Comparing the Effect of EDPA and FDPA on University Students Hots - Article Example

COMPARING THE EFFECT OF EDPA AND FDPA ON HOTS Knowledge development is dependent on a ability to acquire knowledge from new situations and develop solutions based on observations. Based on this, a study was conducted on 151 students from Cognitive Sciences and Ethics course. The purpose was to assess the effects of EDPA and FDPA on higher order thinking skills (HOTS). Based on the independent-groups t-test results it was concluded that there was no significant difference between the effects of EDPA and FDPA on HOTS. The study was conducted keeping in mind that HOTS can be developed only when students learn to observe situations and form new concepts in mind. This means there is no used of pre-obtained knowledge by the students. For this, editable DPA (EDPA) is generally considered more effective than fixed DPA (FDPA). However, this study has given contradictory results due to time constrains and lack of tool effectiveness. From literature review it has been seen that students if given the opportunity to ask questions tend to come up with both basic and deep questions. While the basic questions allowed students to acquire only basic knowledge, deeper questions allowed students to garner reflective skills. INTRODUCTION The importance of higher order thinking skills cannot be undermined in the realm of education. It is however a matter of debate the manner in which HOTS is cultivated in young students provided the facts that most teachers tend to believe that young students do not have the ability to think deeply enough to absorb knowledge from surrounding conditions. Education being one of the foremost aspect of human society, it is natural that experiences are always an ongoing process for the growth and development of teaching strategies. Today, the role of teachers is not limited only to the development of basic skills in students but also different varieties of issues like logical thinking, problem solving, higher order thinking and so on. There is constant need in finding the best feasible ways to achieve it. This paper focuses on university students’ HOTS which has been differentiated from the other terms based on three angles. First, there are different views accepted by philosophers and psychologists regarding HOTS. Second, there is effort to maintain difference between higher order thinking and lower order thinking. Third, the difference in the concepts of critical thinking and problem solving, and their relevance with higher order thinking (Lewis & Smith, 1993, p.131). The effort of developing HOTS needs to be a continuous process as the culture of education needs to focus on creating an environment that will encourage knowledge in a deeper sense instead of just memorizing it. For the purpose of developing meaningful knowledge one strategy can be promoting question-posing activities. Quantitative research has shown that students support the concept of creating questions as a beneficial tool for acquiring knowledge. To help students in the process of framing and modifying questions, there are a number of editable drill and practice applications (EDPA) like Peerwise and StudySieve (Mohammad Shah & Ahmad Jelani, 2015). Students using EDPA can modify items while students with FDPA have to practice with pre-existing items. It has been observed that both EDPA and FDPA are effective in helping students to retain knowledge and skills. However, after taking into consideration students’ perspectives regarding the tools, it has been suggested that EDPA can promote HOTS. This statement still needs to be supported by more empirical results. Mohammad Shah and Ahmad Jelanoi (2015) have conducted a study with an EDPA called KAJI. They have observed that EDPA is more effective than FDPA on enhancing knowledge retention capacity of students. This study will focus on determing whether or not EDPA is better than FDPA in promoting HOTS. Purpose of study The purpose of the current study is to determine which of the two types of DPA – EDPA or FDPA has better effect on students’ HOTS. The research question is “Is there a significant difference on HOTS scores between group of students using EDPA and FDPA?” Literature review Definition of HOTS The definition of higher order thinking has been explored by Lewis and Smith (1993) as they approached the topic from philosophical and psychological perspectives. Each of these fields has different views of “truth” – philosophers take human approach while psychologists take scientific approach. According to Cohen and Cowen (2007, p.ii), HOTS include “skills to solve problems, to synthesize information from new creations, and to effectively make decisions that are based on solid understanding of surrounding conditions”. Lewis and Smith have defined HOTS as different from critical thinking which is assessment of arguments applied to problem solving. They have argued that HOTS can be developed by student when confronted by difficult situations since this will include getting information from the new situation and making decisions by understanding the situation. They have further stated that HOTS develop only when students acquire new thoughts without resorting to recollect pre-established thoughts. Develop HOTS through questioning Chin (2001) conducted a study to understand the questions asked by students that contribute towards knowledge construction. Six grade 8 students were selected to ask basic questions about science and then deeper questions for in-depth approach. Students were selected based on different academic efficiencies, and it was ensured that teacher’s assessment reflected on the students’ responses to the questionnaire. It was concluded that basic questions did not allow students to develop any deep thinking and the replies were short while the deeper questions allowed them to think before giving conceptual answers. The importance of existing knowledge It was found that retention of knowledge and skills can assist higher-level operations. However, according to a study conducted by Zohar & Dori (2003) although a certain quantity of knowledge is essential for learning, the same is not required for encouraging HOTS. Self-assessment We need some basic and relevant knowledge to enable HOTS development providing the knowledge is acquired from experiences of circumstances. Therefore, self-assessment as stated by Riordan and Loacker (2008, p.181) should be made “an essential part of the assessment process to be done regularly and systematically”. Learning tools that can promote HOTS Questions Sharing and Interactive Assignments (QSIA) is a “unified infrastructure for developing, collecting, managing and sharing of knowledge items” (Rafaeli et al., 2004, p.273). Barak and Rafaeli (2004) studied students who took on-line examination based on self and peer assessment. It was concluded that students who did peer assessment fared better than their counterparts. Denny, Luxton-Reilly and Hamer (2008, p.73) introduced Peerwise as online system of creating tests based on multiple choice questions. Its importance is emphasized since students get to answer more questions than required. The principle characteristic here is that students get to contribute the questions with instructors having the right to delete redundant questions. In another article, Luxton-Reilly et al. (2011) introduced StudySieve which is an online system of free-response type items. In StudySieve, the answers reflect the thinking talents of students, and therefore this system is important for learning. DESIGN OF THE STUDY It can be undoubtedly accepted that HOTS in university education is in constant need of improvement more because of constant change in the lifestyle and behaviors of Gen Y. Keeping this in view, this study has been conducted to compare the performance level of university students in the context of HOTS after using the DPAs. A final examination was taken after which data was collected and after a quantitative approach conclusions were made at the end of the study. Sample of study For the purpose of this study, 151 students were selected from two classes of the Cognitive Sciences and Ethics course. They were under the tutelage of same lecturer in Universiti Utara Malaysia. The students were enrolled in different semesters starting from semester two to semester eight, and studied various subjects like Business Studies and Computing. The duration of this study lasted from September 2013 to December 2013 during which every student had to participate. Treatment materials For this study two versions of KAJI were used which is an offline DPA using free-response type items constructed by the researcher. The two versions that the students were allowed to use were the EDPA and FDPA versions of KAJI. There are two basic differences between the two DPAs. The EDPA allows students to add and modify items while FDPA does not. The FDPA has pre inserted items while EDPA does not. This means students receiving EDPA were required to drill on their own items while students receiving FDPA were required to drill on readily available items. These applications are developed by the researcher to avoid the impact of extraneous variable if different DPA were used as EDPA and FDPA. In addition, this gives the researcher more freedom in the DPAs maintenance. Offline method was chosen because of poor Internet connection at students’ colleges. Moreover, the DPAs are more flexible to use since KAJI can be executed and stored in a pen drive or a computer. Experimental procedure and data collection In the first week of the semester, the students were given instructions by their lecturer about the usage procedure of KAJI. EDPA and FDPA were given to Class A and Class B respectively. Students with EDPA needed to include all the required facts in their items. The students were asked to submit a report that can be generated from KAJI every week to ensure that they have used the DPA two times a week. The KAJI report contains various information like when was an item was last tried and how many times it was answered. The HOTS test was given during the final week of lecture. The students were required to answer two essay type items. The scores were given by lecturer based on Washington State University Critical Thinking Rubric (WSUCTR) (Kelly-Riley, 2003). Data analysis The two versions of KAJI were given to two groups of students from the same course. Since the results of this study were based on HOTS test scores obtained from two different groups therefore, an independent-groups t-test was opted as the method for data analysis. This helped to compare the differences of HOTS scores in FDPA and EDPA conditions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS As can be seen from Table 1 there was no significant difference in HOTS scores for FDPA (M = 22.04, SD = 3.04) and EDPA (M = 22.77, SD = 3.01) conditions; t (149) = -1.49, p > .05. It can be concluded here that the usage of EDPA over FDPA did not have any additional effect on the students’ HOTS scores. Table 1 T-test Results for Comparing the Effect of EDPA and FDPA on Students’ HOTS Scores Type of DPA n Mean SD T df Sig. FDPA 76 22.04 3.04 -1.49 149 .138 EDPA 75 22.77 3.01 The results from this study do not support findings from the literature. The problem may be due to the tools either one or all of them that was used to promote, measure and compare students’ HOTS was not efficient thus hindered detection of any significant changes. It may also be that the duration of the study was not enough to allow considerable time for students to improve their HOTS performance. CONCLUSION Learning tools play a significant role in developing the higher thinking skills of young students. This paper has focused on the difference of the effects of EDPA and FDPA on the HOTS of university students. However, due to insufficiency of time and the tools used for the study it was concluded that the usage of EDPA over FDPA does not have any additional effect on students’ HOTS. References Barak, M. & Rafaeli, S. (2004) On-line question peer-assessment as means for web-based knowledge sharing in learning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(1), 84-103 Bissell, A.N. & Lemons, P.P. (2006) A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom. Bioscience, 56(1), 66-72 Chin, C. (2001) Learning in science: what do students’ questions tell us about their thinking? Education Journal, 29(2), 85-103 Cohen, V. & Cowen, J. (2007) Literacy for Children in an Information Age: Teaching Reading, Writing, and Thinking, Cengage Learning Denny, P. Luxton-Reilly, A. and Hamer, J. (2008) Student use of the PeerWise System. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(3), 73-77 Kamarulzaman, M.S. & Shaari, A.J. (2015) Comparing the effect of EDPA and FDPA ON University students’ examination results. Malaysian online journal of educational technology, 3(1), 28-34 Kelly-Riley, D. (2003) Washington State University Critical Thinking Project: Improving Student Learning Outcomes Through Faculty Practice. Assessment Update, 15(4), 5-14 Lewis, A. & Smith, D. (1993) Defining Higher Order Thinking. Theory Into Practice, 32(3), 131-137 Luxton-Reilly, A. et al. (2011) Supporting Student-generated Free-response questions. ACM, 153-157 Rafaeli, S. (2004) QSIA – A Web-based environment for learning, assessing and knowledge sharing in communities. Computers and Education, 43(3), 273-289 Riordan, T. & Loacker, G. (2008) Collaborative and systematic assessment of student learning: from principles to practice, pp.175-192, In Joughin, G. (ed) Assessment, Learning and Judgement in Higher Education, Springer Zohar, A. & Dori, Y.J. (2003) Higher Order Thinking Skills and Low-Achieving Students: Are They Mutually Exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145-181 Read More