010 .