IMPROVING HIGHER ORDER HINKING SKILLS THROUGH SCAFFOLDING STRATEGY
ON GRADE VIII OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Over time, various instructional models to improve the quality of mathematical learning have appeared, focusing both on process factors and outcome factors. The quality of learning can be improved by using learning strategy. Various strategies have been implemented by teachers and largely can improve the quality of learning, especially in mathematics learning.
Cognitive competence based on Bloom's taxonomy revised by his student includes are remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and also creating. The six cognitive values are classified into two levels of thinking, The two levels of thinking are Lower-Order-Thinking and Higher-Order-Thinking. The lower thinking covers remember, understand, and apply while the Higher-Order-Thinking covers analyze, evaluate and create (Sumarmo, 2010.)
The ability of the student to perform higher order thinking is something problematic. In addition according to “PISA at Glance 2009” three-yearly assessments (OECD, 2010), not more than 10% Indonesian students can reach higher order thinking and stay at 63 rank of 65 countries .
Related to high levels of mathematical thinking, researcher identified problem in terms of achieving the domain of C4 - C6 on VIII.B class of Junior High School 6 Makassar. Most students in the class were only able to reach the domain of C3, that is, application.
Based on the background mention above, the researcher present a research title, that is, "Improving Higher Order Thinking Skills in Learning Mathematics through Scaffolding Strategies to Students on Grade VIII.B Of Junior High School 6 Makassar."
B. Research Problems
1. Problems Identification
Based on the background mention above, the researcher can state that the number of students’ higher level thinking skills in solving mathematics problem are low.
2. Problem Solving
The researcher provides a solution to improving students' higher-order thinking skills problem that is by using scaffolding learning strategy.
3. Research Question
Will students’ higher order thinking skills increase, if scaffolding learning strategy is implemented to grade VIII.B students of Junior High School 6 Makassar?
C. Research Objectives
According to the research problem mention above, the purpose of this research is to improve student’s higher-order thinking skills through scaffolding strategy.
D. Significances of Research
a. Students
The researcher hope that after giving treatment in the form of scaffolding strategy, students are expected to solve mathematics higher level thinking problems.
b. Teachers
The significance of this research is become one of the references to the teachers when the teacher want to improve their students’ higher level thinking skills in the classroom.
c. Schools
The significance of this study to the school is give a good contribution to the school in order to improve the high-level thinking skills in learning mathematics by using appropriate learning strategies.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Theoretical Review
1. Definition of Thinking
According to (Solso, 1995) thinking is process by which a new mental representation is formed through the transformation of information by complex interaction of the mental attributes of judging, abstracting, reasoning, imagining and problem solving.
In 1990, Lorin Anderson, Bloom’s student made the revision of his teacher’s taxonomy. The revision made by Anderson used verb for each category and the new arrangement of the stages was put forward in the taxonomy.
a. Remembering (C1)
Remembering is emphasis on mental processes in remembering and revealing back information that has students obtain before (Suherman, 2003).
b. Understanding (C2)
In this level, students are expected to understand the idea of mathematics when they can use some of the relevant rule without need to link it with another idea with all its implications (Suherman, 2003).
c. Applying (C3)
Application is the ability of cognition that expects students to be able to demonstrate their understanding with respect to a mathematical abstraction through the appropriate use when they are asked for it.
d. Analyzing (C4)
In Bloom’s Taxonomy, the analysis level is where students use their own judgment to begin analyzing the knowledge they have learned (Kelly, 2002).
e. Evaluating (C5)
In Bloom’s Taxonomy, the evaluation level is where students make judgments about the value of ideas, items, materials, and more (Kelly, 2002).
f. Creating (C5)
Create involves putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole that is, reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure (Anderson & David, 2002).
1. Higher Order Thinking
According to Lauren Resnick (in Arends, 2001) about the definition of higher-order-thinking are as follow (a) Higher order thinking as non logarithmic. (b) Higher order thinking tends to be complex. (c) Higher order thinking often yields multiple solutions. (c) Higher order thinking involves nuance judgment and interpretation.
Sumarmo and Nishitami (2010) said that according to a depth and complexity of the activities, mathematical thinking is classified into two levels, low level and high level thinking. In term of measure of higher order thinking, problem (mathematics) proposed should be in essay form (Holt & Kisylka, 2006).
2. Scaffolding Learning Strategy
According to Hogan and Pressley (in Lagne, 2002) there are actually five different instructional scaffolding techniques that is (1) Modeling of desired behaviors, (2) Offering explanations, (3) Inviting student participation, (4) Verifying and clarifying student understandings and (5) Inviting students to contribute clues.
B. Frame of Thinking
High level thinking skills during this course are very needed for each student. These high level thinking skills include analyze, evaluating and creating. Because of that, it needed an appropriate learning strategy to enhance the student higher order thinking.
The use of scaffolding learning strategy is considered appropriate in this case, because this strategy to encourage students to become independent students and regulate itself. The task of teachers is to provide or command student learning environment, and manage tasks that must be done by students and to provide dynamic support (scaffolding), so that each student can develop optimally in the zone of proximal development. Task in this case is the task that requires students to develop higher level thinking skills.
C. Actions Hypothesis
If scaffolding learning strategy is implemented to grade VIII. B students of Junior High School 6 Makassar, then students’ higher order thinking skills will increase.
RESEARCH METHOD
A. Types of Research
The type of this study is Classroom Action Research. The action taken in this study is to implementing the scaffolding learning strategy that their steps consist of planning, implementation of the action, observation, and reflection.
B. Research Setting
(1) Research Location
This study was conducted at Junior High School 6 Makassar, on Jalan Jendral Ahmad Yani. Makassar
(2) Research Subjects
The subject in this study is student on grade VIII.B of Junior High School 6 Makassar in academic year 2010/2011.
C. Factors investigated
(1) Input Factors
Student achievement’s before the treatment.
Student Higher Order Thinking Skills before the treatment.
The strategy applied the teacher before treatment.
(2) Process Factors
In this study, the investigated factor is the process of the instruction by using scaffolding learning strategy in the classroom.
(3) Results Factor
Result factor is the students’ higher order thinking skills by using indicators.
Students’ skills to identify analyze, evaluate, and create the problem.
Student skills to communicate the result of the problem.
D. Research Procedure
This study was conducted in 2 (two) cycles where each cycle takes four meetings,
Cycle I
(1) Planning
In this stage the planning includes are: (a) curriculum review. (b) Researcher was conducted initial observation to identify problems which derive from teacher and students. (c) Researcher was conducted discussions with teacher of Mathematics to seek alternative solutions of the problems. (d) Researcher was prepared lesson plans for grade VIII (eight). (e) Researcher was made worksheets for grade VIII (eight). (f) Researcher was made observation sheet to observe the learning process. (g) Researcher was made achievement test "Higher - Order Thinking Test."
(2) Action
In this stage, the researcher was conducted the learning strategy that is the scaffolding learning strategy.
(3) Observation
In this stage the activities that was conducted by the researcher are: (a) records every academic interaction that occurs as a result of actions. (b) Pays attention to students when work on the mathematics problem that require higher order thinking skills, it will be measured by using the student worksheet. (c) Conducting test. (d) Requests students’ responses.
(4) Reflections
All data which are obtained during the realization of actions and observations process collected and analyzed to examine the achievement of the objectives. The results used to perform reflection. Furthermore reflection results will used as reference for planning actions in the next cycle.
Cycle II
In this stage the activities that was conducted by the researcher are same with the first cycle. Furthermore reflection results will be used as reference for planning actions in the next cycle.
E. Operational Definition of Variable
Higher order thinking skills in this study means the capability or performance to solving mathematics problem of C4, C5, or C6 domain by student on grade VIII.B Junior High School 6 Makassar, Academic Years of 2010 / 2011. The meaning of mathematics problem of C4, C5, or C6 domain are mathematics problem where the student need to analyze (C4), evaluate (C5), and create (C6).
F. Data Collection Techniques
Data collection techniques using test include a written test and students’ worksheets. In addition, the data collection technique is also uses observation methods that will be conducted during the learning process. This data collection use the instruments that is Test of Higher Order Thinking (Achievement Test) and observation sheet will be used to see the changes in learning environment
G. Data Analysis
Student Higher order thinking was analyzed by measuring percentage of student correct answer in solving the problem of C4 – C6 domain (Indriani 2009) While observation will be analyzed by using qualitative descriptive analysis according to the observation and reflection result.
Performance Indicators
In term of quantitative, by considering the achievement of countries that is mention in PISA at Glance 2009, students’ initial skills and the time in research, then this study will be said success if the percentage of student in solving mathematics higher order thinking problems are 50% (OECD,2010). In addition seen also in terms of the qualitative, that is there are the increasing of student who can solve problems independently as the goal of scaffolding Libscompb et al, (in Nusu, 2010).
RESULTS AND DESCRIPTION
A. Experiment Result
Cycle I
The cycle I of the study that is conducted on grade VIII.B of junior high school 6 Makassar is clearly depicted as below.
1. 1st Meeting
Learning was started by determining the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). ZPD was determined by giving students a worksheet that is consists of some problems in C1 to C4 domain. The results that are obtained describe as follow:
(1) Solving C1 domain problem (Remembering)
In general, grade VIII.B students have been able to solve problems to the C1 domains without any help from teacher.
(2) Solving C2 domain problem (understanding)
In general, grade VIII.B students have been able to solve problems to the C2 domains without any help from teacher.
(3) Solving C3 Domain problem (applying)
In solving C3 domain problem, there are 10 students. Meanwhile there are 20 students are able to complete the problem without scaffolding from the teacher.
(4) Solving the C4 domain problem (analyze)
In solving C4 domain problem, there are 26 students need scaffolding from the teacher to solve such problem. Meanwhile there are 4 students are able to complete the problem without any assistance from the teacher.
Based on the results, determined 26 students will be given scaffolding in solving the C4 problem and 10 of them provided scaffolding in solving the C3 problem.
a. 2nd Meeting
The distribution of students based on his ZPD was implemented by dividing the class into 6 groups. 2 groups provided scaffolding to reach domain of C3, C4, C5, 3 groups to reach C4 and C5 domains, and 1 group to reach the domain of C5.
In general, teacher was provided scaffolding in form of demonstrating alternative solutions to problems to each group. Students which are having difficulties in some group are encouraged to ask their friends before asking his teacher.
The result that is obtained in second meeting is show as follows:
Table 4.1: Data of problem solving results in the second meeting
NO | Domains | Number of students | |
Individual | Scaffolding | ||
1 | C1 (Remember) | 30 | 0 |
2 | C2 (Understand) | 30 | 0 |
3 | C3 (Apply) | 30 | 0 |
4 | C4 (Analyze) | 9 | 21 |
5 | C5 (Evaluate) | 2 | 28 |
6 | C6 (Create) | 0 | 0 |
b. 3rd Meeting
The distribution of students based on his ZPD did by dividing the class into 6 groups. 2 groups provided scaffolding to reach domain of C5 and 4 groups to reach C4 and C5 domains. The scaffolding here are provides guidance and direction to students to complete problem but not until they reach the final answer.
The result that is obtained in third meeting is show as follows:
Table 4.2: Data of problem solving results in the third meeting
NO | Domain | Number of Student | |
Independently | Scaffolding | ||
1 | C1 (Remember) | 30 | 0 |
2 | C2 (Understanding) | 30 | 0 |
3 | C3 (Apply) | 30 | 0 |
4 | C4 (Analyze) | 15 | 15 |
5 | C5 (Evaluate) | 10 | 20 |
6 | C6 (Create) | 0 | 0 |
c. 4th Meeting
The distribution of students based on his ZPD was done by dividing the class into 6 groups. Each group will be provided scaffolding to reach the C6 domain. Scaffolding which is provided in form of comprehensive assistance to students to find answers from the given problem.
The next activity is the teacher started to reduce the scaffolding to the students. At this stage teacher only provided guidance and direction to students to complete problem but not until they reach the final answer.
The result that is obtained at the forth meeting are as follows:
Table 4.3: Data of problem solving results at the 4th meeting
NO | Domain | The number of student | |
Individu | Scaffolding | ||
1 | C1 (remember) | 0 | 0 |
2 | C2 (understand) | 0 | 0 |
3 | C3 (Apply) | 0 | 0 |
4 | C4 (Analyze) | 0 | 0 |
5 | C5 (Evaluate) | 0 | 0 |
6 | C6 (Create) | 0 | 30 |
d. 5th Meeting
The 5th meeting on class VIII. B was conducted learning achievement test. After implementation of the action in the first cycle, then the researcher obtained the following student learning outcomes.
Table 4.4 Statistics of student score in the first cycle after the implementation of learning action
Statistic | Score |
Sample Size Maximum Score Lowest Score Mean Highest Score Modus Median Range Deviation Standard Skewness | 30 100 56 76.47 95 80 79 39 6.83 -0.797 |
The ability of students in solving problem was also described based on their cognitive domain described in the following table 4.5
Table 4.5 Data of problem solving result according to higher order thinking domain
NO | Domain | Students | |
Number | Percentage | ||
1 | C4 (Analyze) | 23 | 76.67% |
2 | C5 (Evaluate) | 23 | 76.67% |
3 | C6 (Create) | 1 | 3.33% |
Based on Table 4.6 shows that there are 23 students or 76.67% can solve problem C4 domain. There are 23 students or 76.67% from the whole students are able to solve problem C5 domain. There is 1 student or 3:33% from the whole students is able to solve problem C6 domain.
2. Reflection
Teacher gave less scaffolding to students that have high actual ability (ZPD narrow). This happens because students are more quick to respond the given problem. Teacher gave scaffolding for narrow ZPD just in form of direction, guidance to reach the final answer. Meanwhile, teacher was provided scaffolding to students that have low actual ability (wide ZPD) in form of detail guidance until they can solve the given problem.
The number of student that are able to solve problem of high level thinking in C4 domain are 23 or about 76.67%. The number of student that are able to solve problem of high level thinking in C5 domain are 23 or about 76.67%. However, the results of Learning Achievement test results shows that most students have not been able to solve the problem in then the C6 domain then researchers continue treatment in the form of scaffolding strategies to cycle II.
Cycle II
The cycle II was conducted over two weeks in 5 meetings (1 meeting equal to 2 × 40 minutes). Learning strategy that is used is the scaffolding learning strategy. The cycle II through the 4 stages: planning, action, observation, and reflection.
1. 1st Meeting
Learning was started by determining the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). ZPD was determined by giving students a worksheet that is consists of some problems in C1 to C4 domain. The results obtained are:
(1) Solving C1 domain problem (Remembering)
In general, VIII.B grade students have been able to solve problems to the C1 domains without any help from teacher.
(2) Solving C2 domain problem (understanding)
In general, VIII.B grade students have been able to solve problems to the C2 domains without any help from teacher.
(3) Solving C3 domain problem (Applying)
In general, VIII.B grade students have been able to solve problems to the C3 domains without any help from teacher. The number of students which is could answer questions without assistance from the teacher is 30 people or by the percentage of 100%.
(4) Solving C4 domain problem (Analyzing)
In solving C4 domain, there are 20 students who need assistance (scaffolding) from the teacher to solve the problem. From 20 students there were 6 students provided scaffolding by the teacher in form of directions, guidance to obtain the answers and the 14 remaining students provided scaffolding to get a final answer. Meanwhile there are 10 students were able to solve the problem without any assistance from the teacher.
a. 2nd Meeting
The distribution of students based on their ZPD was done by dividing the class into 3 parts. For the left for the students that have narrow ZPD, the middle for student that have medium ZPD or need scaffolding just in form of direction and guidance to get answers and the right to students who ZPD is wide or require a lot of scaffolding.
In general, teacher was provided scaffolding in form of demonstrating alternative solutions to problems to each group. Students which are having difficulties in some group are encouraged to ask their friends before asking his teacher.
The result that is obtained in second meeting is show as follows:
Table 4.6: Data of problem solving results in the second meeting
NO | Domain | Number of Student | |
Independently | Scaffolding | ||
1 | C1 (Remember) | 30 | 0 |
2 | C2 (Understand) | 30 | 0 |
3 | C3 (Apply) | 27 | 3 |
4 | C4 (Analyze) | 0 | 0 |
5 | C5 (Evaluate) | 0 | 0 |
6 | C6 (Create) | 0 | 0 |
b. 3rd Meeting
The distribution of students based on their ZPD was done by dividing the class into 3 parts. For the left for the students that have narrow ZPD, the middle for student that have medium ZPD or need scaffolding just in form of direction and guidance to get answers and the right to students who ZPD is wide or require a lot of scaffolding.
The results that are obtained in forth meeting are as follows:
Table 4.7: Data of problem solving results in the 3rd meeting
NO | Domain | Number of Student | |
Independently | Scaffolding | ||
1 | C1 (Remember) | 30 | 0 |
2 | C2 (Understand) | 30 | 0 |
3 | C3 (Apply) | 30 | 0 |
4 | C4 (Analyze) | 14 | 16 |
5 | C5 (Evaluate) | 10 | 20 |
6 | C6 (Create) | 0 | 0 |
c. 4th Meeting
The distribution of students based on their ZPD was done by dividing the class into 3 parts. For the left for the students that have narrow ZPD, the middle for student that have medium ZPD or need scaffolding just in form of direction and guidance to get answers and the right to students who ZPD is wide or require a lot of scaffolding.
The results that are obtained in forth meeting are as follows:
Table 4.8: Data of problem solving results in the 4th meeting
NO | Domain | Number of student | |
Independently | Scaffolding | ||
1 | C1 (Remember) | 30 | 0 |
2 | C2 (Understand) | 30 | 0 |
3 | C3 (Apply) | 30 | 0 |
4 | C4 (Analyze) | 21 | 9 |
5 | C5 (Evaluate) | 18 | 12 |
6 | C6 (Create) | 10 | 20 |
d. 5th Meeting
The 5th meeting the researcher conducted learning achievement test. After implementation of the action in the second cycle, then the researcher obtained the following student learning achievement.
Table 4.9 Statistics of the score of students in the 2nd cycle after the implementation of learning action.
Statistics | Score |
Sample Size Maximum Score Lowest Score Mean Highest Score Mode Median Range Deviation Standard Skewness | 30 100 80 91.9 100 100 93.5 20 7.49 -0.309 |
The ability of students in solving problem was also described based on their cognitive domain described in the following table 4.10.
Table 4.10 Data of problem solving result according to higher order thinking domain
NO | Domain | Student | |
Number | Percentage | ||
1 | C4 (Analyze) | 24 | 80.00% |
2 | C5 (Evaluate) | 27 | 90.00% |
3 | C6 (Create) | 19 | 63.33% |
2. Reflection
Teacher gave less scaffolding to students that have high actual ability (ZPD narrow). This happens because students are fast to respond the given problem. Teacher gave scaffolding for narrow ZPD just in form of direction, guidance to reach the final answer. Meanwhile, teacher was provided scaffolding to students that have low actual ability (wide ZPD) in form of detail guidance until they can solve the given problem.
The number of student that are able to solve problem of high level thinking in C4 domain are 24 or about 80.00%. The number of student that are able to solve problem of high level thinking in C5 domain are 27 or about 80.00%. The number of student that are able to solve problem of high level thinking in C5 domain are 19 or about 63.33%.
B. Description
Learning groups formed based on ZPD. This is done to determine the level of assistance needs to be provided by the teacher. Distribution groups based on ZPD is different for each cycle. In cycle I are divided into six groups where each group given scaffolding based on the ZPD group. In the second cycle only divided into 3 groups: (1) ZPD wide, (2) ZPD medium and (3) ZPD narrow. Students are given individual scaffolding in accordance with its ZPD group.
Disadvantages in the cycle I is student still shy to answer the question whether submitted to do in front of the classroom as well as giving scaffolding, in addition, there are many student who have not familiar to solve problem in domain of C6. While the advantages on the cycle I was student has begun familiar to seeing and solve problems in the domain of C4-C6.
The difference of the cycle is scaffolding in the cycle I are given in groups while on cycle II providing scaffolding are given individually.
In cycle II, the disadvantages that are found in the cycle I has been repaired. The conclusion of the learning process in cycle II is the increasing of student learning achievement and the increase in the number of student who are able to work independently.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
According to the research result, can be concludes that:
1. Student that are able to solve problem of high level thinking in C4 domain are 24 or about 80.00%
2. Student that are able to solve problem of high level thinking in C5 domain are 27 or about 80.00%
3. Student that are able to solve problem of high level thinking in C5 domain are 19 or about 63.33% and reached pre-established performance indicators that is 50%.
4. Most students are able to solving higher-order thinking independently without any assistance from their friends or other sources.
5. Scaffolding learning strategy can improve higher-order thinking skills of student on grade VIII.B Junior High School 6 Makassar.
B. Suggestion
Based on the results that are obtained in this study, it proposed several recommendations to improve the quality of education such as:
1. It is expected to mathematics teacher to use scaffolding strategy early for students in solving mathematics problems that require higher order thinking skills and encourage students to be more independent and confident in learning mathematics.
2. As a follow-up of the implementation, during the learning process is expected to the teacher more monitor and control the students and guide students in the work.
3. For more effective of scaffolding strategy in improving higher order thinking skills, it is expected to the researcher to use more time in one cycle.
REFERENCES
Arends, Richard I. 2001. Learning To Teach (5th Edition). Singapore: MC Graw Hill
Anderson, Lorin & David Kratwohl. 2002. A taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assesing (a revision of Bloom Taxonomy of Educational objectives). New York: Longman
Harsanto, Ratno. 2011. Pengelolaan Kelas yang Dinamis: Paradigma Baru Pembelajaran Kompetensi Siswa. Yogyakarta: Kanisius
Holt, Larry C and Marcella Kysilka. 2006. Instructional Pattern (Strategies for Maximing Student Learning. United State of America: Sage Publication Ltd.
Indriani, Yuwanita. 2009. Perbedaan Hasil Belajar Dan Kemampuan Berpikir Tingkat Tinggi Siswa Kelas Xi Sma Negeri 4 Malang Yang Dibelajarkan Dengan Menggunakan Metode Inkuiri Terbimbing Dan Metode Konvensional Pada Materi Pokok Koloid Tahun Ajaran 2008-2009. Malang: Universitas Negeri Malang
Kelly, Melissa. 2002. Bloom's Taxonomy - Analyze Category. Prepared at. http:// 712 educators .about .com/ od/ testconstruction/p/ blooms_analyze. htm. March 31st 2011
Kelly, Melissa. 2002. Bloom's Taxonomy - Evaluation Category. Prepared at. http:// 712 educators .about .com/ od/ testconstruction/p/ blooms_evaluation. htm. March 31st 2011
Kelly, Melissa Leigh. 2002. Bloom's Taxonomy - Synthesize Category. Prepared at. http:// 712 educators .about .com/ od/ testconstruction/p/ blooms_ Synthesize. htm. March 31st 2011
Lange, Verna Leigh. 2002. Instructional Scaffolding. Prepared at http://condor.admin.ccny.cuny. Edu/~group4/Lange/lange%20paper.doc. January 14th 2011.
Nusu, Abdullatif. 2010. Dissertation: Scaffolding dalam Pengajaran Mikro Kimia. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
OECD, 2010, PISA 2009 at Glance. OECD Publishing
Solso, Robert L. 1995. Cognitive Psychology. United States of America: Allyn and Bacon
Suherman, Erman dkk. 2003. Strategi Pembelajaran Matematika Kontemporer. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Sumarmo, Utari. 2010. Berfikir dan Disposisi Matematik: Apa, mengapa, dan Bagaimana Dikembangkan Pada Peserta Didik. Bnadung: UPI
Sumarmo, Utari & Nishitami,Izumi. 2010. High Level Mathematical Thinking: Experiment With High School and Under Graduate Students Using Various Approaches and Strategies.
Sumarni, St. 2007. Thesis Unpublished: Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Matematika Dengan Metode Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Team Assisted Individualization Pada Siswa Kelas X7 SMU Negeri 5 Makassar. Makassar: Universitas Negeri Makassar
