Department of Chemistry
Students’ Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in
Solving Chemical Kinetics Questions
Habiddina,b| Elizabeth Pagea|
a. Chemistry Department, University of Reading, UK.; b. Jurusan Kimia, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
Introduction
Questions given to students to identify their understanding after science
teaching, particularly chemistry teaching, generally only focus on material
presented in lectures and textbooks. This is intended mainly to verify what
students have learnt1.There is generally less emphasis on Higher Order
Thinking Skills (HOTS) type questions, such as critical thinking and problem
solving, which are essential for future study and employability. These types of
questions challenge students to think more deeply and critically. Therefore,
teachers of all levels are encouraged to support students in dealing with tasks
involving HOTS2.
Method
The aim of this study was to identify students’ HOTS in solving chemical
kinetics questions. 57 Year 1 chemistry students at the University of Reading,
participated in this research. Each concept was represented by two types of
questions: conceptual and algorithmic . By comparing students’ answers to
both types of questions, students’ HOTS are revealed. In addition, a paired
sample t-test was used to support the analysis of students’ HOTS.
Table 1. Examples of conceptual and algorithmic questions
Discussion
Quantitative Analysis of Students’ HOTS
Paired sample t-test results are presented below.
Table 2. Paired samples t-test with 95% confidence interval using SPSS
Pair Mean t-test
Q. 1: Algorithmic - Algorithmic: 6.53
7.19
Conceptual Conceptual: 2.83
Q. 2: Algorithmic - Algorithmic: 3.35
Conceptual Conceptual: 1.91
2.68
The t-test results for both pairs of questions show that students’ ability in
solving algorithmic and conceptual questions is significantly different. The
mean scores of students’ answers confirm that students performed better in
solving algorithmic questions. In addition, the percentages of students
providing a Correct Answer (CA), Partially Correct Answer (PCA) and
Wrong/No Answer (WNA), as depicted in Figure 1 below, strengthens the
perception that students struggle hard to solve HOTS questions.
The number of students with CA for algorithmic questions is always
significantly higher than that for conceptual questions. For Question 1 over
50% of students gave WNA to the conceptual question, whereas all students
gave a CA or PCA to the equivalent algorithmic question. This result confirms
that students have greater difficulty answering questions requiring higher
order thinking skills.
View publication stats
Figure 1. The percentage of students with CA, PCA & WNA for the algorithmic and conceptual question.
Qualitative Analysis of Students’ HOTS
For Question pair 1, when answering the algorithmic question, students
generally determined the mass of radioactive sample after two half-lives
correctly, but they failed to use the correct half life value when determining the
rate constant. Many students simply assumed that the half life is 126 days,
although the question clearly states that this is the time for 2 half lives and that
radioactive decay follows first order kinetics. In the conceptual presentation
many students again chose the wrong value for the half life (assuming it to be 10
minutes- which is actually two half lives). Despite the similar mistake in both
presentations far more students gave a WNA to the conceptual problem than to
the equivalent algorithmic one. For both types of questions some students
made a mathematical error in the calculations.
In Question pair 2, the algorithmic question demands higher mathematical skills
than the conceptual one. However, because of students’ poorer ability to
interpret a microscopic representation, many struggled to complete the
conceptual question correctly. This could be explained by stating that although
students are able, in some cases, to solve algorithmic problems they do not
always have a full understanding of the concepts involved and use recall and
parameter substitution to solve problems.
This initial study shows that students’ HOTS are not well developed as only a
small number of students gave analytical answers. It seems that students are not
practiced at solving questions requiring critical thinking skills to be solved.
Implication For Teaching & Learning and Future Work
Promoting the use of HOTS should be reinforced both in chemical kinetics
teaching and assessment, particularly through examples that require conceptual
problem solving rather than routine equation selection and substitution . Using
microscopic representation is one way of stimulating students’ HOTS. In
t-table sig addition, improving students’ mathematical skills will help students to perform
better in chemical kinetics. Further studies should be carried out using
0.00
algorithmic/conceptual question pairing with larger sample numbers and over
1.67
0.01 more internationally diverse cohorts.
References
1. Nakhleh, M. B., ‘Nakhleh, M. B. (1993). Are Our Students Conceptual Thinkers or Algorithmic Problem
Solvers - Identifying Conceptual Students In General-Chemistry’, Journal of chemical education, 70(1),
pp. 52-55
2. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher Order Thinking Skills and Low-Achieving Students: Are They
Mutually Exclusive? , Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), pp.145-181
Acknowledgements
• Directorate General of Higher Education, Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education,
Republic of Indonesia.
Contact information
• Department of Chemistry, University of Reading, Whiteknights, RG6 6AH
• Email: h.habiddin@pgr.reading.ac.uk/www.reading.ac.uk/