‘HOTS IN ENGLISH’

WORKSHOP

We have moved into a more demanding cognitive age, compelling people to become better at absorbing, processingand combining information.

Can we learn to

change with it?Who might our kindergarten

children be working with on an on-

the-job project in 2025?

3

Because of globalization—the ongoing process of intensifying economic, social, and cultural exchanges across the planet—young people the world over need moreinnovative thinking skills, cultural awareness, higher-order cognitive skills, and sophisticated communication and collaboration skills than ever before.

Tony Wagner, co-director of the Change

Leadership Group, examines the U.S.

education system in the 21st century,

considers why American students are

falling behind their international

peers, and proposes methods to begin

to correct the downward slide.

The global achievement gap is the gap

between what we are teaching and

testing in our schools, even in the ones

that are most highly-regarded, versus

the skills all students will need for

careers, college, and citizenship in the

21st century.

What qualities do

you most want in

a potential new

employee?

Seven Survival Skills • critical thinking and problem

solving;

• collaboration across networks and

leading by influence;

• agility and adaptability;

• initiative and entrepreneurship;

• effective oral and written

communication;

• accessing and analyzing

information; and

• curiosity and imagination.

Wagner hears that the single most

important skill is the ability to ask the

right questions.

Greater Need for Education in Society and

Economy

Higher Standards for Learning

More Diverse Students with Greater

Educational Needs

Greater Expectations of Schools for Ensuring

Success

SIX CRITICAL SKILLS FOR 21st CENTURY

370

SOURCE: World Bank EdStats; IMF; UNESCO; PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS, Global Insight; McKinsey & Company

1 Universal scale created by McKinsey & Co., based on Hanushek & Woessmann methodology, to enable comparison across systems.

2 Public spend per student for basic education (pre-school, primary, and secondary school levels) for 2008 current prices

Note: Malaysia 2008 public spend is US$3000, while in 2012, public spend is US$3500 (PPP adjusted)

Public spend per student2, PPP units

7,000–8,000

8,000–9,000

Excellent

3000–4,000

2,000–3,000

1,000–2,000

0–1,000

327

10,000+9,000–10,000

4,000–5,000

Kyrgyzstan

6,000–7,000

Poor

Fair

Good

Great

478

560

540

500

480

440

420

320

0

580

520

460

380

340

400

360

UAE

455

Kazakhstan

Morocco

Thailand

ColombiaTunisia 397

441

Argentina

Chile

MexicoRomania

Malaysia

20082

412

489

Bulgaria

Slovak Republic

Russia

Serbia

422

578

Croatia

Poland

Chinese

Taipei

Shanghai

544

458

Australia

Czech Republic

Israel

Korea, Rep.Singapore

458

547

Japan

Hong Kong

Portugal

New Zealand

Macao SAR, China

402

531

France

Germany

Spain

530

486

Canada

Italy

Ontario

Slovenia

464

545

Finland

Ireland

UK

483

531

Netherlands

USA

Luxembourg

Belg.Flanders

5,000–6,000

Armenia

El Savador

Philippines

Syria

Panama

Moldova

Algeria Mauritius

Turkey Iran

Lithuania

Botswana

Oman

LatviaHungary

Estonia

Malta

Cyprus

Iceland

Sweden

Switzerland

DenmarkNorway

Belg. CFBAustria

Saudi ArabiaUruguay

Azerbaijan

IndonesiaGhana

Georgia

Jordan

W. Cape

Bahrain

Greece

Kuwait

Universal scale score1 2009 (max, median, min)

QUALITY: We are in the ‘poor’ performance band internationally, ~3 schooling years behind top performing Asian countries

13

18 United Kingdom 494

19 Germany 497

OECD Average

PISA 2009+ results: Malaysia ranks among the bottom third of 74 participating countries on all three dimensions

Reading1Math

2 Science3

Regional peers

Rank CountryMean score Rank Country

Mean score Rank Country

Mean score

1 Shanghai-China 556

2 Korea 539

3 Finland 536

4 Hong Kong 533

5 Singapore 526

55 MALAYSIA 414

62 Indonesia 402

1 Shanghai-China 575

2 Finland 554

3 Hong Kong 549

4 Singapore 542

5 Japan 539

1

2

3

4

5

Shanghai-China

Singapore

Hong Kong

Korea

Taiwan

600

562

555

546

543

52 Thailand 419

68 Indonesia 371

42 Russian Fed. 459

43 Chile 449

International Average

53 Thailand 421

57 MALAYSIA 404

41 Croatia 460

42 Israel 447

International Average

51 Thailand 425

66 Indonesia 383

52 MALAYSIA 422

40 Greece 470

41 Malta 461

International Average

3

SOURCE: PISA 2010

Slovak Republic

20 Austria 496

21 497

20 Ireland 508

21 Czech Republic 500

……

……

…

……

……

…

Note: Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of top performers (Level 5 or 6).

OECD Average OECD Average

International skills: Malaysian students are poorer inknowledge application and complex problem-solving than their peers

1 Advanced benchmark: able to organize information, make generalisations, solve non-routine problems

and draw and justify conclusions from data

2 Romania included for comparison due to similarities in population size and GDP per capita.

Note: Countries arranged by proportion of students in advanced level in descending order

SOURCE: TIMSS 2007 for 8th Grade

% of students by performance level in TIMSS Maths

58 5763

63

8073

4840 40

31

79

25

0

Int’

lav

erag

e

Ind

on

esia

52

2

Mal

aysi

a

18

2

Th

aila

nd

34

3R

om

ania

2

17

4

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

6

Sin

gap

ore

3

Ko

rea

2

Intermediate

Below minimum

Advanced1

80

77 77 75 75

65

32

1710

61

82

22

Sin

gap

ore

7

Int’

lav

erag

e

2

3523

Ro

man

ia2

3

20

0

8

Ko

rea

3

Ind

on

esia

Mal

aysi

a

3

20

Th

aila

nd

3

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

% of students by performance level in TIMSS Science

Cognitive skills: Student performance is lagging across all dimensions in comparison with peers

SOURCE: TIMSS 2007 for 8th Grade

596

397

581

574

477

398

595

593

569

478

579

579

557

468

405

300 400 500 600

South Korea

Singapore

Hong Kong

Malaysia

Indonesia

Reasoning

Applying

Knowledge

Scores in TIMSS MathsTIMSS 2007 score

543

532

554

458

425

426

567

547

522

473

558

438

564

533

487

400500600

Hong Kong

Singapore

South Korea

Malaysia

Indonesia

Scores in TIMSS ScienceTIMSS 2007 score

Malaysia performance across knowledge recall, application and reasoning all lag behind peers countries

LACK OF HOTS AMONG OUR M’SIAN STUDENTS TO BECOME 21ST

CENTURY INNOVATORS, THINKERS AND ENTREPRENEURS.

ONE MAJOR IMPEDIMENT TO SUCH A SUSTAINED DEVELOPMENT = THE

DELIVERY OF OUR PRESENT EDUCATION SYSTEM

The passive learning styles and non-

innovative teaching styles

Are our students globally aware?

Are our students self-directed?

Are our students good collaborators?

Are our students critical thinkers and problem solvers?

Implementing higher order thinking skills (HOTS) in the curriculum, assessments and training

TIMSS and PISA have demonstrated that our students struggle with higher-order thinking skills

This has been enforced by surveys of Malaysian and multinational companies

Need to embed HOTS into new KSSM and KSSR curriculum and assessments to raise quality of education to an international standard

RATIONALE

OUTCOME

KPI AND 2015 TARGET

IMPACT ON JPN AND PPD

To equip every student with the required 21st century skills so as to maximise their employability in the today’s increasingly global workforce

Training to deliver enhanced curriculum to students

All Math and Science teachers to be trained in HOTs by 2014

LOW ORDER THINKING (LOT) is

often characterized by the:

- recall of information or

- explanation of ideas and concepts

(LOT)

Bloom's Taxonomy

….. a classification of the different learning objectives that educators set for students …divides

educational objectives into 3

domains: Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor

loosely described as knowing/head, feeling/heart and doing/hands respectively

Within each domain, learning at the higher

levels is dependent on having attained

prerequisite knowledge and skills

at lower levels.

27

Revised taxonomy of the cognitive domain Anderson and Krathwohl(2001)

ANDERSON, L W, & KRATHWOHL D R (eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman

BLOOM’S TAXONOMY

HOTS

LOTS

WHY HOTS ?????

• If we want our students to develop the capacity to think, reason and problem solve, then we need to start with high-level, cognitively complex tasks.

Stein and Lane, 1986

Self-directed

Self-disciplined

Self-corrective

Self-monitored

STUDENTS WHO ARE HIGHLY

STIMULATED IN HOT…….

Projects/activities/ assignments in classroom must include Qs that

challenge students’ thinking process

Clarify their understanding

Make knowledgeable

assumptions

Come up with reasons and evidence

Define their viewpoints

and perspectives

Determine implications

and consequences

Evaluate the

concept at hand in its

entirety

Cognitive Domain Suggested Verbs

Remember(Knowledge)

-shallow processing: drawing

out factual answers, testing

recall and recogniiton

Choose

Describe

Define

Identify

Label

Match

Memorize

Name

Omit

Recite

Recognize

Select

State

List

Understand (Comprehension)

-translating, interpreting and

extrapolating

Classify

Defend

Demonstrate

Distinguish

Explain

Represent

Restate

Translate

Express

Extend

Give

example

Illustrate

indicate

Rewrite

Select

Show

Interrelate

Interpret

Infer

Judge

Match

Paraphrase

Summarize

Tell

Bloom’s Taxonomy and Verbs: Examples of verbs to use for

each cognitive level.

Cognitive Domain Suggested Verbs

Apply

-knowing when to apply, why to

apply, and recognizing patterns of

transfer to situations that are new,

unfamiliar or have a new slant for

students.

Apply

Choose

Dramatize

Explain

Use

Generalize

Judge

Organize

Paint

Prepare

Produce

Select

Show

Sketch

Solve

Analyze

-breaking down into parts, forms.

Analyze

Categorize

Classify

Compare

Differentiate

Distinguish

Identify

Infer

Point out

Select

Subdivide

Survey

Evaluate

-according to some set of criteria and

state why

Appraise

Judge

Criticize

Defend

Compare

Create (Synthesis)

-combining elements into a pattern

not clearly there before

Choose

Combine

Compose

Construct

Create

Tell

Design

Develop

Do

Formulate

Hypothesize

Invent

Make

Make up

Originate

Plan

Produce

Role play

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IN KSSM SECONDARY

SCHOOL-BASED ASSESSMENT FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Descriptors and EvidenceExtracted from Form 2 English Language DSP

GALLERY WALK

ARE THE RESPONSES REFLECTIVE

OF THESE THINKING

PROCESSES?

Clarify their understanding

Make knowledgeable

assumptions

Come up with reasons and evidence

Define their viewpoints

and perspectives

Determine implications

and consequences

Evaluate the

concept at hand in its

entirety

Daughter:

“Dad, I’m in love with a boy who’s far from me. I’m in Australia and he lives in the UK. We met on a dating website, became friends on Facebook, had long chats on Whatsapp, he proposed to me on Skype and now we’ve had 2 months of relationship through Viber. Dad, I need your blessings and good wishes.”

ACTIVITY 3 – 5 mins.

PREDICT what her father would say…………

DAD: …………………….

…………………………….

Father:

“Wow! Really!! Then get married on Twitter, have fun on Tango, buy your kids on Amazon and send them through Paypal. And if you’re fed up with your husband…. Sell him on Ebay…….”