LIBRARY
Michigan State
Unlverslty

 

 

To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

was c/CIFKZIDmDuapes-p.“

TEACHING HIGHER-ORDER THINKING SKILLS IN
LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS: THE NEED FOR
TRANSFORMATION OF TEACHING PRACTICE

VOLUME I

By

Rajendran Nagappan

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1 998

Copyright by
RAJENDRAN NAGAPPAN
1 998

ABSTRACT
TEACHING OF HIGHER-ORDER THINKING
SKILLS IN LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS: THE NEED
FOR TRANSFORMATION OF TEACHING PRACTICE
BY

Rajendran Nagappan

In Malaysia, there are on-going efforts to teach higher-order

thinking skills in content instruction for the benefit of all students in
elementary and secondary schools. Teachers are expected to infuse
higher-order thinking skills in the school subjects they teach. This study
investigates whether Form Two Malay and English Language teachers
are prepared to make this innovation in their own classrooms. It involves
two main aspects: whether teachers perceive that they are prepared in
terms of their knowledge, skills and attitude to teach higher-order thinking
skills; and how they actually teach higher-order thinking skills in their form
two Malay and English Language classrooms.

Data collection was conducted in a selected school district during
the first three months of the Malaysian 1997 school year. Sources of data
include survey questionnaire, participant observations of classroom
teaching, and interviews. The interviews were conducted with Malay and
English Language teachers, four groups of students and ministry officials.
Other data sources include analytic memos, teachers’ weekly and daily

plans, resource materials used, and students’ writing assignments.

The contributions of the study to knowledge about teacher learning
include:

1. Teachers perceive that they are not prepared to make this innovation
in their own classrooms. Teachers also lack the attributes to construct
the pedagogical content knowledge. The number of years teachers
have been teaching significantly influenced their perceptions of their
knowledge and skills.

2. Many factors such as teachers’ own orientations towards teaching,
curricular requirements, and myths about teaching thinking inhibit the
teaching of higher-order thinking skills.

3. There is a dissonance between what teachers believe and carry out
and the kind of teaching recommended by reformers. Their own
orientations towards teaching are often not changed by their pre-
service and in-service training.

4. All the four language components are underutilized in promoting
higher-order thinking skills. There is a serious need for teachers to
understand the importance of active student participation and
encourage it in their own classrooms. Some strategies, such as the
problem solving strategy, have the potential to promote higher-order
thinking skills in language classrooms. Teachers are not adequately

prepared to use the infusion approach.

Specially dedicated to
All Mighty Lord Murugan
and my beloved
Mom Saratha &

Dad Nagappan

who did not live to see
but are always there to guide

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who,in
one way or another, contributed towards the completion of my doctoral
program as well as this dissertation, and thus enriching my Ieaming
experience. Although I wish to mention all of them, I could possibly name
only a few here. First, I would like to thank the Government of Malaysia,
particularly the Ministry of Education for awarding me the scholarship to
pursue my doctoral studies in the United States. My colleagues Ahmad
Rashidi Mat Piah and Sam Haji Nor deserve special mention for their
sincere and timely support in pursuing this important endeavor.

Next, I would like to say thank you to the teachers, students
ministry officials who participated in this study - whom I cannot name for
reasons of anonymity - for being gracious in letting me into their worlds. l
have Ieamed a great deal from them - more than I can possibly articulate.

I would like to dedicate special words of appreciation to members
of my guidance and dissertation committees. Dr.Teresa Tatto, Co-Director
of my dissertation has been my major advisor from the beginning of my
work at MSU. I am grateful to her for all her guidance, support, the time
she always gave generously and most notably her frank evaluations
which often pushed me to new frontiers. She treated me more like a
colleague than a student.

Dr. Jack Schwille is Co-Director of my dissertation. I am grateful to

him for all the help I have received from the time I applied to MSU.

 

 

throughout my program and hopefully in the future as well. He
demonstrated a special ability to guide the dissertation process, and has
provided me with a model of caring, patience and a very supportive
mentor, which I hope to emulate. Thank you very much Jack.

Dr. Cheryl Rosaen always gave me the time to talk, ponder over
the important issues, and set the direction. She always found meaningful
ways to provide support and challenge my thinking. Dr. Ralph Putnam
was always supportive of the work, followed my work with care, affirming
and questioning me in helpful ways. Thank you Cheryl and Ralph.

A special word of thanks to Vivegananthan and Mani who helped
me in transcribing the qualitative data, John Zeuli who read and provided
feedback on earlier drafts, Michael C. Rodriguez for his help in analyzing
the quantitative data, and Anne Schneller and Chery Moran. I am grateful
to our dear friends Herrn and Shery Arends who were always there for
support - getting to know them was one of the most meaningful
experiences for us during our stay in the US.

Finally, I offer special thanks to my wife Sakunthala, for her
enduring love, patience, sacrifice, and support - I am grateful to my ‘chief
mentor.’ My heartfelt thanks also go to my wonderful children Kanthan,
Nantha and Ambiga for their understanding, love and support throughout

the program. Words may fail me if I attempt to explain.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF DIAGRAMS......

CHAPTER 1

Why Teach Higher-Order Thinking Skills?... ....
Teaching thinking: Its roots ................................................
How are Higher-Order Thinking skills defined?... ..
Teaching of Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Malaysia... ....

Teaching of Higher-Order Thinking in Schools... ..

Teaching of Higher-Order Thinking Skills in the
Teacher Education Colleges...

Teaching of Thinking Skills In The Malaysian

Classrooms: lsThereAProbIem?”
The Aim OfThis Study............

Research Questions..........................................
Limitations OfThis lnvestigation....................................

CHAPTER 2
TEACHERS, AND THE TEACHING OF HIGHER-ORDER
THINKING SKILLS IN LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS:

A LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................

Developing students’ thinking processes in language

classrooms ......................................................................

Teachers’ knowledge, skills and attitude for teaching

higher-order thinking skills ..............................................

...xii

.. .xiv

..1

...1
..... 8

.12

...18
..21

...25
...27
...35

...35
...37

...40

...41

Teachers’ beliefs about teaching, Ieaming, and students..51

Teaching of higher-order thinking skills in

language classrooms ......................................................... 54

The approaches, strategies, and techniques used ............ 62

Analytic summary ............................................................... 83
CHAPTER 3:

METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH PROCEDURES... ....87

Methodological choice ............................................................ 87

Sources of Data Collection .......................................... 88

Context .............................................................. 88

People ............................................................... 89

 

Data Collection ............................................................ 93
Process of obtaining access ............................. 94
Methods ............................................................ 95

Survey Questionnaire ............................ 96
Pilot Study ................................... 96
Administration of Survey
questionnaire .............................. 98

Participant observations ........................ 100

Interviews .............................................. 101

Data management and analysis ................................. 105
Quantitative data .............................................. 106
Qualitative data ................................................ 108

Validity and Reliability ................................................. 112

Generalizability ......................................................... 115

CHAPTER 4

TEACHING HIGHER-ORDER THINKING SKILLS IN

LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS: JOURNEY INTO AN

UNMAPPED TERRITORY?” . . .. ............117

Teachers’ knowledge, skills and attitude
for teaching Malay or English Language and

higher-orderthinking skills... ...............117
Teaching In Malaysian Secondary school
classrooms... ........122

The case of Aishah, AnIbiga, and their classes .......... 124
How prepared are Ambiga and Aishah in terms

of their knowledge, pedagogical skills and attitude

to Malay or English Language and higher-order

thinking skills... .. ......128
How do Ambiga and Aishah teach in their own
classrooms: An overview... ......138

How are higher-order thinking skills perceived in the”

form two Malay and English Language classrooms?... . ...144
What are teachers’ perceptions of higher-order
thinking Skills?... ..........145
What are students’ perceptions of hIgher-order
thinking skills... 149
Analytic summary153

The four language components ............................................... 162
Listening and speaking..........................................162
ReadIng169

 

Writing... .. ......181
AnalytIcsummary . 189
Different strategies and techniques in teaching
higher-order thinking skills In Malay or English

Language classrooms... . ...192
What approaches support the acqwsmon of”
higher-orderthinking skills?“ ............192
What approaches are teachers using in their
ownclassrooms?" 195

Teacherand studenttalk 198
Small group discussion.................................205
Problem solving strategy...............................210
Questioning technique.................................214
Infusion approach... 221
Analytic summary... . .225

Student participation in the teaching and learning
processes and how that influences the acquisition

of higher-orderthinking skills... .......228
Are students capable of becoming Involved? .. ..229
Why are students not getting enough opportunities
to participate?... ......235
Analytic summary... ....246
CHAPTER5

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE,
PEDAGOGICAL SKILLS, AND ATTITUDE TO TEACH
MALAY OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND HIGHER-ORDER

THINKING SKILLS... ....249
Teachers’ perceptions of their subject matter knowledge ...... 250
Teachers’ perceptions of their pedagogical skills... ....255
Teachers’ attitude towards teaching Malay or English
Language and higher-order thinking skills” .... .....260
Are there any factors influencing teachers’ perceptions of
their knowledge, skills and attitude?... .....269
What percentage of their class time do teachers allocate
for the teaching of higher-order thinking skills?" ..... .... ...270
Analyticsummary... 272

CHAPTERS
THE NEED FOR TRANSFORMATION... .....275

Why is it difficult to change? ................................................... 276
Issues of teacher Ieaming ....................................................... 277
Teacher preparedness to teach higher-order
thinking skills ................................................................ 277
Teachers’ own orientation towards teaching ................ 282
Myths about teaching thinking ..................................... 286
Opportunities for teachers to learn .............................. 287
Issue of curricular requirements and students ........................ 291
Centralized curriculum ................................................. 291
Preparing students for tests and examinations ............ 293
Students and their expectations ................................... 297
Implications ............................................................................. 299
Implications for policy ................................................... 300
Implications for practice ................................................ 304
Implications for further research ................................... 306

BILBLIOGRAPHY .......347

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Total number of interviews conducted .............................. 103
Table 2 - The nine themes used for coding qualitative data ............ 110
Table 3 - The coding of the qualitative data ..................................... 110
Table 4 - Cognitive levels (Bloom’s Taxonomy) of questions

in Reading and Comprehension exercises .................. 178

Table 5 - Teachers’ responses on the potential of the three
approaches in promoting higher-order

thinking skills ............................................................... 195
Table 6 - Teachers’ responses on Approaches most used

in their classrooms ...................................................... 196
Table 7: The usage of small group discussions in the

Malay and English Language classrooms ................... 206

Table 8: Classification of Teachers’ Questions and

Students’ Responses based on Bloom’s

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives ........................... 218
Table 9: Classification of Teachers’ Questions and

Students' Responses based on Bloom’s

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives ........................... 220
Table 10: Teachers’ perceptions of their ability to teach Malay

or English Language and higher-order thinking

skills using the infusion approach ................................ 222
Table 11: Teachers’ perceptions of their ability to involve

students actively in the teaching and Ieaming

processes for Malay or English Language and

Higher-order thinking skills .......................................... 238
Table 12: Teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge to teach

Malay or English Language and Higher-Order

Thinking Skills ............................................................. 251
Table 13: Malay and English Language teachers’ knowledge

(composite - 8 items) to teach Malay or English

Language and Higher-order thinking skills ................. 254
Table 14: ANOVA of Malay and English Language teachers’

knowledge to teach Malay or English Language

and Higher-order thinking skills .................................. 255
Table 15: Teachers’ perceptions of their pedagogical skills

to teach Malay or English Language and

Higher-Order Thinking Skills ...................................... 257
Table 16: Malay and English Language teachers’ pedagogical

skills (composite - 9 items) to teach Malay or

English Language and Higher-order

thinking skills ............................................................. 259

Table 17: ANOVA of Malay and English Language teachers’

pedagogical skills to teach Malay or English

Language and Higher-order thinking skills ............... 260
Table 18: Teachers’ attitude towards teaching Malay or

English Language and Higher-Order Thinking

Skills ......................................................................... 262
Table 19: Malay and English Language teachers’ attitude

(composite - 11 items) to teach Malay or English

Language and Higher-order thinking skills ............... 267
Table 20: ANOVA of Malay and English Language teachers’

attitude for teaching Malay or English Language

and Higher-order thinking skills ................................ 268
Table 21: Percentage of class time allocated for teaching

content and higher-order thinking skills using the

infusion approach ..................................................... 271
Table 22: Matrix showing major activities in the four classes ........ 328
Table 23: Preparing students for tests and examinations

and at the same time teaching them how to

think .......................................................................... 329
Table 24: Would rather prepare students to face examinations

than to teach them the thinking skills. In fact that

is what everybody wants ........................................... 329

LIST OF DIAGRAMS

Diagram 1 - The structure of lessons in Aishah’s classes .............. 140
Diagram 2 - The structures of lessons in Ambiga’s classes ........... 142
xiv

 

Chapter 1

THE INQUIRY

Why Teach Higher-Order Thinking Skills?

Do we really need to teach students to think? Isn’t thinking a
natural consequence of teaching and learning in general? Do not people
think spontaneously without being taught? These are some of the
important questions which need to be addressed in the area of teaching
thinking. We, indeed, do think without being taught how to think. We
classify, analyze, generalize, analogize, deduce, induce, form and test
hypotheses, make decisions, and solve problems. We do these things
long before we encounter organized efforts to teach us how to think
effectively.

It does not follow from the fact that we think spontaneously that we
think as effectively as we might (Nickerson, 1988). And the evidence
regarding our limitations as thinkers and the various ways in which our
thinking commonly goes astray is well documented (Nisbett & Ross, 1980;
Tversky & Kahnerman, 1974; Wason, 1966). When we say we want to
teach students to think, we really mean that we want to improve the
quality of their thinking. We want to teach them to think more deeply,
more consistently, more productively, more effectively than they otherwise

might.

The last two decades have seen a growing educational interest in
thinking and the ways it can be enhanced in the classroom (Marzano,
1991; Resnick & Klopfer, 1989). The current interest in teaching thinking
skills has also been provoked by the onset of the lnforrnation Era,
supported by recent advances in cognitive theory (Adams, 1989), and
international comparisons of students’ higher-order cognitive skills.
However, the idea of teaching thinking has been in different forms in
schools for a long time. The cultivation of critical reasoning ability has
been an objective of teachers of philosophy, logic, and rhetoric, among
other subjects, for a long time. Aiding students to use their minds more
effectively is presumably a major reason for teaching literacy, numeracy,
and other basic skills.

In the United States, for example, there were attempts to make
explicit attempts to teach thinking as early as in the 1920s and 1930s.
Cuban (1984) points out that during the 19203 and 1930s considerable
energy was devoted, largely as a result of Dewey's influence, to making
the development of reasoning ability a fundamental goal of primary and
secondary schooling in America. Also, the earliest reference Presseisen
(1986) cites critical thinking as an important aspect of schooling is in a
1938 report issued by the National Education Association entitled “The
Purposes of Education in American Democracy” (Metcalf, DeBoer, 8.
Kaulfers, 1966). However, Cuban notes that in spite of these efforts

educational practice did not change much, or at least for very long.

Current evidence on the question of how well the public schools in
the United States are developing students’ thinking abilities comes from
national assessments of educational progress (e.g. NAEP, 1981, 1983).
In Malaysia, for example, the need for students to Ieam to manipulate
ideas and feelings that are contained in the text they read, for which, it is
assumed they need thinking skills, is being given attention (lndramalar,
1997a, July 3). There has also been announcement by the Ministry of
Education in Malaysia that, “the education system will be revamped to
encourage rational and analytical thinking.” (lndramalar, 1997a,
September 3). The basic issue justifying the efforts to teaching thinking
skills is that, be it in the United States or in Malaysia, there is a general
understanding that after 12 or 13 years of public education, many
students are unable to give evidence of a more than superficial
understanding of concepts and relationships that are fundamental to the
subjects they have studied, or an ability to apply the content knowledge
they have acquired to real-world problems (Nickerson, 1988).

Most of the data that are available regarding the effects of general
education on thinking ability involve comparisons of student performance
against theoretical standards or against criteria that represent
assumptions about what students at specific educational levels should
know or be able to do. An exception is a study by Perkins and colleagues,
who attempted to assess the impact of general education on informal

reasoning ability (Perkins, 1985; Perkins, Allen, & Hafner, 1983). Perkins

 

(1985) defines informal reasoning as reasoning that involves attempting
to resolve the truth or falsity of claims, and sees it as the most common
type of reasoning that people do in everyday life and in academic life as
well.

In one study, subjects drawn from the first and fourth years of high
school, college, and graduate school were asked to consider specific
public issues (e.g., Does violence on television significantly increase the
likelihood of violence in real life?) and to develop a position and
supporting arguments on the issues. Perkins characterizes his results as
showing a tendency to underexplore issues, and notes that this is
consistent with findings of Gettys (1983) and Gettys and Englemann
(1983) that when subjects are asked to explain a situation or to generate
plans of action, they typically do a less than thorough job of exploring
possibilities. The evidence, once again, seems to suggest that general
education, as a rule, does not change this tendency very much.

One reason for this state of public education could be because of
the fact that thinking skills were not taught to all students until recently. As
Resnick (1987) suggests,

Mass education was, from its inception, concerned with inculcating

routine abilities: simple, computation, reading predictable texts,

reciting religious or civic codes. It did not take as goals for its
students the ability to interpret unfamiliar texts, create material
others would want and need to read, construct convincing

arguments, develop original solutions to technical or social
problems (p.5).

 

It is important to note that, until recently, this has been the exclusive
province of the elite education both in the industrialized and in the non-
industrialized countries. When countries and governments democratized
education, that is extended education beyond the elite, top priority was to
educate as many citizens as possible. The aim of education than was to
provide basic linguistic and mathematical skills required to perform
everyday needs. Even today this is true to a large extent in countries
where majority of the people lack these basic skills. In the United States,
for example, schools had to cater for the influx of immigrants who came
from Europe and Africa in the 19th century. They varied in terms of
linguistic and mathematical abilities, and cultural capital. The situation at
that time necessitated mass education. lnevitably, thinking, problem
solving, and reasoning were thought as something which only the elite
could acquire.

There is great interest among researchers and educators, at the
present, in the teaching of thinking (Resnick, 1987; Nickerson, 1988). As
Resnick (1987) suggests, there are attempts to include the teaching of
thinking skills in all subjects to all students. That brings along the need to
teach higher-order thinking skills in language classrooms. This question
also seems very pertinent for this investigation. There are reasons why
teachers should improve students’ thinking as they build their language
abilities. First, teaching strategies that strengthen thinking competencies

increase language arts achievement (Collins, 1991 ). A myth exists that as

people mature, their thinking and reasoning naturally escalate.
Unfortunately, critical and creative thinking abilities do not develop
automatically. Adults who were not taught to think critically and creatively
exhibit cognitive abilities that are no more advanced than the thinking
processes they used when they were in the sixth grade (Gardner & Hatch,
1989).

Therefore, it becomes important to also teach thinking skills
explicitly besides the school subjects. In this respect, it seems important
to review how we define and teach the respective school subjects in
relation to whether we teach students to think critically and creatively. To
be literate now, for example, seems to require that students know more
about how to think; not just how to read.

Hiebert and Raphael (1996) reviewing different definitions of
literacy suggest that it is the first step in the empowerment of mind, albeit
a crucial one. In relation to that, Langer(1991) argues that literacy can be
viewed in a broader and educationally more productive way, as the ability
to think and reason like a literate person. In this respect, she proposes
that, the schools need to understand the ways of thinking that are
involved in a particular society’s uses of literacy and to use approaches to
literacy instruction that will ensure that these ways of thinking become an
intrinsic part of the school’s context. As such, the listening, speaking,
reading, and writing components of the language instruction should aim to

improve the higher-order thinking abilities of the students.

Students must Ieam to identify problems in, and reason effectively
with printed information. For example, as Beck (1989) states,

Reading and language arts are the perfect vehicle for developing

higher-order thinking because literature - perhaps more than any

other source of information - provides powerful models of problem-
solving processes. It is full of characters who engage in effective
and ineffective attempts at solving problems, who use incisive of
fuzzy reasoning, and who rely on adequate or inadequate
evidence... What is needed is to move the activities that involve
higher-order thinking into the core of our lessons, to move our
concern toward developing higher level thinking into the

mainstream of instruction (pp. 680, 682).

To help students develop higher-order thinking abilities, teachers
need to relegate more time to instruction concerning high-quality thinking
with printed and spoken material. Implications of these suggestions are
that teaching in the language arts classrooms should go beyond the mere
teaching of listening, speaking, reading and writing. Efforts should be
made to acquire the critical and creative thinking skills, as Langer (1991)
suggests, ‘the current are requires that students acquire the kinds of
critical thinking skills that needed to use the communication devices and
technologies we meet on a daily basis in our everyday living and in entry-
level jobs” (p. 12).

It is not to suggest that teachers are not using any strategies or
techniques which promote thinking among students. Teachers may be,
consciously or othenlvise, using many strategies to enhance the thinking

of students. These strategies cut across a wide range of cognitive

processes and can be employed in a wide range of situations. However,

 

as powerful as the strategies are, an even more powerful set of strategies
may be underutilized (Marzano, 1993). It seems that educators have
taken great strides in their efforts to enhance the thinking of students, yet
the joumey has only begun.

It seems interesting to note that, as Nickerson (1988) suggests, in
spite of numerous vigorous attempts by various reformers to make
thinking a primary focus of education and to effect whatever changes in
educational practice would be in the interest of doing so, the educational
system, as a whole, has been remarkably resistant to these efforts. There
seems to be a legitimate question as to whether the educational system,
as a whole, or society in general, has ever really accepted the idea that
helping students to become independent thinkers should be a primary
educational goal (Paul, 1985). At least until there is a general consensus
among educators on the need to make teaching thinking skills as a
primary educational goal, all efforts to teach thinking skills will only bring

limited success.

Teaching thinking: lts roots

Teaching thinking seems to have its base in various traditions, and
theories of Ieaming. There are at least two main traditions which have
dealt with the notion of teaching thinking for a long time. First, is the

psychological tradition, and the second is the philosophical tradition. Due

to the current focus and relatively more sophisticated advancements, the
psychological tradition will be discussed first.

For the behaviorlsts, the issue was not how new knowledge is
acquired, instead it was: How is new behavior acquired? (Phillips and
Soltis, 1985). In other words, to the behaviorists Ieaming was a process of
expanding the behavioral repertoire, not a matter of expanding the ideas
in the leamer's mind. For this reason, teaching thinking might not have
been the focus in the behaviorist theory because behaviorist were of the
contention that, “Mind, after all, was a subjective and nonpublicly
observable entity, and thus had to be avoided by science” (Phillips and
Soltis, 1985, p.23).

The Gestalt psychologists looked beyond behavior and the
environment, and they tried to throw light on Ieaming by investigating
tendencies of the mind to pattern and structure experience. The Gestalt
theory views Ieaming as a process involving the attempt to think things
out and then having “it all come together‘ suddenly in the mind. Gestalt
psychologists certainly stressed a point that is important in understanding
human Ieaming: responding to meanings; and making intellectual
connections.

Beginning with a hunch about the importance of firsthand
experience to Ieaming, John Dewey developed a “problem solving” theory
of Ieaming whose basic premise was that Ieaming happens as a result of

our ‘doing" and “experiencing” things in the world as we successfully

' a

 

10

solve real problems that are genuinely meaningful to us. Dewey (1957)
did not deny that human learners can be given information by their
teachers. But unless the learner had struggled personally with an issue,
the information was likely to be committed to memory in a rather lifeless
or mechanical way. He called this “static, cold-storage knowledge”
(p.186), and he asserted that unless the student had an opportunity to
use the information in problem solving and action it was sterile,
“information severed from thoughtful action is dead, a mind-crushing load”
(p.179).

Taking a biological approach, Piaget viewed Ieaming as an
adaptive function of an organism. By means of Ieaming, an organism
develops “schemes” for dealing with and understanding its environment.
For Piaget, Ieaming is the individual’s construction and modification of
structures for dealing successfully with the world. He also claimed that,
there are stages of development that all human beings pass through as
they Ieam universal schemes for structuring the world and as they Ieam
certain aspects of logical reasoning. In Piaget’s (1970 cited in Becker and
Varelas, 1995) view, “Each time one prematurely teaches a child
something he could have discovered himself, the child is kept from
inventing it and consequently from understanding it completely” (p.436).

Vygotsky, Dewey, and Bandura addressed the social dimension in
Ieaming. For example, Vygotsky viewed thinking not as a characteristic of

the child only, but of the child-in-social-activities with others (Moll and

ll

Whitmore, 1993). In terms of classroom Ieaming, Vygotsky specifically
emphasized the relation between thinking and what we would call the
social organization of instruction. Central to Vygotsky’s (1978) view of
cognitive development is the notion that various kinds of complex thinking
and reasoning first appear as interaction with others and then become
internalized or appropriated as individual forms of thought (Putnam and
Borko, In press). The quality of thinking, from this perspective, is
determined not by some absolute external criteria of what constitutes
good thinking, but rather by the norms and expectations of a particular
community. .

It was not until the mid-nineteenth century that scholars viewed the
human mind as a working mechanism with underlying operations that
could be studied from a psychological perspective (Rowe, 1985). In
contrast, the roots to the philosophical interest in thinking reach back to
the classical period. Greene (1984) noted that in the Western World,
philosophy preceded by at least 2,000 years the growth of what we now
call psychology. Some of the Eastern traditions, of which philosophy is an
integral part, date back to about 5,000 years. At the heart of the
philosophic perspective of thinking is the use of reason to guide behavior.

Besides the philosophy and psychological fields, there is one other
field of research which impacts the literature on teaching thinking. It is for
this reason, at least, the debate about thinking and teaching thinking

becomes more complex. Nevertheless, research findings from other fields

12

will help one to understand better the processes of thinking, and teaching
and learning thinking. Research in the field of neuroscience, for example,
suggests that
Brain research establishes and confirms that multiple complex and
concrete experiences are essential for meaningful Ieaming and
teaching. Optimizing the use of the human brain means using the
brain’s infinite capacity to make connections - and understanding
what conditions maximize this process. In essence, students Ieam
from their entire ongoing experience.
(Caine, R.N. & Caine, G., 1994, p.5)
Whatever the theory or the field may be, it seems that more and
more educators are beginning to agree that teaching and Ieaming in
schools should also include the development of thinking abilities of
students as their explicit goals. This seems to be most important

underlying assumption of the current thinking skills movement.

How are Higher-Order Thinking Skills defined?

Researchers and educators have advocated many conceptions in
relation to “thinking“: critical thinking, divergent or creative thinking,
reasoning (moral, inductive, deductive, formal, informal), problem solving,
and decision making. Literatures on these topics, while interrelated, are
remarkably distinct and self-contained. Nickerson, in this respect, (1988)
suggests that, “if there is one point on which most investigators agree, it
is that thinking is complex and many faceted and, in spite of considerable

productive research, not yet very well understood“ (p.9).

l3

Presseisen (1985) suggests, “Thinking is generally assumed to be
a cognitive process, a mental act by which knowledge is acquired” (p.43).
In a later work she defines thinking as “the mental manipulation of
sensory input to formulate thoughts, reason about, or judge" (1987, p.98).
For Sigel (1984), “Thinking is regarded as an active process involving a

number of denotable mental operations” (p.18). Halpem’s (1989)

m,

definition probably summarizes the many aspects of thinking, “Most
people would agree that thinking is complex and that it guides our
behavior. In addition, thinking is dynamic; it’s something we do. Thinking
involves going beyond the information given“ (p.6).

These different conceptions can all be subsumed under the larger
construct of higher-order thinking and made distinct from lower-order
thinking (Onosko and Newmann, 1994, p.28). Resnick’s (1987)
discussion, for example, characterized higher order thinking as
nonalgorithmic, complex, self-regulative, meaningful, effortful and
providing multiple solutions, nuanced judgments, multiple criteria, and
uncertainty, all defined in terms of cognitive traits and processes of
individuals. Chipman (1986) characterized higher order thinking as a
consensus among cognitive scientists that successful thinking depends
on organization of cognitive activity with a hierarchy of goals and
operations.

For the purpose of this study, higher-order thinking is defined

broadly, as the expanded use of the mind to meet new challenges.

 

14

Expanded use of mind occurs when a person must interpret, analyze, or
manipulate information, because a question to be answered or a problem
to be solved cannot be resolved through the routine application of
previously Ieamed knowledge (Onosko and Newmann, 1994). In the
classroom, it requires students to critically think about information, ideas,
and opinions. Students draw conclusions, inferences or generalizations.
Besides that, they produce original communications, make predictions,
propose solutions, create, solve life-like problems, judge ideas, express
opinions, and make choices and decisions.

On the other hand, lower-order thinking represents routine,
mechanistic application and limited use of the mind. This process
generally involves repetitive operations such as listing information
previously Ieamed formulae, applying procedural rules, and other
routinized or algorithmic mental activities. It requires students to recall or
recognize information. Students are also required to describe, compare,
contrast, summarize, relate, apply, provide an example, and solve.

This definition, however, poses an operational problem in the
classroom. It is difficult to determine reliably the extent to which a person
is involved in higher-order thinking. Teachers who interact with several
students at once have little opportunity to diagnose students’ individual
mental states. Instead, they may have to make assumptions about the
prior knowledge of a group of students and about the kinds of mental work

that particular tasks are likely to stimulate. In this respect, Onosko and

 

15

Newmann (1994) suggest, “The teaching of thinking, therefore, is a rather
imprecise enterprise. The best we can do is to engage in what we predict
will be challenging problems, guide student manipulation of information to
solve problems, and support students’ efforts“ (p.29).

It is important that a broad definition of thinking skills is adopted at
least for two reasons. First, it is hard to specifically identify a skill being
taught or Ieamed in the classroom as either a critical, creative or an
analytical skill. This is because these skills do not often represent
distinctive categories, and often the activities prepared or skills taught
are of more than one category. For example, when students are asked to
find evidence for an assertion they are making, they may be using the
analytical skill where they may be breaking something down into its
component parts and then examining the parts and determining their
relationship to each other and to the whole. At the same time, they may
also be using the synthesis skills where they may have to combine or
unify separate ideas or materials to create something new. The second
reason is that the present effort to teach these' individual skills is itself
being challenged. In other words, what kind of skills, critical, creative,
analytical, logic or reasoning, are stressed in classrooms. There seems to
be a disagreement on the emphasis placed on specific thinking skills
taught in classrooms. In this respect, Adams (1989) suggests, “The vast
majority of the programs are directed toward developing students’

analytical and logical acumen. But even here, there are ardently voiced

l6

differences of opinion“ (p.28). Given this situation, it seems more
practical to adopt a larger definition of thinking skills in classrooms.

For the purpose of identifying whether the teaching higher-order
thinking skills is present in the Malaysian classrooms, at least three sets
of criteria were used for different purposes. It was the hope that these
criteria will be able to address both the observable behavior and
unobservable Ieaming (mental work) related to thinking. First, the criteria
was to investigate whether there were efforts to engage students in
challenging problems, guide student manipulation of information to solve
problems, and to support students’ efforts. For this, Onosko and
Newmann’s (1994) definition of higher-order and lower-order thinking
skills was used.

Second, is the Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), with six cognitive levels:
knowledge; comprehension; application; analysis; synthesis; and
evaluation levels, for evaluating certain aspects of teaching like
questioning skills. Bloom’s taxonomy was used partly because of
teachers’ familiarity with this system. Third, since teachers in Malaysian
classrooms are expected to infuse higher-order thinking skills in content
instruction the components of the infusion lesson, which Swartz and
Parks (1994) claim “Conducting a lesson using this four-step (five steps in
the use of Malaysian classrooms) strategy to teach thinking is time well
spent and will maximize our chances for real improvement in student

thinking“ (p.10). This strategy with five steps was used as a criteria to

l7

determine whether teaching of higher-order thinking is present in the
classrooms.

Swartz and Parks (1994) propose that infusion lessons are crafted
to bring into content instruction an explicit emphasis on skillful thinking so
that students can improve the way they think. Classroom time is spent on
the thinking skill or process, as well as on the content. They further
suggest that infusion lessons feature a variety of effective teaching
practices that characterize the way thinking is explicitly emphasized in
these lessons. Swartz and Parks suggest that there will be four teaching
practices in these infusion lessons.

First, the teacher introduces students to the thinking skill or

process by demonstrating the importance of doing such thinking

“well.“ Second, the teacher uses explicit prompts to guide students

through the skillful practice of the thinking as they learn concepts,

facts, and skills in the content areas. Third, the teacher asks
reflective guestions which help students distance themselves from
what they are thinking about, so that they can become aware of
how they are thinking and develop a plan for doing it skillfully.

Fourth, the teacher reinforces the thinking strategies by providing

additional opportunities for students to engage in the same kind of

thinking independently.
(1 994, p. 1 0)
A fifth step of the teacher attempting to associate the thinking skills and

content being Ieamed to an evepyday situation has been included in the

Malaysian version of the infusion lesson.

18

The teaching of Higher-Order thinking skills in Malaysia

Malaysia is a multiracial country with a population of 20 million
consisting of threemain races: Malays; Chinese; and Indians. The
country has a centralized education system with almost all the funding for
public schools coming from the Federal Government. The Ministry of
Education, together with the State Education Departments and the District
Education Offices, is responsible for administering the education system.
The Ministry of Education has various professional and administrative
divisions responsible for the numerous aspects of policy formulation and
implementation. The State Education Departments, District Education
Offices and schools help implement the policies formulated by the
Ministry of Education.

The education system in Malaysia today is largely a product of a
system rooted by the British. The system still maintains many
characteristics of the British Education system, like the centralized system
of education. It has to be noted that reform efforts started even before the
country gained its independence in 1957. However, the most significant
reform efforts in Malaysia (Malaya until 1965) were started in 1956
(Ahmad, 1993). The Razak Report which was implemented in 1956 laid
the foundation for a new education system reflecting the characteristics of

a new independent and multiracial Malaysia.

19

Reform efforts to further improve the education system are ongoing
efforts in Malaysia. In 1979, for example, the Cabinet Committee to
Review the Implementation of Education Policy presented a
comprehensive report on the various aspects of the education system of
the country (Curriculum Development Center, 1989, p.1). Based on the
recommendations of this Committee, the Ministry of Education undertook
to review the existing curricula for both the primary and secondary
schools. Subsequently, the Teacher Education Programs were also
modified to accommodate the new requirements. The New Primary School
Curriculum which was later named as the Integrated Primary School
Curriculum was implemented in 1982, whereas the Integrated Curriculum
for Secondary Schools was implemented in 1988 (Curriculum
Development Center, 1989, p.1).

At the same time, in order to clarify and give further direction to
education in Malaysia with a view to creating good citizens and good
human beings, concerted efforts were undertaken to define the National
Philosophy of Education (NPE), which was documented in 1987. The
National Philosophy of Education states,

Education in Malaysia is an on-going effort towards further

developing the potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated

manner, so as to produce individuals who are intellectually,
spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced and harmonious,
based on a firm belief in and devotion in God. Such an effort is
designed to produce Malaysian citizens who are knowledgeable

and competent, who possess high moral standards, and who are
responsible and capable of achieving a high level of personal well-

20

being as well as being able to contribute to the betterment of the
society and the nation at large.
(Educational Planning and Research Division, 1994, p. vii)

Reform efforts of the 19803 were based on the principles of the National
Philosophy of Education to produce individuals who are intellectually,
spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced and harmonious.
However, in the 1990s, reform efforts were focused on, besides the
principles of the National Philosophy of Education, on the demands of the
Vision 2020 of the government. The goal of Vision 2020 is to make
Malaysia a “Developed Country’, not only in the economic sense, but a
nation that is fully developed along the dimensions: economically,
politically, socially, spiritually, psychologically, and culturally (Mohamed,
1991).

One of the outcomes of these reform efforts was the introduction of
a more serious and explicit attempt to teaching thinking skills in schools.
A more explicit attempt to teach thinking skills was started in schools in
1993 and in teacher education colleges in 1994. However, it has to be
noted that various attempts to improve students’ thinking abilities have
taken place even before this period. In order to prepare teachers and
teacher college lecturers to teach these skills, there were one-day short
courses and one week workshops on teaching thinking skills. Such
workshops and seminars have been conducted on ‘Accelerated
Leaming’, ‘Optimal Leaming', “Critical and Creative Thinking’ and De

Bono's ‘CoRT Thinking Tools’ since the 1980s in Malaysia.

 

21

Teaching of Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Schools
One of the objectives of secondary school education in Malaysia is
to “Develop and enhance their (students) intellectual capacity with respect
to rational, critical and creative thinking” (Curriculum Development
Center, 1989, p.2). Although there are other objectives like “to acquire
knowledge and to a mastery of skills and to use them in daily life,” the
explicit mention of developing students’ rational, critical and creative
thinking in the curriculum has necessitated the teaching of thinking skills
in the schools. To further emphasize the importance of teaching thinking
skills, the curriculum states, “The contents of the curriculum promote the
development of thinking abilities to enable students to analyze,
synthesize, explain, draw conclusions, and produce ideas that are both
constructive and useful” (Curriculum Development Center, 1989, p.6).
The Integrated Curriculum for Secondary Schools (lCSS) also states that,
Another primary consideration in the lCSS is the development of
thinking abilities. Every teacher is required to use teaching—
leaming methods and techniques which will stimulate, encourage,
and develop the thinking abilities of students. This strategy is
closely linked with the aims of the lCSS which emphasize the
development of the human intellect (p.27).
Although the emphasis on teaching thinking skills has been stated
in the lCSS which was formulated in 1988 and has been emphasized ever

since, in a recent statement to the English Language teachers, the

Director-General of Education Datuk Matnor Daim stressed again the

22

need for teachers to teach thinking skills. He suggested that, “They
(students) have to Ieam to manipulate ideas and feelings that are
contained in the text they read, and that needs thinking skills”
(lndramalar, 1997a). He also stressed that, “teachers should make it their
responsibility to mold students into thinking leaders.” He believes that by
developing these skills in students, they will be able to critically examine,
select and organize the information they receive.

Although there are already programs to teach thinking skills in
schools, the Minister of Education has recently suggested that, “The
education system will be revamped to encourage rational and analytical
thinking“ (lndramalar, 1997b). He also suggested that modern skills like
the capacity for precise and rational thought, training in basic logic,
reasoning and critical thinking are essential for all students. All this
clearly indicates the Ministry of Education’s commitment to promote the
teaching of thinking skills in Malaysian schools.

The Ministry of Education, in 1993, when implementing the thinking
skills program in schools in a more systematic manner and to streamline
the existing thinking skills programs, identified four models which could
be used in the classrooms (Curriculum Development Center, 1993, ). The
first model is by Robert Swartz and Sandra Parks and this model was
prepared by the National Center for Teaching Thinking in Boston. This
model is popularly known in Malaysia as the ‘Boston Model’. The second

model in the ‘KWHL Model”, where ‘K’ is for ‘knowledge’, ‘W is for ‘what’,

23

‘H’ is for ‘how’, and ‘L’ is for ‘learnt’. The third model consists of CoRT 1
(\Mdening the Perception) and CoRT 4 (Creative and Lateral Thinking),
which were both developed by Edward de Bono. The last model is called
‘Programmed Instruction in the Learning of Thinking Skills (PlLTS)’ which
were developed by two local academics, John Amt Phillips and Fatimah
Hashim. The guidelines from the Ministry of Education proposes various
strategies, techniques, and activities which could be used by teachers to
teach thinking skills in the classrooms.

Selected teachers from various districts who are called ‘key-
personnel” were exposed to the new curriculum for teaching thinking, as is
usually done in other curriculum implementation processes. All four
models seem to have been exposed to the key-personnel. These key-
personnel were required to impart their knowledge and experience with at
least one teacher from each school in their districts. These teachers in
turn are supposed to share their knowledge and experiences with all
teachers in their respective schools.

Besides the curriculum and the guidelines consisting of the four
models, strategies, techniques, and activities, model lesson plans
showing how thinking skills could be taught together with subject matter
using the ‘infusion approach” were prepared and distributed to teachers.
These model lesson plans are based on various subjects and teachers
are encouraged to use them as models to plan their own lessons. Text

book writers were also encouraged to include thinking skills in their

 

la.

”0'
‘5

Sf .
“A

.G:‘

0'“ .‘

24

materials. Other supporting materials like ‘Teaching and Learning Styles
with Left/Right Brain Techniques’ (Curriculum Development Center, 1991)
were prepared and distributed to key-personnel from time to time to be
shared with teachers in schools.

The Ministry of Education seems to have a specific aim of teaching
thinking skills in schools. In view of fulfilling the principles of the National
Philosophy of Education and to meet the demands of the challenges of
Vision 2020, the Ministry of Education announced a policy in 1994 that by
the year 2000, a minimum of 60 per cent of the public examination
questions will be testing the creative and analytical thinking skills of the
students.

The curriculum, guidelines, text books, and resource materials
have been prepared, and at least some training has been provided, as
will be discussed below, to the teachers. But the question is how are
teachers accepting yet another innovation to the existing curricula, how
much of knowledge and skills do teachers possess to teach thinking skills
in the classrooms, how are the thinking skills taught, and how are the
students Ieaming are many questions which need to be addressed if
teaching of higher-order thinking skills is to be effective and students are

to be ready to face examinations in the year 2000.

 

25

Teaching of Higher-Order Thinking Skills in the Teacher Education
Colleges

The Teacher Education Division made changes to its Five
Semester Basic Teacher Education Program and the Two Semester Post-
Degree Education Programs to accommodate the necessary changes to
teach higher-order thinking skills explicitly in 1993. These changes were
implemented in the teacher education colleges in June 1994. The
Teacher Education Division basically adopted the ‘Boston Model’ to train
teacher educators to teach prospective teachers. Almost all adjustments
to the existing curricula for various subjects were based on this model.
Special guidelines and resource books for teacher educators in the
teacher education colleges were developed in late 1993 and in early 1994
(Teacher Education Division, 1994).

The ‘Boston Model’, or the infusion model advocates integrating
teaching critical thinking in all content areas and at all grade levels rather
than using a pre-packaged program or curriculum. This program provides
examples for a variety of grade levels and content areas, as well as life
situations. The main contention of the authors of this program is that the
same skill can be taught, reinforced, and elaborated in many other
contexts, subject areas, and at other grade levels. (Swartz and Parks,
1994). This program proposes the ‘lnfusion Approach’ to teach thinking
skills. Infusing critical and creative thinking into content instruction blends

features of two contrasting instructional approaches that educators have

*_‘ .

 

 

26

taken to teach thinking: (1) direct instruction of thinking in noncurriculur
texts and (2) the use of methods which promote thinking in the content
lessons (Swartz and Parks, 1994). Infusion lessons are similar to, but
contrast with, both of these types of instruction.

Teacher Education College lecturers were exposed to the ‘Boston
Model’, CoRT Thinking Tools, the ways to incorporate the teaching of
thinking skills using the ‘infusion approach’ in the various content areas,
and teaching and Ieaming strategies during four-day workshops in their
respective colleges in early 1994. Various materials on the program,
strategies and techniques, and model lesson plans were distributed to the
lecturers in these workshops. Specifically, model lessons showing how
thinking skills could be taught using the infusion approach on various
subjects like Malay Language, English Language, Math, Science and
History were prepared by the Teacher Education Division and were used
as important resource materials in these workshops.

It has to be noted that the Teacher Education Division made
modifications to the ‘Boston Model’ before implementing it in the colleges
to suit the local needs. One significant change is the components of the
infusion lesson itself. Infusion lesson proposed by the ‘Boston Model’ has
four components: introduction to content and process; thinking actively;
thinking about thinking; and applying thinking (Swartz and Parks, 1994,
p.22). The Teacher Education Division adopted a model which has five

components in the infusion lessons: introduction to content and process;

27

thinking actively; thinking about thinking; consolidation or enrichment
activities; and applying thinking (Teacher Education Division, 1994). One
extra component of consolidation and enrichment was included to provide
more opportunities for teachers and students in the classroom to reinforce
their knowledge and skills about one or more of the thinking skills being
Ieamed.

It is the hope of the Teacher Education Division that the model to
teach thinking skills effectively will be used by teacher education college
lecturers in all the 32 teacher education colleges in the country. It is also
the hope that the knowledge and skills will be shared with prospective
teachers in the teacher education colleges, both elementary and
secondary school teachers, who total about 12,000 to 15,000 at any given
time. Ultimately, it is hoped that about four million students in the schools
(Education Planning and Research Division, 1994) will benefit from their

teachers’ knowledge, and skills of teaching thinking skills.

Teachin Hi her rder Thinkin Skills In
The Malaysian Classrooms: Is There A Problem?

There are concerted efforts to teach higher-order thinking skills in
Malaysia. The curricula have been formulated, teachers are being trained,
and resource materials are produced to help achieve the aim of teaching
higher-order thinking skills in Malaysian classrooms. There has been a
good start to teaching thinking in content instruction. However, since this

study aims to investigate the preparedness of teachers to cany out this

28

task, and how they actually teach higher-order thinking skills in their own
classrooms, it seems important to discuss some of the potential problems
related to the implementation of this reform which are directly related to
this investigation. This will provide a wider perspective on the teaching of
higher-order thinking skills in Malaysian schools, and help place the
current investigation in the right perspective.

First, teachers are trained to teach higher-order thinking skills by
two different institutions in Malaysia. They are the Teacher Education
Division which focuses on the pre-service training, and the Curriculum
Development Center which focuses on the in-service training. As stated
earlier, in terms of the program, for example, the Teacher Education
Division has almost adopted the ‘Boston Model’ with some emphasis on
the CoRT Tools. Whereas, the Curriculum Development Center has
adopted four different models, with the ‘Boston Model” as one of the
models. What this entails is that there will be two groups of teachers
exposed to two different types of training models for teaching higher-order
thinking in schools but are required to teach one specific curriculum for
teaching higher-order thinking skills.

In terms of the approaches, the Teacher Education Division seems
to have adapted a position to encourage teachers to use the five
components of the infusion lesson to promote higher-order thinking in the
classrooms. However, in the case of the Curriculum Development Center,

there seems to be no specific emphasis on the approaches. Even in the

29

model lessons distributed to teachers by the Curriculum Development
Center there are four pedagogical steps , introduction or induction,
explanation of concept, exercise, and application. These four components
seem generic components which could be used for teaching any subject,
and not particularly applicable to the teaching of higher—order thinking
skills.

The implication of these differing emphases and approaches
seems to be that teachers are faced with more problems than just not
knowing how to make pedagogical decisions to teach higher-order
thinking skills in their classrooms. Basically, teachers could be in a
situation as to wonder about what works and what doesn’t. Even the
question of whether teachers think they have the knowledge and skills to
teach these skills in the classrooms, especially when they have only
been exposed to short courses or workshops, is an important question
here. Even if they think they have the knowledge and skills, whether they
believe in teaching these skills seems to be another important question.

Second, a typical Malaysian classroom has students from three
main races who come into the classroom with different cultural, religious
and linguistic capabilities. The question is, have the teachers been
prepared adequately to handle these differences in the classrooms
effectively? At least how the teachers perceive their knowledge, skills and
attitude to teach both the subject matter and higher-order thinking skills in

such classrooms seems important.

30

Teachers have already been burdened with a lot of challenges to
teach the language arts itself. For example, the proportion of students
who Ieam the national language, that is the Malay Language, is about 55
percent native speakers, and about 45 percent non-native speakers.
English Language, on the other hand, is accorded the status of second
language, but in reality is the third or fourth language to non-Malay
speakers who have languages of their own. It becomes even more
complex when teachers are expected to teach higher-order thinking skills
using the infusion approach, which in itself they may not be sure about.
This becomes particularly problematic when teachers are required to
teach both subject matter and thinking skills in one single lesson.

In this respect, one could expect teachers to face difficulties in
employing specific techniques in their language arts classrooms to
promote higher-order thinking abilities of the students. Questioning
technique, for example, could be an important strategy to promote higher-
order thinking among students. Although the congruency of the thought
level of teachers’ questions to students’ responses is not 100%, teachers
still have considerable impact in their ability to control the thought levels
of students in the classroom (Kindsvatter, R, et al., 1992).

In my investigation in an US classroom, for example, I found that to
be an issue. An analysis of a classroom discourse was conducted where

there was a discussion between the teacher and students. I found,

31

An analysis of teacher’s questions shows that out of the 34
questions posed by the teacher, 25 of them are of category one,
that is the low order convergent type questions. The rest, 9 out of
34 are of the second category, the high order convergent type
questions. This pattern suggests that the teacher’s questions were
aimed at requiring students to recall or recognize information and
to demonstrate understanding and apply information. It is important
to note that the responses were all something which could be
anticipated since they were all meant to recall or reorganize
information. The students also did not have the opportunities to
speculate responses which may have provided them the
opportunities to think critically about issues at hand. There was not
even one question which required students either to critically think
about information, ideas, and opinions or to perform original,
creative, and evaluative thinking.

(Rajendran, N. 1996a, p.28)

Third, when teachers make explicit and concerted efforts to teach
higher-order thinking skills in content instruction in the Malaysian
classrooms, they may have to make concessions in their own classrooms.
There are two possibilities here. One is that, when teachers are
accommodating new innovations such as this into their content
instruction, they make have to make concessions on their time they spend
on teaching content to accommodate the new component, that is the
higher-order thinking skills which they are expected to teach together with
content. Second, even within the content they teach they may be using
some of the components with which they are comfortable and leaving out
others to accommodate the changes. In the Malay or English Language
classrooms, for example, teachers may be making some concessions on

using the four language components, listening, speaking, reading and

 

32

writing, to accommodate the teaching of higher-order thinking skills in
their classrooms.

Even if teachers are committed to make concerted efforts to
accommodate the teaching of higher-order thinking skills in their content
instruction, they may not be prepared to do such an innovation in their
own classrooms. For example, a national evaluation study was conducted
by the Teacher Education Division of the Ministry of Education in
Malaysia in 1995 to investigate how prepared are graduates of the Post-
Graduate Pre-service Teacher Education Program to carry out the various
teaching and Ieaming tasks. One of the findings of the investigation is
that, “79.2 percent of the graduates studied suggested that the most
difficult task to be carried out, among other pedagogical tasks, is infusing
thinking skills in content instruction” (Teacher Education Division, 1995,
p.85).

Fourth, teachers in Malaysia come from a largely transmission
approach of teaching themselves. The teaching of higher-order thinking
skills calls for more of a student-centered approach to teaching where
students are given the opportunities to play an active part in the
classrooms. However, serious efforts have been undertaken since the
19803 to have more of student-centered approach to teaching in
classrooms. Even so, the large class size, and traditionally passive and
timid students may make it hard for teachers to adopt more of the student-

centered approach to teaching. Be it in the schools or in the teacher

33

education colleges, teachers seem to be still using more of the lecture
method (Teacher Education Division, 1995).

Fifth, even if teachers are of the opinion that they possess the
knowledge, skills and attitude to teach higher-order thinking skills in
classrooms, one cannot be sure that the teaching of higher-order thinking
together with subject matter will take place efficiently. There are at least
two possibilities. One is that teachers may be thinking that they are
making explicit attempts to teach higher-order thinking skills but are
unaware of the fact that they are not doing it. In my investigation in an US
classroom, for example, I found that there was a clear dissonance
between what the teacher believed in terms of exploiting all four language
components to promote higher-order thinking and what was being taught
in the classroom (Rajendran, N., 1996a). There could be dissonance on
other aspects as well.

The other possibility is that, even if teachers are very committed to
teaching higher-order thinking skills they may not be able to handle many
issues, especially the pedagogical issues, which confront them. They may
have difficulties in implementing the Innovations in their own classrooms.
Langer (1991), for example, found that , “Even teachers who are deeply
committed to using writing for broader purposes, who have sought to
Ieam new instnictional approaches, and who are committed to using
writing as a way to help their students think and Ieam, have great difficulty

in carrying out their goals” (p.14).

34

Sixth, focus on school and national examinations, the availability of
resource materials, on—going research to improve the teaching of higher-
order thinking skills, support for teachers to help overcome problems in
the Malaysian classrooms, and opportunities for teachers to continue to
Ieam to teach higher-order thinking skills are some of the important
issues which have influence on achieving the goals of teaching higher-
order thinking skills in Malaysian classrooms. Lack of outside support, for
example, may be compelling teachers to make adjustments which might
be detrimental to the teaching of subject matter and thinking skills. It is
important to investigate whether these issues have been addressed and
are made available to teachers.

What all these suggest is that, teachers are often left on their own
to handle problems which arise in their classrooms, and these problems
could very often be beyond their jurisdiction. The result is that they make
adjustments within their means which in some ways work against the very
aim of teaching itself. In this respect, teachers in Malaysia may be making
many other pedagogical decisions given the situation that teachers may
not be exposed adequately to the teaching of higher-order thinking skills
in the pre-service or in-service training, and also very little is actually
provided to them on an on-going basis. How teachers perceive their
knowledge and pedagogical skills to teach higher-order thinking skills in
content instruction, and how they actually carry out the teaching seem to

warrant in-depth investigation.

35

The aim of this study

The aim of this study, given the situation in the Malaysian
classrooms, is to investigate how do teachers perceive their
preparedness to teach higher-order thinking skills and actually teach
higher-order thinking skills in English and Malay Language classrooms.

Two related questions will be investigated.

Research Que§tions.
My primary research question is: How are teachers teaching

Hi her rder Thinkin kills in Form Two Mala and En lish Lan ua e
Classrng in Malaysia? Embedded in this question are the following

subsidiary questions:

Subsidiar_y Question 1:

To what extent are teachers prepared to teach higher-order thinking skills

in Malay and English Language classrooms?

a. What are teachers’ perceptions about their knowledge, pedagogical
skills and attitude towards teaching Malay or English Language and
higher-order thinking skills?

b. Is there a difference between the Malay and English Language

teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge, pedagogical skills and

 

36

attitude towards teaching Malay or English Language and higher—order

thinking skills?

. What are some of the factors which influence teachers’ knowledge,

skills and attitude to teach Malay or English Language, and higher-

order thinking skills?

. How much of the class time do teachers allocate for the teaching of

higher-order thinking skills.

Subsidiapy Question 2:

How are the Malay and English Language teachers teaching Higher-

Order Thinking skills in their classrooms?

How are higher-order thinking skills conceived in Form Two Malay and

English Language classrooms?

. How are the four language components used to promote the

acquisition of higher-order thinking skills in the Malay or English

Language classrooms?

. How do teachers use different strategies and techniques to promote

the acquisition of higher-order thinking skills in their Malay or English

Language classrooms?

. How extensive is student participation and how does it influence the

acquisition of higher-order thinking skills by students in the Malay and

English Language classrooms?

37

Limitations of this investigation

This study will make contributions towards a better understanding
of the teaching of higher-order thinking skills in content instruction, and
more specifically in Malay and English Language classrooms. However,
there are inherent limitations in this study, as often found in other
investigations as well. It seems important to spell out the major limitations
of this investigation so that the findings of this investigation will be
interpreted and used in the most appropriate ways.

It has to be noted that the specific program to teach higher-order
thinking skills in the Malaysian classrooms was only started in 1993. It
has been only four full years after the attempts to teach higher-order
thinking skills started. Given the centralized system of education in
Malaysia, and more than 250,000 teachers who teach in public schools
who need to be trained for this purpose, this period of four years is not a
long time by any standards.

The system of training teachers to accommodate innovations in
their classrooms, which is usually a linear model, which goes down from
the Ministry of Education officials, state education department officials,
and district education department or key-personnel at the district level,
makes the dissemination of information a problematic area. This often
only provides the ‘sit and get’ opportunities for teachers. Furthermore,

there is hardly any follow-up on any of these staff development initiatives.

38

This study discusses much about the preparedness of teachers to
teach higher-order thinking skills in content instruction in their
classrooms. This makes it imperative to discuss the pre—service and in-
service training provided to teachers to teach higher-order thinking skills
in their Malay or English Language classrooms. However, it is beyond the
scope of this study to evaluate the relevant pre-service and in-service
training received by the teachers who are teaching in schools, in terms of
their effectiveness in preparing this teachers to carry out their
responsibilities.

A school district which represents the majority of other school
districts in the country was selected for the purpose of the administration
of the survey questionnaire. The main reason was to increase the
possibilities of finding practices which are also found in most of other
schools. However, the qualitative study of classroom observations and
teacher and student interviews had to be conducted in a public boys
school. The reason for this, as explained elsewhere in detail, was that it
was important to identify at least one pair of teachers, one for Malay
Language and the other for English Language, who had received some
form of training to teach higher-order thinking skills at the form two level,
who think they are teaching higher-order thinking skills in their content
instruction, and more importantly were willing to participate in this
investigation. Among the 22 secondary schools in the Perdana School

District where this investigation was carried out, this pair of teachers who

39

fulfilled this criteria was only available at the Pustaka Secondary school.
The ideal situation would have been to conduct the qualitative data
collection in a public co-ed school which represents majority of the

schools in the country.

Chapter 2
TEACHERS, AND THE TEACHING OF
HIGHER-ORDER THINKING SKILLS IN LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS:
A LITERATURE REVIEW

This study aims to investigate how teachers perceive their
preparedness to teach higher-order thinking skills in their form two Malay
and English Language classrooms in Malaysia. It is also the aim of this
study to investigate how teachers actually teach higher-order thinking
skills in their Malay and English Language classrooms. This chapter will
present the pertinent literature to suggest what needs to be the practices
in the classrooms, especially in language classrooms, to encourage
students’ higher-order thinking abilities. This review is relevant in order to
understand how teachers in this study perceive their preparedness to
teach higher-order thinking skills in content instruction, and actually teach
in their own classrooms.

It has to be noted, however, that most of the literature cited here
come out of research to improve the teaching and Ieaming processes in
general, and not particularly the teaching of higher-order thinking skills.
Nevertheless, the literature cited here is, as much as possible, situated in
the context of teaching higher-order thinking skills in language instruction.
The reason for the lack of literature in the area of teaching thinking is that
in the past 20 years, there has been major scientific progress in the

psychology of thinking concerned with performance on specific tasks, and

'40

41

much less in the psychology of critical, productive, higher order, and
creative thinking (Greeno, 1989). Greeno suggests that, research on the
topics of productive, higher order, critical, and creative thinking has not
been an integral part of the major success of cognitive and developmental
psychology.

The first part of this chapter will focus on the relationship between
language and thinking, and developing students’ thinking processes in
language classrooms. The second part will discuss teachers’ knowledge,
pedagogical skills, and attitude to teach higher-order thinking skills. The
following section will present literature on how teachers’ beliefs about
teaching, Ieaming, and students affect the teaching of higher-order
thinking skills. The fourth section will address the issue of teaching
higher-order thinking skills in language classrooms. Finally, there will be a
discussion on the findings on different approaches, strategies, and
techniques which could be used by teachers to promote higher-order
thinking in language classrooms.

....

Developing Students’ Thinking Processes In Language Classrooms

Since this study attempts to investigate the teaching of higher-
order thinking skills in language classrooms, it seems important to explore
how does the teaching of higher-order thinking skills relate to the teaching

of language arts. Some psychologists suggest that thinking development

 

/
' ‘

42

should precede language instruction. A leader of this position is Jean
Piaget (1886-1980), a Swiss psychologist (Duckworth, 1987; Piaget,
1963). Piaget professed that students Ieam language by translating
thoughts (notions, natural inclinations, and tendencies) into words. He
emphasized the need for teachers to deliver instruction that was rapidly
paced; students were to explore materials and discover labels and names
for concepts they found (Duckworth, 1987)

Piaget (1963) supported this theoretical framework with evidence
that young children Ieam to talk through their own initiative and curiosity,
without formal instruction if they are immersed in a language-rich
environment. In a period of only three or four years, for example, children
acquire a vocabulary of 5,000 words, and internalize major grammatical
rules of their spoken language. Piaget proposed that schools should use
immersion and exploration as Ieaming tools throughout the high-school
years.

On the other hand, some psychologists believe that thinking
processes should be developed as the language labels of a concept are
presented. Leaders in this research are Bruner (1986), Kozulin (1990),
and Vygotsky (1978). Vygotsky theorized that through the use of specific
words and language patterns, thinking is shaped. He and other
psychologists reason that the degree and direction of thinking will be
related to the breadth of one’s language development. Thus, if teachers

teach language arts from this perspective, teachers will develop thinking

43

simultaneously with language. Teachers will assist students to translate
ideas, feelings, and experiences into words, as soon as a mental image
appears. At the same time, the accuracy and specificity of this translation
will be determined by the depth and precision of thinking.

When students state their thoughts aloud, for example, they may
realize that their thinking is not clear. As a result, they may call upon a
novel example to state the point in a slightly better way, and thus evolve a
deeper sense of it for themselves. When students have to convince their
classmates, they will provide themselves with the reasons for the thinking
they did. Likewise, when classmates misunderstand parts of an argument,
they may think through it again, which improves and advances their
understanding and communication.

In this respect, one of the important debates is whether thinking is
the same across disciplines. Whether all thinking abilities are specific to
disciplines, or whether the truth lies somewhere in between. McPeck
(1981) contends that generalizable thinking skills do not exist. He holds
that thinking is always about a subject, so general thinking ability
detached from a subject cannot conceptually exist. This is the conceptual
version of the subject-specific view.

McPeck concludes that critical thinking must, therefore, vary from
subject area to subject area. The empirical version of the subject-
specificity view is held by many contemporary cognitive psychologists

(e.g., Glaser, 1984). They hold that it is empirically unlikely that general

44

critical thinking skills can be taught and transferred to other domains, or in
other words, critical thinking is domain-specific. However, there seems to
be no general consensus among scholars in the area of teaching thinking
on this matter.

The same seems to go for the approaches to teaching thinking.
Partly due to the reason stated above, there are at least three general
approaches which could be used to teach thinking skills (Swartz and
Parks, 1994). First, we have the direct instruction of thinking in
noncurricular contexts, which is often called the teaching of thinking.
Teaching thinking by direct instruction means that, in a time period
designated for thinking instruction, students Ieam how to use explicit
thinking strategies, commonly guided by the teacher. Such lessons
employ the language of the thinking task and procedures for doing it
skillfully.

The second approach is called teaching for thinking. This approach
involves employing methods to promote students’ deep understanding of
the content. Such methods, include using cooperative Ieaming, graphic
organizers, higher order questioning, Socratic dialog, manipulatives, and
inquiry Ieaming. While students may respond thoughtfully to the content,
no thinking strategy is taught explicitly.

The third approach is the teaching of thinking skills using the
infusion approach (Swartz and Parks, 1994). Infusion lessons are crafted

to bring into content instruction an explicit emphasis on skillful thinking so

45

that students can improve the way they think. Classroom time is spent on
the thinking skill or process, as well as on the content. Infusion lessons
feature a variety of effective teaching practices that characterizes the way
thinking is explicitly emphasized in these lessons which are categorized
under four-step strategy as discussed earlier.

Whatever the approach maybe, it is important to understand the
relationships between teaching knowledge, that is the language content,
and teaching thinking. It is generally thought that teaching knowledge is
sufficient for understanding (Perkins, 1993), and thinking. Thinking, no
doubt, seems to be enhanced by the deeper understanding of
knowledge. But knowledge alone is not sufficient. As Perkins (1992)
argues, a deeper understanding of the knowledge forms the basis for the
active use of knowledge and skills, and that should be the aim of
education.

One of the ways of teaching for deeper understanding and thinking
is to allow students to play an active part in the teaching and Ieaming
processes. This is also in line with what Onosko and Newmann (1994)
suggest, “The best we can do is to engage in what we predict will be
challenging problems, guide student manipulation of information to solve
problems, and support students’ efforts” (p.29).

Classroom activities that employ collaborative problem solving
seem to have the potential for teaching children how to deal with complex

tasks and to work with and Ieam from each other (Johnson, Johnson &

46

Holubec, 1990). One would expect that exposure to a rich array of
collaborative problem-solving activities in the classrooms would help
students become problem solvers as adults. For this to happen in the
classrooms, the traditional telling-listening relationship between teacher
and student should be replaced by one that is more complex and

interactive (Prawat, 1992, pp.357).

Teachers’ Knowledge, Skills And
Attitude For Teaching Higher-Order Thinking Skills

There is a general agreement in the literature that teachers need to
be trained in critical thinking dispositions and skills in order to be able to
teach thinking effectively (Idol, L. & Jones, B. F. 1990; Lipman, 1985;
Nickerson, 1987; Swartz, 1987; Winocur, 1985). There is some anecdotal
evidence to support this view. Ulmer (1939), in a study of teaching high
school geometry to enhance reflective thinking, noted that the two
teachers in the experimental condition whose classes had the highest
scores, had themselves participated in a course on teaching logic in
geometry just prior to the study. In addition, the teacher in the
experimental condition whose class scored lowest, had joined the study
late and had not had the full training.

George (1967), in a study of student teachers, compared the
critical thinking abilities of science education majors with non-science

education majors. He found that the science education majors scored

47

significantly higher on the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Test than did
all the other education students with the exception of the mathematics
education students. It was concluded that the disciplines of science and
mathematics foster the development of critical thinking more than other
subject areas. An alternative interpretation, however, is that better critical
thinkers tend to go into mathematics and science teaching. Whether the
critical thinking scores of the science and mathematics teachers will carry
over into the classroom and improve their teaching was not investigated.

In a study involving teachers, department chairs, and principals
Onosko and Newmann (1994) attempted to find out, among other things,
their conceptions of and commitment to higher-order thinking as an
educational goal, and the factors they perceived as necessary to
accomplish it. They reported that academic departments committed to
higher-order thinking as a fundamental instructional goal had teachers
whose classrooms showed more thoughtfulness than departments not
committed to this goal. Based on classroom observations, open-ended
interviews with students, and survey questionnaire items, they reported
that students were more likely to try, to concentrate, and to be interested
in academic study when they are challenged to think.

Onosko and Newmann also identifiedthe barriers or obstacles to
the promotion of higher-order thinking skills in classrooms. One of the
barriers, they suggest is that teachers perceive teaching as knowledge

transmission. Cuban (1984), in the same respect, after researching the

48

pedagogical practices in American classrooms for a period of 90 years
concluded that, the dominant forms of classroom “discourse” past and
present are teacher lecture and teacher-led recitations. The overriding
agenda is to transmit to students information and ideas, and then request
that students reproduce them either orally or in writing.

Another barrier to the promotion of higher-order thinking in
classrooms is the low expectations of students from teachers (Onosko
and Newmann, 1994). They reported that, some teachers in their study
assumed that students lacked the inherent mental capacity, the raw “brain
power,” to engage in higher-order thinking, especially those students
labeled low achievers or low ability. When students are perceived to lack
thinking skills, many teachers are less likely to craft lessons that require
higher-order challenges.

Teachers need subject matter knowledge, the necessary
pedagogical skills, and the attitude to teach. Recent research has
documented some of the important ways that teachers’ knowledge of the
subjects they~teach shapes their instructional practice. A number of
studies have suggested that teachers with richer understanding of subject
matter tend to emphasize conceptual, problem-solving, and inquiry
aspects of their subjects, whereas less knowledgeable teachers tend to
emphasize facts and procedures (Ball, 1988; Wilson, 1988; Ball and

McDiarmid, 1990).

49

Cohen (1991) investigated a California classroom where there
were ambitious efforts to revise mathematics and Ieaming were taking
place. He found that the teacher used a new mathematics curriculum, but
used it in a way that conveyed a sense of mathematics as a fixed body of
right answers, rather than as a field of inquiry in which people figure out
quantitative relations. He also found that a didactic form of lesson in the
classroom inhibited explanation or exploration of students’ ideas. Cohen
suggests that the teacher did not have a firm grip on the estimation
aspect of mathematics she was teaching. As a result, he suggests, “She
taught as though she lacked the mathematical and pedagogical
infrastructure - the knowledge of mathematics, and of teaching and
Ieaming mathematics - that would have helped her to set the problem up
so that the crucial mathematical data were available to students” (p.335).

In the teaching of language arts, Grossman (1990) conducted case
studies of six teachers to explore the complex interrelationship among
beliefs about teaching, subject matter knowledge, and teaching context in
the development of conceptions about teaching English. The teachers’
own experiences as students in English Language classes provided
implicit models for the teaching of literature and writing. Grossman found
that while subject matter knowledge and apprenticeships of observation
were available to them as sources of knowledge, the teachers drew much
more from their subject-specific teacher education coursework, like the

methods courses contextualized in specific school subjects, intended to

50

provide strong subject-specific preparation in English, in constructing their
conceptions of the purposes and appropriate practices for teaching
English.

There are various ways researchers have defined the necessary
components for teaching a school subject. In that respect, the four
categories suggested by Grossman (1990) needed to construct the
pedagogical content knowledge seem to be very useful for identifying
what teachers need to teach a school subject. Four categories also seem
to fit the requirement for the teaching of higher-order thinking skills in
Malay or English Language classrooms.

First, the teachers’ overarching conception of teaching a subject in
his or her knowledge and beliefs about the nature of the subject and what
is important for students to Ieam. The second component of the
pedagogical content knowledge is knowledge of instructional strategies
and representations for teaching particular topics, including the models,
examples, metaphors, and so forth the teacher uses to foster students’
understanding. The third component of pedagogical content knowledge is
knowledge of students’ understandings and potential misunderstandings
in the subject area. The fourth component is the knowledge of curriculum
and curriculum materials, which includes familiarity with the range of
textbooks and other instructional materials available for teaching various

topics.

51

Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching, Learning, And Students

Teachers’ views of teaching and Ieaming influence their classroom
practice (Prawat, 1992). Prawat also suggests that currently, these beliefs
support traditional practice, best characterized as a “transmission“
approach to teaching and an “absorptionist” approach to Ieaming. As a
result, the dominant forms of classroom “discourse” past and present are
teacher lecture and teacher-led recitations (Cuban, 1984; Stemberg and
Martin, 1988). The overriding agenda is to transmit to students
information and ideas, and then request that students reproduce them
either orally or in writing.

Teachers’ views of teaching and Ieaming constitute an important
obstacle in attempts to change normal patterns of classroom interaction
(Cohen, et al. 1990; Putnam and Borko, In press). It is also true, for
example, in the case of constructivist approach to teaching. While there
are several interpretations of what this theory means, most agree that it
involves a dramatic change in the ‘focus’ of teaching, putting the students’
own efforts to understand at the center of the educational enterprise
(Prawat, 1992). The adoption of such an approach to teaching and
Ieaming would result in major changes in the teacher's role. Thus, in all
contructivist teaching-Ieaming scenarios, the traditional telling-listening

relationship between teacher and student is replaced by one that is more

52

complex and interactive. It is not surprising that constructivist teaching
places greater demands on teachers and students. As Cohen (1988a)
points out, “Teachers who take this path must work harder, concentrate
more, and embrace larger pedagogical responsibilities than if they only
assigned text chapters and seatwork” (p.255).

For thinking to take place in classrooms, it may be important for
teachers to convey to students that the goal of instruction is thinking, that
the responsibility for thinking is theirs, that is desirable to have more than
one solution, that it is commendable when they take time to plan, that an
answer can be changed with additional information. Much research has
also shown that active Ieaming has a positive effect on students’
development of decision-making and problem solving skills (Thomas,
1980, cited in Costa, 1985a). When higher-level thinking, creativity, and
problem solving are the objectives, students need to be in a classroom
climate where they are in the decision making role (Costa, 1985b).

In order to achieve those goals, Bereiter and Scardamalia(1987)
suggest that students be prepared to gradually take over all the goal-
setting, context-creating, motivational, analytical, and inferential actions
that in other models belong to the teacher. They call this ‘high literacy.’
Teaching strategies that begin with teacher modeling and that gradually
turn more of the executive control over to children have been shown to be

effective in both comprehension (Palincsar and Brown, 1984, cited in

53

Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987) and in composition planning
(Scardamalia et al., 1984, cited in Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987).
They also suggest that,

A more accurate characterization of the high literacy tradition
would be that it presupposes high-order cognitive skills. Students
have been expected to read the works of the greatest writers and
thinkers, and their own writing has been expected to reflect in
some measure the qualities found in those works. But the cognitive
resources necessary for doing this have not been identified; much
less have means been sought for developing them in students who
did not already have them.

(Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987, p.16)

It also seems important that teachers give importance to students’
ability to contribute to the teaching and Ieaming processes. Students’
individual knowledge construction processes too may have to be taken
into consideration in the teaching of thinking skills.

If Ieamers are to come to know what their teachers know,

therefore, more is required than the presentation of propositional

knowledge through talk or text. ...there needs to be extended
opportunity for discussion and problem-solving in the context of
shared activities, in which meaning and action are collaboratively
constructed and negotiated. In other words, education must be
thought of in terms not of the transmission of knowledge but of

transaction and transformation.
(Chang-Wells and Wells, 1993, p.59)

Because knowledge has to be individually constructed, it cannot be
transmitted from one individual to another simply by uttering the

appropriate propositions, despite what many educational theorists seem

to believe (Heap, 1985, cited in Chang-Wells and Wells, 1993, p. 59).

54

Teaching of Higher-Order Thinking Skills In Language Classrooms

Aristotle believed that the depths of one’s thinking governed the
types of language one could use (Anderson, 1985). Language is
fundamentally linked to thought by the manner in which information is
stored (Marzano, 1991). In fact, some language philosophers (e.g., Fodor,
1975) postulate the existence of a deep level, linguistically-based abstract
code that is at the root of all thinking and intention.

In fact, one cannot think in a content vacuum. Sophisticated
understanding and mastery of higher—order challenges occur only through
the use of knowledge in a subject or topic, whether it be consumer
decision making, the design of a bridge, or critique of a theater
performance (Onosko and Newmann, 1994). Of course, a subject can be
taught in ways that fail to promote thinking, but thinking may not be taught
apart from knowledge. Some would argue that the proper teaching of a
subject, in this case the language arts, is equivalent to, or sufficient for,
promoting higher-order thinking (Glaser, 1984; McPeck, 1981; Nickerson,
1988; Prawat, 1991), because it demands that students interpret, analyze,
and manipulate knowledge to face new challenges within the subject and
because it draws the student closer to the thinking of experts in the field.
Beyond substantive knowledge of the topic, students need analytic
knowledge (e.g., the structure of well-reasoned arguments, distinctions

between empirical, conceptual and normative claims, criteria to judge

55

reliability of evidence) and metacognitive knowledge (i.e., awareness and
self-monitoring of one’s thought processes).

We now believe that language abilities and thinking competencies
shape each other (Block, 1993). Both are of equal intensity in fostering
Ieaming. Through the power of language use, the quantity and quality of
students’ thoughts can be improved. Through reading, writing, speaking,
and listening, transitory thoughts can be transformed into lasting
principles. This transformation occurs because single ideas enter the
mind as cognitive entries, capable of bonding with collective categories of
former thoughts.

Block (1993), further suggests that, these categorical thoughts are
then stored as a dense cognitive structure called schema. Each schema
is the collection of Ieamings, experiences, emotions, and values one has
about a topic. Nerve endings of schema in the brain expand in length and
breadth as one discusses, writes, and reads about a concept. This depth
and breadth eventually become wisdom as more and more dendrites
(branches from nerve endings) are forced to intertwine (Rosenblatt, 1978;
Smith, 1978). Thus, if adults and children fail to ignite students’ thinking,
writing, reading, speaking, and listening their wisdom is limited (Collins,
1992).

In relation to this, Gardner and Hatcher (1989) after having

reviewed programs attempting to teach thinking skills state,

56

the relationship between language and thinking has been a topic of

debate for a long time. However, nearly every program we have

considered acknowledges the importance of language facility to
effective thinking in one way or another....(Students) must become
an adroit manipulator of language, logical forms, computer
programs, or other symbol systems that, in effect, can serve as

vehicles for thought (p.48).

Therefore, since students’ thinking abilities and language
development are of equal value and influence upon the depth of their
communication, teachers should develop both competencies if students’
potentials are to be reached. In light of this, it seems important to
understand how the four main components of language instruction:
listening; speaking; reading; and writing, relate to the development of
thinking skills.

The importance of overt speech as a tool for enhancing thinking
was evidenced in 1974 when the National Institute of Education identified
overt speech in the classroom as one aspect of its research agenda.
Cazden (1979) has shown that the use of oral language by both teachers
and students serves to establish a classroom atmosphere that either
elicits or discourages certain types of thinking. Cuing and questioning are
two primary ways that teachers use overt speech to elicit specific types of
thought.

Cuing involves teachers’ use of overt speech to signal specific
Ieaming episodes. That is, teachers verbally signal the type of Ieaming
expected within a given period of time. Ideally students then retrieve

appropriate mental scripts to match the Ieaming episode. Elaborate

57

coding schemes have been developed to describe the different forms of
teacher language used as cues for various episodes (Mehan, 1979;
Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). Cues such as verbal advanced organizers
that signal the structure of content are among the most powerful. That is,
when students Ieam new content, the structure that information takes in
the long-term memory is greatly influenced by how the teacher talks about
the content (Moore, 1977). A number of studies have shown that structure
of content as stored in students’ long-term memory corresponds more
closely to the a priori structure of the content after verbal instruction
(Johnson, 1967, 1969; Johnson, Cox 8. Curran, 1970; Shavelson &
Geeslin, 1973).

Questioning is a second way that teachers use overt speech to
elicit specific types of thought. Redfield and Rousseau (1981) suggest
that higher-level questions appear to be instrumental in enhancing
student thinking. A subset of the research on teacher questioning is the
research on teacher use of “wait time.” Expanding on Rowe’s (1974)
original definition of wait time as pausing for several seconds after asking
a question to give students time to think before being called on to answer,
Tobin (1987) identified a number of different types of wait time (e.g., the
pause following any teacher utterance and any student utterance, the
pause following any student utterance and preceding any teacher

utterance). He concluded that extended teacher wait time after asking

58

questions should be viewed as a necessary but insufficient condition for
higher, cognitive-level achievement.

Results obtained by Granato (1983) and Knickerbocker (1984)
suggest that a longer wait time after questions provides students with
opportunities to get involved in verbal interactions. Similarly, extended
wait time has been associated with more student discourse (Swift &
Gooding, 1983), more student-to-student interactions (Fowler, 1975;
Honea, 1982), decrease in student confusion (DeTure & Miller, 1985),
higher achievement (Riley, 1986; Tobin, 1986) and in complexity and
cognitive level of student responses (DeTure & Miller, 1985; Fagan,
Hassler & Szabo, 1981 ).

In the case of reading, Rosenblatt’s (1978) work on the
transactional nature of reading has helped elevate reading to a process
that, by definition, includes critical and creative thought. Perhaps the most
comprehensive attempt to incorporate the high-literacy tradition, which
emphasized critical and creative thinking under the general rubric of
rhetorical invention, within the framework of the language arts is Moffett’s
“interaction” approach (1968; Moffett and Wagner, 1983). He
conceptualized the “the universe of discourse“ to encompass: the
linguistic models of listening, speaking, reading and writing; the different
forms of audience; and the egocentricity versus the exo-centricity

(decentration) of the thought being experienced.

59

The ultimate goal of a language arts program in Moffett’s scheme
is to create flexible language user and thinkers, those capable of using
different models of discourse for different audiences at differing levels of
decentration. lnstructionally, Moffett’s model calls for a classroom laid out
for simultaneous group and individual activities (e.g., games, the arts,
drama) with no set curriculum. Rather, students progress through self-
selected, and teacher-directed activities. Interaction among peers and
teachers and students is the key to the curriculum. The high-literacy
nature of Moffett’s approach is evident in its emphasis on student’s
creation of new products (e.g., essays, plays, poems), which implicitly
demand attention to invention, arrangement, style, delivery, synthesis,
extension, and other activities associated with critical and creative
thought. Although Moffett’s approach has received some criticism for its
lack of empirical testing (Nickerson et al., 1985), it has for years served
as a model for those curricular and instructional changes that can, and
perhaps should, occur when one tries to operationalize high literacy.

One of the powerful reading interventions is Palinscar and Brown’s
(1984) reciprocal teaching, which is fundamentally metacognitive in
nature. Reciprocal teaching employs a process of cooperative question-
asking between teacher and students to highlight many of the
metacognition demands of reading. The teacher models the overt
summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting processes, which are

assumed to be internal processes executed during reading, while

60

students comment on the quality of questions, and summaries, and try to
construct better ones.

After an intervention period of several weeks in which reciprocal
teaching was practiced daily, middle-school students who had received
instruction had higher reading performance than control groups and
maintained this higher performance even after an eight-week period
without instruction (Palinscar and Brown, 1984). More strikingly, noted
Resnick (1987), scores on science and social studies comprehension
tests given in the classroom rather than in the reciprocal teaching
laboratory also rose significantly for the experimental subjects.

In terms of the relationship of writing to thinking, Nickerson has
stated that: “Writing is viewed not only as a medium of thought but also as
a vehicle for developing it' (Nickerson, 1984, pp. 33). It is the robust
nature of the difficulty of the writing task that renders it a powerful tool for
enhancing thinking. By definition, the composing process is a highly-
complex cognitive task. For example, in a study of writing performance
within a number of disciplines, (Perkins, 1981) found that the ability to
produce final copy easily and on the first draft is rare even among
professionals.

In a series of studies Flower and Hayes (1980a, 1980b, 1981)
developed a model for the writing process. Although it has been criticized
(Cooper & Holzman, 1983), it is still the most widely cited. As Applebee

(1984) noted, it is the “most thoroughly formalized model of the writing

61

process” (p.582). Flower and Hayes characterized writing as a set of
iterative, recursive phases, which include planning, translating and
reviewing, all of which are under the control of an executive monitor.
Vlfithin each phase the writer is continually weighing the effects of current
decisions on those previously made. The longer the process continues
and the more the quantity of written discourse increases, the more
interdependency is effected. Over time the process becomes one of
making decisions based on increasingly more numerous and complex
conditions.

From this perspective, writing is one of the most taxing of cognitive
acts because it maximizes the load of information that must be maintained
in working memory during its execution. Presumably, practice in writing
should enhance performance in any cognitive process in which executive
control over a number of variables is a factor (e.g., some forms of problem
solving); however, not all forms of writing instruction will enhance such
executive control. Specifically, in his meta-analysis of writing research,
Hillocks (1986) concluded that it is only when teachers plan instructional
activities that result in a high level of student autonomy and interaction
about the problems faced in composing that writing instruction has a
powerful effect on student thinking. Hillocks referred to this as the
environmental mode of instruction.

Research in general seems to suggest that there is a strong

relationship between the teaching of the four language components and

62

thinking skills. Thinking seems to be inherent in almost all activities
encompassing the four language components. However, merely planning
and teaching these four language components in classrooms do not seem
to guarantee the development of student thinking. As Hillocks (1986)
suggested, only deliberate attempts by teachers to provide high level of
student autonomy and interaction seems to have an effect on students’

thinking abilities.

The Approaches, Strategies, And Techniques Used

One reason teaching strategy is important in teaching is that, by
adopting a certain strategy, the teacher models a certain role for students
(Stemberg & Spear-Swening, 1996). This role modeling conveys,
sometimes unwittingly, implicit messages to students. If the messages are
of the wrong kind, then the teaching may not only be ineffective, it may
actually be harmful. In some instances, the explicit messages may even
contradict an implicit one (e.g., as in our anecdote about the
mathematical-methods course, or when a teacher encourages students to
give their opinions on an issue and then shoots down opinion unlike his or
her own).

Taking off from the contention that a major source of failure in
teaching thinking could be the teaching style, Stemberg and Martin

(1988) considered three different styles in which teaching can take place

63

in classrooms. The first style is a lecture-based or didactic style. The
teacher presents the material to be Ieamed, and the students are
expected to absorb it. There is very little teacher-student interaction. The
second style is a fact-based questioning approach. The teacher asks
many questions of the students, but these questions are designed
primarily to elicit facts, and feedback from the teacher tends to take the
form of responses such as ‘right,’ ‘wrong,’ ‘good,’ and so on. In the second
style, there is a great deal of teacher-student interaction, but the
interaction is brief and there is very little follow-up to individual questions.

The third style is a thinking-based questioning approach, or what
might be termed a dialogical approach. This approach encourages
dialogue between teachers and students and between students and
students. In this style, teachers ask questions to stimulate thought and
discussion. There is generally no one right answer to these questions,
and so feedback like ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is not and generally could not be
given. Instead, teachers tend to comment on or add to what students have
said, and mayleven change stands on an issue or play the devil’s
advocate.

It has to be noted that each of these styles has a somewhat
different purpose. The dialogical style (style 3) is useful for encouraging
class discussion, but most importantly for present purposes, it is by far the
most useful style for stimulating higher-order thinking (Stemberg and

Martin, 1988, p.560). They concluded that,

64

Our observations of classrooms tell us that by far the greatest
proportion of teaching takes place in Style 1, and most of the
remainder of the teaching is in Style 2. Relatively little of the
teaching that goes on in most classes takes place in Style 3.
Hence, we would argue, relatively little of the teaching that goes on
in the classroom directly encourages higher-order thinking. It would

be easy merely to blame the teacher for dwelling on Styles 1 and 2

to the exclusion of Style 3, but the issue is not this simple (p. 560).

They concluded that, “Relatively little of the teaching that goes on
in the classroom directly encourages higher-order thinking (p.560).”
Teachers who taught these classes, however, felt that they were actually
teaching for thinking. This was also true with other audience in their
research. They reported that, “Virtually all teachers believe that they
teach for thinking” (p.555).

The problem here is that there seems to be a clear cognitive
dissonance between what teachers believe about teaching thinking and
what they are actually doing in their classrooms. Although, Spear and
Stemberg (1987, cited in Stemberg and Martin, 1988, p.557) have
contended that one major source of failure in teaching thinking relates to
teaching style, the cognitive dissonance found among teachers may be
the result of assuming that ‘good’ thinking is the by-product of effective
teaching and Ieaming.

The most frequently used classroom method of enhancing thinking
is questioning, although it is only recently that we have developed a

thorough understanding of the nature and use of classroom questions

(Marzano, 1993). Specifically, we know that, in general, teachers ask far

65

more questions than they are aware of. To illustrate, elementary teachers
who thought they were asking 12 to 20 questions every half hour were
actually asking 45 to 150 questions (Nash & Shiman, 1974). For many
researchers, the ‘essential teaching exchange’ is that sequence of moves
describable as ‘question-answer-commentlevaluation’ or in more abstract
form, ‘initiation-response-evaluationlfeedback (IRE, or IRF) (Edwards &
Westgate, 1 994).

There is some evidence that asking questions improves students’
comprehension and retention of content (Yost, Avila & Vexler, 1977).
When questions are given after content has been presented and students
are required to construct answers rather than select from among
themselves, the benefits tend to be the strongest (Christembury & Kelly,
1983). Higher-Level questions also appear to be instrumental in
enhancing student thinking (Redfield & Rousseau, 1981) although there is
considerable disagreement as to what constitutes higher-level questions
(Fairbrother, 1975; Wood, 1977). One powerful distinction is that between
recitation questions (those requiring students to simply retrieve
information previously Ieamed) and construction questions (those
requiring students to construct new ideas or conclusions relative to
information in long term memory).

van Zee and Minstrell (1997) examined ways in which Minstrell,
one of the researchers, used questions to guide student thinking during a

class discussion about measurement. The interactional issues involved

66

ways of speaking that enabled Minstrell’s students to develop shared
understandings. They examined Minstrell’s questioning during a
discussion that involved complex changes in students’ thinking. In
analyzing Minstrell’s questioning, they focused on a particular kind of
question that the teacher used to try to give students responsibility for
thinking, a reflective toss. A reflective toss sequence typically consisted of
a student statement, teacher question, and additional student statements.

They found that the reflective tosses they used served three
emergent goals. The first was the use of questions to help students make
their meanings clear (e.g., clarifying the meaning of what had just been
said, bringing student knowledge into public view, prompting articulation
of the focal issue by a student, and emphasizing an explicit procedure).
The second theme was the use of questions to help students consider a
variety of views in a neutral manner (e.g., engaging students in evaluating
a proposed method for themselves, providing multiple opportunities for
student judgments, fostering a respectful environment for statement of
beliefs, engaging students in comparing methods, asking students to ,
validate an apparent consensus, fostering a respequ environment for
statements of changes in beliefs, engaging students in evaluating
altemative methods, and asking students to generate contexts for
considering an issue).

The third theme was the use of questions to help students monitor

the discussion and their own thinking (e.g., encouraging students to

67

monitor what was happening and encouraging students to monitor their
understanding of a classmate’s thinking). For example, when a student
produced an example, the teacher, who was one of the researchers,
asked the others (e.g., “Does that make sense?”) to monitor whether they
understood and accepted the argument offered by their classmate. Such
questions seem to instantiate his belief that teachers should involve
students in following actively whatever is being said, whether the speaker
is a student or the teacher.

To make sure they are enhancing higher-order thinking, many
teachers rely on classification systems or taxonomies that differentiate the
levels of thought various questions elicit. By far the most popular system
for classifying questions is Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, 8. Krathwohl’s
(1956) taxonomy. Most educators are aware of Bloom’s six levels of
cognitive processing: knowledge; comprehension; application; analysis;
synthesis; and evaluation. Presumably, as one asks questions at the
higher levels of the taxonomy, more sophisticated levels of thought are
elicited. Unfortunately, this assumption is not supported by much of the
research on the taxonomy. It has been shown that teachers have little
success differentiating one level from another, specifically at the higher
levels (Ennis, 1981; Wood, 1977). For example, when asked to determine
whether a specific question was an example of an analysis question or an

evaluation question, teachers disagreed more often than not.

68

Metacognitive approaches could also play an important role in
enhancing thinking in language classroom. Metacognition as defined by
Flavell (1976, 1977, 1978) refers to one’s knowledge concerning one’s
own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them. Brown
(1978) breaks metacognition into two components: awareness and control
of the factual or declarative knowledge necessary to complete a specific
task and awareness and control over the necessary processes or
procedural knowledge to complete a task.

Hayes and Flower (1980) model of writing is the monitor that exerts
executive or metacognitive control over the component processes. Key to
this metacognitive control of the task is goal setting. Specifically, writers
translate high-level goals into subgoals. The result is that subgoals tend
to pile up creating a potential overload on working memory (Flower &
Hayes, 1981). The writer, in turn, develops strategies for handling this
“memory overload” condition taking advantage of situations where the
creation of one subgoal generates an opportunity for the completion of
another (Hayes-Roth & Hayes-Roth, 1979). Thus, the generation of
subgoals in the writing process is dynamic rather than a priori
(Matsuhashi, 1982). The result is that high-level goals are sometimes
replaced by subgoals generated relatively late in the writing process.
Thus, the end product of the composing process is often a surprise to the

writer (Murray, 1978).

69

It is the metacognitive ability to monitor this highly complex process
of juggling goals and subgoals that separates the writing of skilled versus
novice writers and the writing of adults from that of children (Scardamalia,
Bereiter & Steinbach, 1984). However, it has been shown that children’s
metacognitive control over goals can be improved by giving them verbal
prompts about possible next steps in the writing process as they “think
aloud” While engaged in the task (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1982;
Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1982, 1985).

The influence of the research and theory on metacognition in the
language arts is also evidenced in the literature on reading (Paris, Lipson
& ston, 1983). Parallels have been drawn between metacognition in
reading and metacognitive behavior in other disciplines such as
mathematics, memory and problem solving (Brown, 1975; Kail & Hagen,
1982; Resnick & Ford, 1981; Siegler, 1983). The strategic reader, like the
strategic mathematician or problem solver, juggles goals and subgoals
relative to the purpose of reading, the changing nature of the text, and the
extent to which information is new or old (Clark 8. Haviland, 1977).

Research also seems to suggest the use of componential
. approaches in teaching thinking. Componential approaches to teaching
thinking are those that attempt to develop specific cognitive operations.
Although many componential approaches also enhance metacognition, it
is not a necessary by—product of such approaches. That is, specific

cognitive operations can be enhanced without enhancing a general

70

knowledge and control of self and task. Componential approaches stress
Ieaming tactics rather than Ieaming strategies. There are many
componential approaches to teaching thinking that can be classified as
eclectic - they employ multiple tactics but draw their components from
various models of Ieaming and intelligence as opposed to a single model.

Included in such programs are Project Intelligence and BASICS.
Begun in 1979, Project Intelligence was a joint effort by researchers at
Harvard University, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc., and the Venezuelan
Ministry of Education to develop methods and materials that enhance the
ability of students to perform a wide variety of cognitive operations
including inferential use of information in long-term memory, hypothesis
generation, predicting, classifying, problem solving, and decision making
(Nickerson et al., 1985). The backbone of the program is approximately
100 lessons aimed at teaching and reinforcing these tactics.

The materials were initially tested using 12 experimental and 12
control classes. All participating classes were designated by Venezuelan
authorities as being part of “Barrio” schools, indicating that students came
from families of low-socioeconomic status and minimal parental
education. A variety of tests were administered to both groups including a
number of general-abilities tests and some special-abilities tests
developed by researchers to measure specific skills within the program.
As summarized by Nickerson et al., (1985), in the large majority of cases

the gains shown by students in the experimental group were greater than

71

those shown by the control. The differences were both statistically
significant and substantial in size especially for the special abilities tests.

A number of componential approaches emphasize a single
cognitive operation which is directly or indirectly related to some model of
intelligence or Ieaming (Marzano, 1991). Mnemonic devises, for example,
are Ieaming tactics that enhance the recall of information (Belleza, 1981).
A number of studies have shown rather dramatic effects on recall
performance when using such mnemonic devices as the method of loci
(Ross & Lawrence, 1968), the peg-word mnemonic (Bugelski, 1968), the
link mnemonic (Delin, 1969), and the story mnemonic (Bower, 1972;
Bower & Clark, 1969).

Comparing is another tactic which is identifying and articulating the
similarities and differences between elements. It is basic to many other
cognitive operations and one of the first steps in higher forms of analysis
(Feuerstein et al., 1980). Although the difficulty of a comparison task is
partially a function of the individual’s knowledge of the content being
compared (Mandler, 1983), skill at comparing can be improved. For
example, Raphael and Kirschner (1985) found that students’
comprehension, and their production of comparative written summaries,
improved when they were taught specific types of comparison structures
(e.g., whole/whole, part/part and mixed).

Classifying also is a central component of many theories of

cognition and Ieaming. For example, Nickerson et al., (1985) along with

A

72

others (Mervis, 1980; Smith & Medin, 1981) have asserted that the ability
to form conceptual categories is so basic to human cognition that it can
be considered a necessary condition of thinking. To classify, individuals
must be able to identify the common features or attributes of various
entities which form a group or groups. There is evidence that young
children can categorize information with which they are very familiar but
have difficulty using categorization as a tool for processing unfamiliar
content unless they receive explicit instruction to do so (Moely, 1977).
Jones, Amiran and Katims (1985) found that students’ ability at
categorizing can be improved with explicit instruction, yet extended
practice and feedback is needed for transfer to occur.

Closely related to classifying is ordering, which is sequencing or
ordering entities on selected characteristics or attributes. Although Piaget
concluded that children do not usually master ordering until the concrete
operational stage, usually about age 7 or 8 (Piaget & Szeminska, 1941 ),
Feuerstein et al., (1980) found that low-achieving and very young children
can develop competence in ordering tasks when specific tactics are
reinforced. Similarly, matrix outlining strategies have proven to be
effective tools for enhancing the ability to order.

One could also include the summarizing tactic in language
teaching to enhance thinking. Brown, Campione and Day (1981) used a
rule-based approach to summarizing which includes deleting trivial and

redundant material, substituting superordinate terms for lists and

 

 

73

selecting or inventing a topic. Their research suggests that younger and
low-achieving students have difficulty using these rules especially the last
one, which requires them to select or invent a topic. Often, they will select
what interests them rather than what is a good organizer for the
information that is to be summarized. McNeil and Donant (1982) found
that sixth graders could be taught to use summarization rules that
significantly affected their comprehension scores.

Note taking is another tactic which could also be used by teachers.
DiVesta and Gray (1972) found that note taking provides both encoding
and storage functions. It aids the learner in creating a macro-structure for
information and provides a form of external storage for later review. In
' general, results of note taking have shown better recall of information at a
time proximal to the presentation of the information, but there have been
mixed results at distal points (Peper & Meyer, 1978; Barnett, DiVesta &
Rogozinski, 1981). More specifically for language arts, a number of
studies have demonstrated its effect on recall for information in notes
although instruction in note taking does not insure that students will
identify important information on which to take notes (Einstein, Morris &
Smith, 1985).

Finding the main idea is another cognitive process that includes
the properties of analysis. Although main idea as a construct is not well-
defined, Jones, Palincsar, Ogle, & Carr (1987) found that informal oral

summarizing can be effectively elicited from students before, during, and

74

after reading text segments via teacher- and student-directed questions
that focus attention on the subordinate and superordinate structure of the
discourse.

Extending tactics are also considered to be effective in enabling
the learner to go beyond what is explicitly stated in textual information
(Marzano, 1991). In recent years, a number of types of information-
shaping and extending tactics have been identified. Most of them fall
within the general rubric of inference. For example, many typologies and
thinking skills programs have defined various types of inductive and
deductive tactics (Nickerson et al., 1985; Costa, 1985b). Many of these
are based on inductive and deductive rules from syllogistic models.
lnstructionally, extending is commonly reinforced by presenting students
with tactics for creating analogies and metaphors. They have been shown
to be powerful cognitive tools in developing ideas in oral discourse, in
composing, and in creative thinking (Bransford, Sherwood, Rieser & Vye,
1986; Mayer, 1984, Weinstein & Mayer, 1986).

A number of approaches to teaching thinking are heuristically
based. Heuristics are general rules that, when followed, increase the
likelihood of success at a given task. At their core, heuristic approaches
provide the learner with actions that, when followed, increase the
likelihood of successful completing specific cognitive operations. Heuristic

approaches differ from componential approaches in that they are more

75

“macro” in nature; they deal with more global cognitive operations
(Marzano, 1991).

Although heuristics have been developed for a number of cognitive
operations (e.g., Beyer, 1988), problem solving and decision making are
commonly the focus of heuristically-based approaches. Both problem
solving and decision making have been identified as central to cognition
of all types (Anderson, 1982, 1983; Rowe, 1985). Studies on expert
versus novice approaches to problem solving indicate that experts differ
from novice problem solvers in their knowledge and use of general
problem-solving heuristics such as devising a plan, representing the
problem, carrying out a plan, and checking results (Gick & Holyoak, 1980;
Schoenfeld, 1980; Simon, 1980). Schoenfeld (1983a, 1983b) stressed
that expert problem solvers are better than novice problem solvers even
when dealing with problems outside of their domain of expertise, because
they use their general problem-solving heuristics better.

Most programs that attempt to foster thinking use a problem-
solving orientation (Marzano, 1991). For example, Wales and Stager
(1977) have developed a heuristically-based approach to enhancing
problem solving and decision making that they refer to as Guided Design.
Guided Design has been offered in high schools and colleges as a course
to accompany a wide variety of disciplines (e.g., the humanities, the social

sciences, the physical sciences and engineering).

76

Using freshmen in engineering at West Virginia University, Wales
(1979) found increases in grade point averages after four years even after
controlling for grade inflation. As described by Resnick:

Before the introduction of Guided Design, engineering students’

average freshman GPA’s were well below the university average;

after Guided Design, their GPA’s were well above the average.

Students who had participated in the Guided Design program as

freshman also had higher four-year GPA’s than students who had

not participated (1987, p.21 ).

Many of the processes within the CoRT Thinking Program (de
Bono, 1976, 1983, 1985) also can be classified as decision-making and
problem-solving heuristics. The materials are content free as possible,
reflecting de Bono’s desire to develop heuristics for “real life” thinking
versus artificial, academic situations. Although it is probably the most
widely used program for teaching thinking, CoRT has not been
extensively evaluated (Resnick, 1987). De Bono (1976), however,
reported several experiments involving idea counts contrasting students
who had received CoRT instruction with control groups. Results indicated
that CoRT instruction leads to the production of more ideas and a more
balanced and less egocentric view of problems.

The componential and heuristic approaches discussed so far are
rooted in psychology and focus on fairly specific cognitive operations.
There is also another important component in the area of teaching

thinking, the critical thinking skills. Critical thinking approaches are rooted

in philosophy and attempt to enhance use of formal logic and dispositions

77

of thought neither of which are easily reduced to a series of steps. Many
nineteenth-century logicians regarded logic as providing the basis of
everyday reasoning. That is, they assumed that one is always using logic
to make decisions, solve problems, and complete tasks. However, in
recent years a number of studies have shown that, in everyday thinking,
highly intelligent individuals often fall prey to a variety of errors in logic
(Perkins, Allen & Hafner, 1983).

Some critical thinking programs have attempted to develop mental
logic through the teaching of syllogistic rules of reasoning. For example,
Instrumentation Enrichment (Feuerstein et al., 1980) contains instruments
that deal with syllogisms. Similarly, Philosophy for Children (Lipman,
Sharp & Oscanyan, 1980) includes exercises in syllogistic reasoning.
More commonly, though, critical-thinking programs include practice in
recognizing informal fallacies (e.g., the gamblers fallacy, equivocation)
that purportedly introduce error into one’s normally error-free system of
mental logic (Negin, 1987).

The other approach to teaching critical thinking is dispositional in
nature. Dispositions are habits of thought, cognitive “mental sets” for
specific situations (Resnick, 1987). There have been a number of
attempts to identify the dispositions of effective reasoning. For example,
building on the work of Dewey (1983), Baron (1985) identified a number
of dispositions for “good thinking.” These include such mental habits as

recognizing a sense of disequilibrium or doubt, identifying goals,

78

searching for evidence, and revising one’s plans when appropriate.
Similarly, Ennis (1985) identified a set of critical thinking dispositions that
include many of Baron’s along with seeking precision, looking for
alternatives, and seeing others point of view.

One model for enhancing critical thinking dispositions is
Philosophy for Children (Lipman et al., 1980). Relative to other programs,
Philosophy for Children is one of the most thoroughly evaluated (Chance,
1986). For example, Haas (in Chance, 1986) studied the effects of
Philosophy for Children on 200 fifth and sixth graders over a six-month
period while 200 students from other schools acted as controls. A
comparison of reading scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test
revealed that those who had studied Philosophy for Children gained an
average of 8 months in reading ability, while the comparison subjects
advanced 5 months in the same time. Two years after the study, the
experimental group had significantly-higher reading scores in the Iowa
Achievement Test even though the two groups were not significantly
different at pretesting. The program also has produced positive effects on
student participation in class, social behavior and motivation (Chance,

1 986).
Closely related to critical thinking is creative thinking. Creative
thinking is geared more toward the production of information whereas
critical thinking is geared more toward the analysis of information. Many

approaches to enhancing creativity focus on solving novel and sometimes

79

unstructured problems in new and unusual ways. For example, two
international, interscholastic competitions, the Future Problem Solving
Program (Crabbe, 1982; Torrance, 1980) and Olympics of the Mind
(Gourley, 1981) use a problem-solving format to enhance creative
thinking.

In a review of 166 experimental studies of teaching creativity skills
at elementary and secondary levels since 1972, Torrance (1986) found
that 17 percent used some type of creative problem—solving process
similar to those used in Olympics of the Mind and Future Problem
Solving. Torrance reported that other approaches included the use of
media and reading, the creative arts, training in affective components,
tactics to effect altered awareness, and packaged materials. Of these, the
creative problem-solving approaches had a 77 percent success rate.

Critical and creative thinking are grounded inthe language arts in
a variety of ways. Language-arts teachers, for example, have traditionally
used oral and written language as tools for enhancing critical and creative
thought. Similarly, Socratic questions that induce thoughtful student
response, large and small group discussions, in-depth analysis of text,
the study of language in relation to nonprint media, propaganda, and
persuasion, among others, have been means to this end. Indeed, critical
and creative thought are at the very core of literacy (Marzano, 1991).

Defined in the “IoW’ senses, literacy is the ability to read and write

In a manner consistent with the adult norms in a society (Resnick, 1987).

80

However, defined in the “high” sense, literacy includes many of the critical
and creative- thinking skills and dispositions (Resnick, 1987). The high
literacy tradition has emphasized critical and creative thinking under the
general rubric of rhetorical invention (Clanchy, 1983; Clifford, 1984).
Kinneavy’s (1980) work on the invention process is of particular
importance here. Also, included in the high literacy tradition are new
theories of the nature and process of reading.

Strategies and techniques are important for teachers to create a
conducive Ieaming environment for the teaching of thinking (Costa,
1985c; Stemberg and Spear-Swerling, 1996). Only deliberate attempts by
teachers to create a classroom discourse where there is increased
student autonomy and interaction seem to promote the acquisition of
higher-order thinking skills by the students (Barell, 1991; Bereiter and
Scardamalia, 1987; and Hillocks, 1986). Discussion is often suggested as
a preferred method (Eisner, 1983: Ennis, 1985; Paul, 1985; Perkins,
1987). Dillon (1984) distinguishes between recitation and discussion
calling for higher cognitive skills than recitation. He states, however, that
there is little empirical research on discussion. Bridges (1979) point out
the necessity of dispositions such as openness and respect for others as
necessary conditions for a discussion.

In order to stimulate true discussion in the classroom, researchers

seem to recommend the following key characteristics be kept in mind

when planning the discussion: students should speak half or more of the

81

time of matters higher-cognitive abilities; the predominant exchange
pattern should be a mix of questions and statements by a mix of students
and teacher; the sequence should be a mix of teacher-student, student-
teacher, and student interactions; and the overall pace should be fewer,
longer, and slower exchanges than in a recitation (Dillon, 1988). It also
seems important that teachers plan to use primarily higher cognitive-level
questions as the basis for encouraging student interaction and reflective
thought.

One way to engage students in taking more responsibility for
thinking is to ask more open questions and to acknowledge student
contributions in a neutral rather than evaluative manner(van Zee and
Minstrel, 1997). Group work, cooperation, and teacher questioning have
all been proposed as important components of teaching thinking skills
(Dillon, 1984; George, 1984). Smith (1977) studied college classroom
environments and found critical thinking to be related to peer interaction,
teacher support, and teacher questioning. In a review of studies of wait-
time (i.e., the time that elapses between the teacher’s asking and the
student’s answering of a question) in elementary, middle, and high school
classrooms, Tobin (1987) reports that the teacher’s increase in wait-time
has been related to higher student achievement scores.

In a meta-analysis of teacher questioning, Redfield and Rousseau

(1981) conclude that higher cognitive questioning yields higher student

achievement. Questions, both from the teacher and students, encourage

82

active student participation. They define higher cognitive questions as
those “requiring that students mentally manipulate bits of information
previously Ieamed to create or support an answer with logically reasoned
evidence“ (1981, p. 237). They looked at experiments of teacher training
and the teaching of skills. In both, the positive effect of higher cognitive
questioning on student achievement was evident.

Teachers can organize their classrooms in a variety of ways to
facilitate students becoming actively - not passively - involved in thinking.
This might include teacher led, Socratic-type discussions, individual
manipulations, and cooperative small-group or total group investigations.
These features of classroom organizations are prime factors in creating
the kind of classroom atmosphere for thinking (Swartz and Perkins, 1989).

Of all the various patterns of classroom organization that a teacher
might use, some achieve better results than others for certain students, at
certain grade levels, and for certain goals of instruction. Group work, for
example, is characterized by subdivision of the class into work groups or
committees. Objectives for the group may be assigned, roles in the group
(such as chairperson, recorder, process observer, etc.) may be clarified,
and standards for harmonious group work may be set. While the groups
are working, the teacher monitors their progress. This organizational
pattern has great advantages for developing thinking skills. The Johnsons

found that when students work cooperatively in groups, increased

reasoning strategies and greater critical thinking competencies result than

83

in competitive or individualistic settings (Johnson, Johnson and Holubec,
1990).

What seems Important is that teachers need to exploit the potential
of these strategies and techniques to cater for student thinking. What this
entails is that teachers are aware of the potential of the strategies and
actually use them in their own classrooms. If teachers consciously make
attempts even the simplest type of a strategy could be used for the
promotion of higher-order thinking skills. Perkins (1992), for example,
suggests that if teachers use the constructivist approach, even when the
task is sheer memorization, the learner plays a very active role, struggling
to understand, formulating tentative conceptions, testing those

conceptions out on further instances.

Analytic Summary

Available evidence seems to support the argument that teachers
need a deep understanding of the subject matter, i.e., English Language
or the Malay Language, to be able to teach. There is also evidence to
support the argument that teachers’ own subject matter knowledge
influences their efforts to help students Ieam the subject matter. Besides
the subject matter knowledge, teachers also need pedagogical skills to

teach the subject matter to the students. Teachers need to be able to

84

construct the pedagogical content knowledge to teach the subject matter
to the students.

When it comes to the teaching of higher-order thinking skills in
language classrooms, teachers need a deep understanding of the English
Language or Malay Language, and higher-order thinking skills to be able
to teach both of them in their classrooms. They also need to be able to
construct the pedagogical content knowledge, not only for the teaching of
English Language or Malay Language, but also for teaching higher-order
thinking skills. Since higher-order thinking skills and Malay or English
Language are both taught together (i.e., using the infusion approach)
teachers need to be able to construct the specific pedagogical content
knowledge necessary to teach higher-order thinking skills in their Malay
or English Language classrooms. Although there is literature available on
how teachers construct the pedagogical content knowledge to teach
language arts, there seems to be no studies which have attempted to
investigate how teachers construct pedagogical content knowledge to
teach higher-order thinking skills. For that matter, no studies have so far
seem to have attempted to investigate how teachers jointly construct
pedagogical content knowledge for teaching language arts and higher-
order thinking skills in their classrooms.

Available evidence also suggests that teachers need to possess

the right attitude and beliefs necessary to teach higher-order thinking

skills and Malay or English Language. This is because teachers’ views of

85

teaching and Ieaming influence their classroom practice. It has been
shown that what teachers think of their students also influences their
teaching, and in this case the teaching of higher-order thinking skills in
language classrooms. There also seems to be a serious need for
teachers to change their beliefs so that students could be prepared to
gradually take over all the goal-setting, context-creating, motivational,
analytical, and inferential actions which are usually done by the teachers.

The literature reviewed also suggest that the teaching of higher-
order thinking skills and the teaching of language arts are very closely
related. Some even argue that the proper teaching of Malay or English
Language is equivalent to, or sufficient for, promoting higher-order
thinking. There is also evidence to suggest that language abilities and
thinking competencies shape each other. In relation to this, there seems
to be a need for teachers to exploit the four language components, i.e.,
listening, speaking, reading, and writing, to promote thinking skills among
students. Thinking seems to be inherent in almost all activities
encompassing the four language components.

The literature reviewed provides various approaches, strategies
and techniques which could be used by teachers through the four
language components to promote higher-order thinking skills among
students. It seems obvious that conscious efforts on the part of teachers

to use various strategies and techniques to promote higher-order thinking

skills among students have shown positive results. Conscious efforts by

teachers, especially by using some specific strategies and techniques,
also seem to be one of the prerequisites to creating a conducive Ieaming
environment for the teaching and Ieaming of higher-order thinking skills in
Malay or English Language classrooms. Evidence also suggest that it is
important to change the perceptions of students to the

different teaching styles to promote their participation in the teaching and

Ieaming activities.

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH PROCEDURES

Methodological Choice
There are clearly many advantages and shortcomings of both
qualitative and quantitative methods. The main advantage of qualitative
research is that it can provide a richer and deeper understanding of a
situation. Moreover, many skills are executed in a very different way in
context than in a sterile laboratory environment. However, qualitative
methods usually suffer from subjective interpretation and nonreplicability.
Quantitative methods, on the other hand, have the advantage of
objectivity and replicability, but the shortcoming is that at best one can
only make conclusions about the specific hypothesis at hand.
Furthermore, the sterile laboratory environment of experimental studies
limits the generalization of the results to a real-world context. Clearly,
there is a need to blend the two methods in such a way as to remove
each method’s shortcomings (Chi, 1997).
I chose a research design which has both the quantitative and
qualitative methods, to pay attention to both the depth and the breadth of
the issue at hand. I needed to employ quantitative methods to cover also
we breadth, in view of the policy implications the findings of this study
could bring. At the same time, I employed qualitative methods, which

a I lowed me to get closer to practice than has typically been the case to

‘ 87

 

 

88

date in order to witness what the practitioners do and to understand the
choices they make and the personal meanings they attach to what they
do. However, data from both these sources, in my opinion, will be inter-

complimentary in offering rich explanations of the data.

Sources of Data Collection

context.

A school district in Malaysia which has both rural and urban
schools was selected for the purpose of this study. This was done to
ensure that the data collected do not only represent either the rural or
urban schools. Both the rural and urban schools possess many distinct
characteristics of their own. These characteristics include school’s
physical setting, resources, socio-economic status of students, and
teachers’ beliefs which may contribute very differently to the data. There
is also a better possibility of this school district representing majority of
the school districts in the country where there are both urban and rural
schools.

The Perdana School District which has a total of 22 secondary

schools, and is in the central part of the peninsula, was selected for this
investigation. The schools were spread over an area of about 40 miles
radius. These 22 schools have a mix of public normal co-ed schools,

public boys or girls schools, public residential schools, public residential

89

religious schools, and public partial residential schools. In this array of
schools, the most common schools are the public co—ed schools. This is
followed by the public boys or girls schools. Students have equal assess
to all schools, except the residential and residential religious schools.
Entry into these two types of schools are by selection.

However, all of these schools use the same Integrated Curriculum
for Secondary Schools which has been formulated by the Curriculum
Development Center of the Ministry of Education in Malaysia. There are
individual syllabi for each of the school subjects, and there are also
curriculum specifications for each of the subjects to help teachers better
plan and teach their lessons. Students form the form two classes take a
total of eight or nine school subjects. The Malay Language is the National
Language and is a compulsory subject for all students. The English

Language is taught as the second language and is also a compulsory

subject.

People

...

All Malay and English Language teachers, a total of 135 of them,
teaching form two classes in this Perdana School District were involved in
this study. A total of 23 teachers, who represent 17 percent of all 135 form
two Malay and English Language teachers in this school district were
involved in the pilot study. The remainder of 112 teachers were involved

in I—SSponding to a survey questionnaire. Among them, 62 (55 percent)

90

were Malay Language teachers, and the rest 50 (45 percent) were
English Language teachers. I got back a total of 104 survey
questionnaires from the teachers which represents 93 percent of all
teachers given the questionnaires. Of this number, 57 or 54.8 percent
were Malay Language teachers, and the rest 47 or 45.2 percent of the
respondents were English Language teachers.

Two teachers, one each for Malay and English Language, from the
pool of 135 teachers were selected for the purpose of qualitative study.
Initially, during the pilot study of the questionnaire, and later during the
administration of the survey questionnaire, profiles of all form two Malay
and English Language teachers in the school district were collected from
the schools. I was looking for a pair of teachers who had graduated in or
after 1994 from any one of the teacher education colleges. The reason is,
only teachers who studied preservice teacher education courses and
graduated from teacher education colleges after this period would have
been formally exposed to the teaching of higher-order thinking skills
besides having been exposed to the teaching of school subjects. I
wanted to investigate the teaching of higher-order thinking skills in Malay

and English Language classrooms taught by teachers who have had
formal training to teach them in their classes. Also, I wanted to look for a
Pair who admit that they are making efforts to teach higher-order thinking

skills in their Malay or English Language classrooms.

91

From the profiles of teachers collected, it was found that there were
no one pair of Malay and English Language teachers who fulfilled this
criteria teaching forrn'two classes in any one of these schools. It was
particularly difficult to get English Language teachers who fulfill this
specific criteria. Even if they were there in the schools they were teaching
higher forms like form four or form five classes because of the high
demands for English Language teachers.

Besides the criteria that the teachers should have received some
kind of formal training in teaching higher-order thinking skills, I also
needed a pair who admit that they are making attempts to teach higher-
order thinking skills in their Malay or English Language classrooms. Also,
I needed a pair who were willing to allow me to be in their classrooms and
conduct participant observations, interview them, and interview selected
students from their four classes. I talked to teachers from different schools
who had received some sort of formal training to teach higher-order
thinking skills and were teaching Malay or English Language at form two
classes.

Finally, the pair which I selected consisted of one Malay and one
English Language teacher who are teaching form two classes at the
Pustaka Secondary school, which is one of the 22 schools in the Perdana

SChool District Aishah, the Malay Language teacher graduated from one

of the teacher education colleges in 1994, and has been exposed to the

   

92

teaching of higher-order thinking skills during her pre-service teacher
education course. Although Ambiga, the English Language teacher,

did not receive any formal training during her pre-service training in one
of the local universities, she did attend a staff development training
workshop conducted at her school for teachers to teach higher-order
thinking skills in their classrooms. Both of them admitted that they were
making attempts to teach higher-order thinking skills in their classrooms,
besides teaching Malay and English Language. Both of these teachers
were willing, without any form of pressure from any source, to allow me to
be in their classes and conduct all the things I needed to do for my
investigation.

Two classes for each of the teachers were also selected. I wanted
to select one higher level and another lower level class for each of the
teachers. The aim of this criteria was to investigate whether there were
qualitative differences in how teachers plan, teach, and handle students
from these classes. In total, I had four form two classes, two each for
Malay and English Language, for the purpose of conducting participant
observations. Eight to nine students were selected at random from each

of these classes for the purpose of interviewing them.

Besides 112 form two Malay and English Language teachers in the

Perdana School district, the two Malay and English Language teachers,
the four classes, and the 32 students from the Pustaka Secondary

School, four Ministry of Education and District Education officials who

93

were involved in the implementation of the higher-order thinking skills
program were also involved in this study. The first officer is Bakar, who is
the special project’s officer in-charge of thinking skills program at the
Curriculum Development Center of the Ministry of Education.

The second person is Lim, the officer in-charge of thinking skills
program at the pre—service teacher education unit of the Teacher
Education Division of the Ministry of Education. The third person is
Saleha, the officer in-charge of thinking skills program at the in-service
teacher education unit of the Teacher Education Division of the Ministry of
Education. The fourth person is Zaiton, who is the key-personnel in-
charge of providing training to teachers in the Perdana School District to
teach higher-order thinking skills in their respective classrooms. She
herself is the head of the social studies department of one of the

secondary schools in this Perdana School District.

Data Collection
The data for this study were collected between December 1996
and March 1997. I arrived in Malaysia at the end of December 1996 and
started doing all the necessary ground work to be able to visit schools
Mten schools reopen on the first week of January 1997. However, all the
papemork to obtain access to schools and subjects in the Perdana

School District in Malaysia started soon after my dissertation proposal

94

was approved by my Academic Guidance Committee at Michigan State

University in June 1996.

Process of obtaining access

Soon after my dissertation proposal was approved I started doing
all the paper work to obtain approval from the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) at Michigan State
University. Although I was going to conduct my data collection in
Malaysia, I needed to obtain approval from UCRIHS to ensure that issues
pertaining to human subjects, like anonymity and confidentiality, are
adequately addressed. I received the approval to conduct this research
from the UCRIHS on September 24, 1996 (Refer to Appendix F).

The subjects, the officers, teachers, and students, were provided
with pseudonyms and any identifying information (e.g., name of schools,
teachers, students in classrooms) about the subjects were deleted or
protected with pseudonyms. Reports and presentations of research
findings do not permit associating subjects with specific responses or
findings. The identities of the officers, teachers and students’ that are

discussed as part of the data collection have been kept confidential.

With the approval from the UCRIHS and my dissertation proposal I

applied to the Educational Planning and Research Division of the Ministry
Of" Education in Malaysia to conduct research in Malaysia. The Ministry of

Education did not have any objections to my study and granted

95

permission through a letter dated August 16, 1996 (Refer to Appendix F).
Soon after I arrived in Malaysia, I also needed to go to the relevant state
education department where Perdana School District was situated to
obtain their permission to have access to the 22 secondary schools,
teachers and students (Refer to Appendix F). I had to also go to the
Perdana School District Education Office to meet with the District
Education Officer to obtain her permission to conduct this study. I needed
to meet and obtain permission from the principals of the 22 schools in the
district before distributing the questionnaires to the teachers, and also to
obtain special permission from the principal of the Pustaka Secondary
School to conduct participant observations of selected classrooms, and
interviews with teachers and students in that school. I also made such
arrangements with the four ministry officials identified for this

investigation.

mm
As stated earlier, a combination of quantitative and qualitative
methods were used to collect data for this study. A survey questionnaire
(See appendix A) was used to collect data from the form two Malay and
English Language teachers in the Perdana School District to investigate
their perceptions of their knowledge, skills, and attitude to teach Malay or

English Language and higher-order thinking skills. Participant

96

observations of classroom teachings, interviews with teachers, students

and education officials were conducted to collect qualitative data.

urve uestionnaire

The survey questionnaire (Refer to Appendix A) has four sections
and a total of 80 items. The first section has 7 items to gather background
information of the teachers involved in this investigation. The second
section has 10 items based on three hypothetical lessons in three
different form two English Language classes. The main objective of the
lessons was to have the students write an essay on the topic, “Ways of
addressing the problem of juvenile crimes.“

The third section has a total of 56 items covering three sub-
sections, knowledge (16 items), skills (18 items), and attitude (2 items).
The items are divided equally for both the teaching Malay or English
Language and higher-order thinking skills. The fourth section has a total
of 7 items requiring teachers to state the percentage of the class time in a
selected classroom they allocate for teaching various aspects, including

the teaching of higher-order thinking skills.

Pilot study.
A pilot study of the survey questionnaire was conducted at the

beginning of this study. The aim of the pilot study was to test the survey

questionnaire for cultural and linguistic biases. Prior to this pilot study, the

97

survey questionnaire, which was originally prepared in English, was
translated into Malay Language, and later translated back into English
Language using the Malay Language version. Both the translations were
done by two different individuals who know and use both the languages.
The aim of this procedure was to minimize the possibilities of the two
versions of the questionnaire providing different meanings to their items.

When the pilot study questionnaires were distributed to the
teachers, I requested them to mark, in whatever ways they preferred on
the questionnaires, any words, phrases, or concepts which created any
doubts to them. Besides obtaining feedback from teachers by asking them
to mark the questionnaires, I also talked to majority of the teachers who
were involved in the pilot study after they have responded to the
questionnaires to obtain first-hand feedback. This information was very
useful to me in refining the survey questionnaire to obtain the final version
of it.

A total of 23 teachers from four schools were involved in this pilot
study. Of this number, 12 were Malay Language teachers, and the rest,
11 were English Language teachers. These teachers came from four
schools which were: public normal boys school; public normal girls
school; public normal co-ed school; and public partial residential school.

The pilot study was conducted during the first two weeks of January 1997.

98

Administration of survey Questionnaire.

The survey questionnaire was distributed to the rest of the schools.
I personally went to all the schools, met with the school principals, and
the respective heads of department for Malay or English Language to
distribute the instrument. I explained briefly the aim of the study, and also
the teachers’ rights and responsibilities in responding to the
questionnaire. It was explicitly stated that the teachers have the right to
decline to participate in this study. There was also mention of this
statement on the front page of the survey questionnaire (Refer to
Appendix A). Teachers were also assured that all information collected
through the survey questionnaire would only be used for the purpose of
the study, and would not in any way affect them.

I told the contact persons in each school that I would come back to
the schools at least two weeks after distributing the questionnaires to
collect them. This was to allow ample time for the teachers to respond to
the questionnaires. I did not want to add any form of pressure to their
routine responsibilities. I wanted the teachers to take their time to read
and ponder over the items and provide responses which best represent
their practice in their respective classrooms. I also requested that
teachers be allowed to respond to this questionnaire individually, and not
to entertain any request to have all teachers in one school gather to

respond to the questionnaire as a group.

99

I started contacting the schools, mostly through phones, after two
weeks to ask whether the teachers have completed and returned the
questionnaires to the contact persons. Most of the time I was assured that
the questionnaires will be ready when I reach the schools. However, I
ended up making an average of 4 visits to each school to collect these
questionnaires. This was one of the things which I realized did not go as
planned. Initially, I planned to make only two trips to each school, that is
to send and later collect the completed questionnaires. Although, the
teachers were given a minimum of two weeks, I found that not all of them
had returned the questionnaires to the contact persons when I arrived at
the schools. I had to make plans to go again and again to make sure that I
got back the questionnaires.

I did not in any way suggest that l was upset and expressed my
sincere hopes to have their responses back even if I needed to come
back a few more times. I think I succeeded in persuading the teachers by
giving them extra time. I ended up getting 93 percent of the survey
questionnaires distributed. On the whole, I found everyone providing full
cooperation in responding to the questionnaire, except for one school.
Only in one of the schools, when I contacted after two weeks, I was told
by the assistant principal of the school that the teachers were too busy
with their routine responsibilities, and were not interested in participating
in the study. Another reason why the teachers in this school suggested

that they were not interested in participating in this study is, as suggested

100

by the assistant principal, the close proximity of this school to a university

where the teachers are often involved in various investigations.

Participant Observations

Participant observations were conducted in four classes taught by
the two teachers at the Pustaka Secondary schools. This school only has
boys in classes up to the form five level. Only at the form six (pre-
university ) level there are boys and girls in the classes. There were two
form two Malay Language classes: Form 28, the second best class in
form two; and Form 2E, one of the lower level classes. Likewise, there
were two form two English Language classes: Form 2A, the best class in
form two; and Form 2|, one of the lower level classes. These classes had
an average of 40 students in each of them.

I conducted participant observations of the two English Language
classes before conducting the same for the Malay Language classrooms.
l deliberately planned it this way to focus on the teaching of English
Language in the two classes, and try to understand the nature of practice
in these classes before moving on to the Malay Language classes. For
each of the classes, I planned to follow at least one unit of study which
usually takes a week to observe the full coverage of all aspects planned
and taught in a week However, I managed to observe two units of study,
that lasted for two weeks, for each of these classes. The Malay Language

classes had a total of six teaching periods per class per week. Whereas,

101

the English Language classes had a total of five teaching periods per
class per week

I also conducted pre- and post teaching conferences with the
teachers for every class they taught. The pre-teaching conference was to
better understand their weekly, and daily plans for their classes. The post-
teaching conferences helped me to discuss with the teachers some of the
activities they conducted in their classes with particular focus on the
teaching of higher-order thinking skills. The teachers were very
cooperative in giving me the time to have this brief pre- and post teaching
conferences with them.

I sat at the back of the classes while conducting the observations. I
took field notes of all those which caught my attention in those classes. I
categorized the field notes into two categories: one the verbatim quotes;
and the other what I observed in the classes. The first was basically what
the teacher and students said. The second was all other things which I
observed in the classes, like how many of the students were paying
attention, how many were talking to their friends while their teacher was
teaching, and also how many were doing other things. My writing pad had
two columns to capture as much as possible for both the categories while
I was in those classes.

I also made audiotape recordings of all observations of the
classes. The audiotape was placed at a strategic place in the class where

it could capture the teacher's talk and most of students’ talk during the

102

class level teaching and Ieaming. The audiotape was placed randomly
among students in groups whenever there were small group discussions.
The students were initially a little self conscious about the tape recorder
placed near them. I found this not to be a problem starting the second or

third days in each of these classes.

Interviews

There were a total of 17 interviews conducted for the purpose of
this study (Table 1). Interviews with the Ministry of Education officials (3
out of the 4) were carried while I was conducting my pilot study of my
survey questionnaire and was gathering information about the teachers
who were teaching form two Malay and English Language in Perdana
School District. Two of these officials work at the Teacher Education
Division: one at the Pre—service Unit; and the other at the ln-service Unit,
of the Ministry of Education. The third ministry official worked at the
Curriculum Development Center and was one of the coordinators of

thinking skills program.

103

Table 1: Total number of Interviews conducted

 

The source No. of interviews

 

Ministry/District Officials

Teacher 1 (English Lang.)
Teacher 2 (Malay Lang.)
Student Group 1 (Eng. Lang.)
Student Group 2 (Eng. Lang.)
Student Group 3 (Malay Lang.)
Student Group 4 (Malay Lang.)

Newewwe
NNNNwa

 

Total 17

 

 

 

 

The interview with the Key-personnel of the Perdana School
District was conducted midway through the data collection process, that is
after I had conducted participant observations of the two English
Language classrooms, and before I started with the two Malay Language
classrooms. The semi-structured interviews with the ministry officials and
the key-personnel focused on the pre-service and in-service training
programs accorded to teacher educators and teachers to teach higher-
order thinking skills. The interview also focused on teachers’
preparedness to teach higher-order thinking skills in language
classrooms.

Interviews with teachers and students were conducted during the
time I conducted participant observations of the classes. The three
interviews with the English Language teacher, and the two interviews with

the Malay Language teacher were spread over the period during which I

104

observed their classes. The first interview was conducted a few days after
I started being in their classes, the second one midway along the period,
and the last one at the end of the observation period. However, due to
time constraint faced by the Malay Language teacher, her second and
third interviews were combined.

The semi-structured teacher interviews focused on their
preparedness in terms of knowledge and pedagogical skills to teach
higher-order thinking skills in their language classrooms. The first one
had a specific focus on their pre-service and in-service training to teach
higher-order thinking skills. The second interview focused specifically on
activities which they carried out in their classes and their relationships to
promoting higher-order thinking skills among students. This interview also
focused on various problems they faced in trying to teach both the higher-
order thinking skills and Malay or English language in their classrooms.

The third interview focused on their overall perceptions of their
teaching and Ieaming in the classes involved in the investigation in
relation to the teaching of higher-order thinking skills and Malay or
English Language. This also included their recommendations to train
teachers to teach higher-order thinking skills. Interviews with the English
Language teacher were conducted in English Language because the
teacher felt comfortable talking in English Language. However, the Malay

Language teacher preferred to use Malay Language.

105

There were a total of eight interviews conducted with the four
student groups (Table 1). Each of these student groups consisted of 8 to
9 students selected at random from each of the four classes. There were
two interviews with each of the groups. The first interview focused on
students’ views on the teaching and Ieaming processes in their Malay or
English Language classrooms in relation to acquiring higher-order
thinking, including the opportunities to participate and share ideas.

The second interview focused on whether the students were
capable of engaging in higher-order thinking, and whether or not they get
such opportunities in their classrooms. General discussion topics were
used for this purpose. Only the interviews with Student Group 1, who
come from a very good class, were conducted in English Language. The
interviews with Student Group 2, from a poor English Language class,
had to be conducted in Malay Language because of the low proficiency
level of students which seemed to discourage their participation in the
group interviews. The interviews with Student Groups 3 and 4 were also
conducted in Malay Language because students felt more confident

talking in Malay Language about their Malay Language classes.

Data management and analysis
I came back from my fieldwork with an huge amount of quantitative
and qualitative data. The next thing I had to do was to draw out a

comprehensive plan to organize my data. My plan needed to include how

106

l was going to organize both my quantitative and qualitative data. My
quantitative data, for example, needed to be coded and entered into a
statistical program for the purpose of running different statistical tests.
For the qualitative data, for example, I needed to find the means to
transcribe the interviews, and classroom observations. I also needed to
find ways to code my data. All this and other related procedures needed

an elaborate planning.

Quantitative data
I had a total of 104 survey questionnaires with responses from the

Malay and English Language teachers. I started to code each of the items
in the questionnaire. The survey questionnaire had a total of 80 variables
which include the background information, and responses for all the items
in five different sections (Refer to Appendix A). The variable number
seven, that is the training to teach higher-order thinking skills, for
example, had four items: diploma in education; post-graduate preservice
teacher education; staff development course; and no training. Each of the
items were coded using numbers from one to four, that is “diploma in
education” getting number 1, and “no training” getting number 4.

Once the coding procedures were complete, I started entering the
data into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Using the
coding guide which I developed, I made the entries for each of the 104

questionnaires. I personally made the entries which totaled 8320. While I

107

was making the entries, I cross—checked the entries after every five
questionnaires in order to be sure that the entries were correct. Even after
all the data entry had been completed, I picked 10 questionnaires at
random to compare the entries. In my opinion, all necessary measures
were taken to ensure the correct representation of the data at all stages of
the data entry.

Once the data entry was complete, I started to run basic statistical
tests, like frequencies, percentages, and standard deviation for each of
the variables. This provided me with the information to have a better
understanding of the data, and a better understanding of the
characteristics of the subjects involved in this study. After studying the
basic data in detail, I started to investigate the further statistical tests I
could run to answer my various research questions.

I noted all possible statistical tests which could be run to answer
each of my research questions. This test results were to complement the
qualitative data which I was analyzing at the same time. Based on the
need for each of the research questions, I conducted further statistical
tests such as Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), correlation of coefficient,
and multiple regression. The ANOVA tests helped me to establish
whether there were statistically significant differences among groups, like
the Malay and English Language teachers, for example, in responding to
the items. The correlation of coefficient tests provided the data to

establish whether there were relationships between how the subjects

108

responded to different items. The multiple regression tests, for example,
were useful in determining whether different aspects which were under
investigation had any significant influence on aspects like teachers’

perceptions of their knowledge, and skills.

Qualitative data
The first thing I did with my qualitative data was to attempt to

transcribe the interviews and the classroom observations. As stated
earlier, I had a total of 17 interviews with teachers, students, and ministry
and district officials. l transcribed in full a total of 9 interviews that were
conducted with teachers (5), and the ministry and district education
officials (4). However, I only transcribed parts directly relevant to my study
from interviews conducted with student groups (8). These segments to be
transcribed were carefully selected through careful listening of the audio-
recording of the interviews with students, the interview protocol, and the
field notes.

The same was done for the classroom observations. I had detailed
field notes of each of the classroom sessions. Based on the field notes,
careful listening of the audio—recording of the classrooms sessions, and
various research questions, relevant segments from these classroom
observations were identified to be transcribed. There was a need to select
relevant sections to be transcribed as there were long durations of silence

when students were doing their writing assignments. There were almost

109

no recordings of interactions during these periods. In total, I ended up
having a total of 280 pages of transcripts. The transcription of the
interviews and classroom observations were conducted in the same
languages as were used in the interviews and in classrooms. The English
or Malay Language used was maintained in order to maintain the
authenticity of the verbatims. However, all verbatim quotes used in the
reporting are translated into English Language.

Once the transcribing was complete, I started coding the data
using the research questions as a guide. I, initially, started coding the
data using four major themes: teachers’ perceptions about knowledge,
skills, and attitude; preparedness to teach; teaching of higher-order
thinking skills; and student participation. However, I realized the
importance to be more specific in my coding in order to use the data
effectively and exhaustively in my reporting. I, ultimately, enlisted nine
themes (Table 2) which could be used for the coding. These nine themes
were in line with my research questions. The reporting of the findings of

this investigation is also based on these nine themes.

110

Table 2 : The nine themes used for coding gualitative data

 

1. Teachers’ knowledge, skills and attitude

2. Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and Ieaming
3. Teachers’ perception of their students

4. How are higher-order thinking skills conceived?
5. Different strategies and techniques used

6. Questioning technique

7. Four language components

8. Student participation

9. Problems and prospects of teaching HOT Skills

 

 

 

I read very carefully all the transcripts and conducted the coding
using the nine themes stated above. Different codes were used to mark
the transcripts in order to make it easier for me to identify the relevant
segments when l was reporting the findings. For example, a code ‘1T1A1’
may appear on the data (Table 3). This code was devised to provide
information to me to understand the data whenever I looked at it. This

seemed very necessary when l was handling 280 pages of transcripts.

Table 3: The coding of the gualitative data

 

1 - the first of the nine questions

T - teacher

1 - teacher one of the two teachers
A - first of the two or three interviews
1 - page number of the transcript

 

 

 

Different codes were made on all of the 280 pages of transcripts.

However, for the purpose of simplifying the process of reporting, a

lll

summary for each of the nine themes was also produced. This summary
for each of the nine themes contained a brief description of the issue
being discussed, either in the interview or in the classroom observations
followed by the codes. To make it easier to identify the source of the data
on the summary, different colors were used to indicate the different
sources of the data. For example, ‘green’ was used for data from ministry
and district education officials, and red color was used for data from
classroom observations. These summaries for each of the nine themes
were very useful in organizing and writing the findings chapters of this
investigation.

Besides the field notes, and the transcripts of interviews and
classroom observations, memos I wrote during my field work were also
used while reporting the findings of this study. I wrote these memos while
I was conducting my data collection on a daily basis. For example, I wrote
a few memos while waiting to meet the school principals. These memos
involved aspects which were interesting in my data and were relevant to
my study. I also made it a point to write memos at the end of each day on
various aspects which relate to my study, like teachers’ comments in the
staff room, my communication with school teachers who were answering
my questionnaire, and the problems I encountered in my data collection

on that particular day.

112

Validity and Reliability of the Data

Respondent validation, which represents one kind of triangulation
(Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995), was used to validate the data. This
involved the checking of inferences drawn from one set of data sources
by comparing with other sources of data. More specifically, data source
triangulation involves the comparison of data relating to the same
phenomenon but deriving from different phases of the fieldwork, different
points in the temporal cycles occurring in the setting, or as in respondent
validation, the accounts of different participants differently located in the
setting.

The basic contention of the validation process is that data should
not be taken at face value. In this study, validation was conducted largely
in the form of cross reference between the different sources of data.
There are at least five major sources of data in this study, namely, the
quantitative data from the survey questionnaire, observation of classroom
teachings, teacher interviews, student interviews, and interviews with
ministry and district education officials. Each of the qualitative data
sources have sub-categories, like observation of classroom teachings (4
classrooms), teacher interviews (2 teachers), student interviews (4
groups), and ministry and district education officials (4 of them). It needs
to be noted that, in total, there are 15 different sources of data which

could be used for the purpose of cross-reference.

113

Besides this, there are also analytic memos, records of teachers’
weekly and daily lesson plans, and collection of all materials distributed to
students in the four classes. These documents could also provide the
necessary information to make cross-references of the inferences. For
example, when inference is made from any one of the teachers’ interview
data, cross-reference of the inference from the interview may be made
with interview data from another teacher, from the classroom teaching, the
ministry or district education officials’ data source, or with the responses
of teachers in the school district from the survey questionnaire.

Measures were also taken to ensure that the data collected were
reliable. For the quantitative data, a pilot study was conducted to treat the
instrument for the linguistic and cultural biases. A total of 23 teachers who
represent 17 percent of all teachers teaching Malay and English
Language in form two classes in the school district were requested to
respond to the pilot study questionnaire. Feedback obtained from this
teachers were used to improve the survey instrument in terms of the items
and languageuto ensure that if the instrument were to be used repeatedly
would produce similar results. This procedure was conducted for both the
Malay and English Language questionnaires.

The 56 items in the third section of the survey questionnaire (Refer
to Appendix A) provided the core data for this investigation. These items
which are in three different sub-sections, knowledge, skills, and attitude

were tested for reliability and had an Alpha level of .95 on the reliability

114

analysis. The 16 items on the knowledge sub-section had an Alpha of .92
on the reliability analysis. Whereas, the 18 items on the skills sub-section
had an Alpha of .95, and the 22 items in the sub-section on attitude had
an Alpha of .80 on the reliability analysis.

As for the qualitative data, the interviews which are self-reported
accounts, and classroom observations needed to be treated for reliability
too. Studies based on mainly on self-reported accounts, which is not the
case in this investigation, have sometimes been questioned regarding
their claim to represent reality (Little, 1990). In self-reported data people
sometimes create justifications for actions retrospectively, they add and
subtract critical details. This could have been a problem in this
investigation if there were only self-reported data. Besides the interviews,
there were classroom observations, analytic memos, teachers’ weekly
and daily plans, and quantitative data.

With the various sources of data at my disposal, I could test the
analytical linkages I made between the self-reported data vis-a-vis other
sources of data using the different sources of information. What I
gathered from teachers’ on their perceptions of their practices in
classrooms from the interviews, for example, I was able to cross-check
the data with what I observed in classrooms taught by these teachers.
Furthermore, my relationships with the subjects, the teachers, students,
and the officers, give me a reason to believe that in the interviews they

said what they wanted to, without entirely distorting their own ideas to fit

115

what they thought I wanted to hear. Also for the classroom observations,
the duration of time I spent in each of these classes provided me the
opportunity to identify the most consistent type of practices in these

classes.

Generalizability

As in any social science research, when characteristics of
individuals or events are comprehensively documented, and the research
procedures carefully described, readers can critically evaluate a study for
its generalizability and build an “inferential bridge” to illuminate their own
particular situations (Shulman, 1988). Readers of this study are expected
to do so, too. The four classrooms, the teachers, teaching and Ieaming
processes, and the students in those classrooms have been adequately
represented in the data. The data obtained from other sources like the
ministry and district education officials which relate to the above aspects
were also used in relevant contexts. All this, I hope, provide the readers
to build the inferential bridge.

Where the aim is generalization to some finite set of cases, it may
be possible to assess the typicality of the case or cases studied by
comparing their relevant characteristics with information about the target
population, if this is available in official statistics (Hammersley and
Atkinson, 1995). Comparisons of teachers’ perceptions of their

knowledge, skills and attitude, and their practice in classrooms were

116

compared whenever necessary with the quantitative data obtained from
the teachers of the school district. Likewise, whenever necessary the
responses of the district teachers through the survey questionnaire were
compared with teachers’ perceptions of their practices obtained through
the interviews and practices observed in classrooms.

The real strength of this research design, in my opinion, is the
combination of qualitative and quantitative data, including for the purpose
of generalizability. This design has demonstrated quite clearly that each
of the data, qualitative or quantitative data, could complement the other
and make the findings more meaningful, and also show the typicality. As
has been suggested by Chi (1997) there is a need to blend the two
methods in such a way as to remove each method’s shortcomings. This

research design has certainly been an attempt in that direction.

Chapter 4

TEACHING HIGHER-ORDER THINKING SKILLS IN LANGUAGE
CLASSROOMS: JOURNEY INTO AN MAPPED TERRITORY?

Teachers’ knowledge, skills and attitude for teaching
Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills

Teachers need a deep understanding of the subject matter they
are teaching. Ball and McDiarmid (1990) suggest that teachers’ own
subject matter knowledge influences their efforts to help students Ieam
subject matter. Teachers teaching Malay or English Language need to
possess such a deep understanding in those languages. Teachers need
the pedagogical skills to be able to share the knowledge of the subject
matter with their students. Both the subject matter knowledge and
pedagogical skills are important to teach the subject. They are not an
“either or’ issue (Shulman, 1986).

Shulman (1986) suggests that teachers should be professionals
who are capable of acting and enacting. Shulman (1987) also suggests
that teachers need to be able to construct pedagogical content knowledge
to teach subject matter in their classrooms. Pedagogical content
knowledge includes “ the ways of representing and formulating the subject
that make it comprehensible to others“ and “an understanding of what
makes the Ieaming of specific topics easy or difficult: the conceptions and

preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with

117

118

them to the Ieaming of those most frequently taught topics and lessons”
(93)-

In the same respect, a relatively simpler categorization of
pedagogical content knowledge has been presented by Grossman (1990):
first, overarching conception of teaching of a subject, including teachers’
knowledge and beliefs about the nature of the subject and what is
important for students to learn; second, knowledge of instructional
strategies and representations, including models, examples, metaphors,
and so forth that a teacher uses to foster students’ understandings; third,
knowledge of students’ understandings, thinking and Ieaming in a subject,
including students’ potential misunderstandings in a subject area. This
domain differs from the more general knowledge and beliefs about
Ieamers and Ieaming in that is specific to particular content domains; and
finally, knowledge of curriculum and curricular materials, which includes
familiarity with the range of textbooks and other instructional materials
available for teaching various topics.

Implications of Shulman and Grossman’s suggestions for any
teaching, and more specifically for the teaching of Malay or English
Language and higher-order thinking skills are that teachers need to
possess the necessary knowledge and pedagogical skills of the subjects
they are teaching, in this case Malay or English Language and higher-
order thinking skills. In other words, teachers need to fulfill the

requirements of the four categories for both Malay or English Language

119

and higher-order thinking skills to be able to construct the pedagogical
content knowledge to teach them in their classrooms. The important point
here is that teachers do not only construct pedagogical content
knowledge to teach one school subject as is usually done, like Malay or
English Language, but one school subject and higher-order thinking skills
together in their classrooms. This obviously makes the task more
complex

At this point, it seems important to reconsider what constitutes the
knowledge component of higher-order thinking skills. As discussed
earlier, if there is one point on which most investigators agree, it is that
thinking is complex and many faceted and, in spite of considerable
productive research, not yet very well understood (Nickerson, 1988). As
such, researchers and educators have advocated many conceptions in
relation to “thinking“: critical thinking, divergent or creative thinking,
reasoning (moral, inductive, deductive, formal, informal), problem solving,
and decision making.

In the thinking skills program used in Malaysia, thinking skills are
divided into two categories, thinking processes and thinking skills
categories. The thinking processes category has decision making and
problem solving in it. The thinking skills category has three sub-
categories, generating ideas (2), clarifying ideas (6), and assessing the
reasonableness of ideas (6). Each of these categories have specific skills

in them as indicated by the numbers in parenthesis.

120

In Malaysian classrooms, teachers are expected to infuse thinking
skills in their content instruction. In infusion lessons, direct instruction in
thinking is blended into content lessons (Swartz and Parks, 1994).
Infusion lessons are crafted to bring into content instruction an explicit
emphasis on skillful thinking so that students can improve the way they
think Classroom time is spent on the thinking skill or process, as well as
on the content. There are five steps in the infusion approach adopted in
Malaysian classrooms: introduction to content and process; thinking
actively; thinking about thinking; consolidation or enrichment activities;
and applying thinking (Teacher Education Division, 1993). .

In this study, besides using the categories in the pedagogical
content knowledge to investigate whether teachers possess the
necessary knowledge and skills to teach both Malay or English Language
and higher-order thinking skills, Bloom’ Taxonomy (1956), and Onosko
and Newmann’s (1994) definition of higher-order thinking skills will be
used to evaluate how teachers actually teach in their classrooms. Bloom’s
taxonomy has six cognitive levels: knowledge; comprehension;
application; analysis; synthesis; and evaluation levels. In this first two
levels are accepted as lower order and the rest of the four levels are
taken as representing higher order cognitive operations. Onosko and
Newmann’s definition makes a distinctive difference between lower-order
thinking and higher-order thinking. In their opinion, higher-order thinking

occurs when a person must interpret, analyze, or manipulate information.

121

In the classroom, it requires students to critically think about information,
ideas, and opinions. Students draw conclusions, inferences or
generalizations. They also produce original communications, make
predictions, propose solutions, create, solve life-like problems, judge
ideas, express opinions, and make choices and decisions.

This section will focus on the investigation carried out on two
teachers, one Malay Language and the other English Language teacher,
and four classes, two Malay Language and two English Language
classes, taught by them in Perdana School District. The focus of the
investigation will be on how these teachers perceive their preparedness
to teach and how they actually teach Malay or English Language and
higher-order thinking skills in their form two Malay and English Language
classrooms. This chapter will be divided into five sections. First, there will
be a discussion of the context in which these teachers are teaching,
including discussion about the curriculum, testing requirements, and the
pre-service and in-service training they have received. This section will
also include discussion about their preparedness to teach higher-order
thinking skills in content instruction, and common practices in the four
classes taught by these teachers. Second, there will be a discussion
about how these teachers and students in their four classes conceive
higher-order thinking skills and how that influences the teaching of higher-
order thinking skills in these classrooms. Third, the discussion will focus

on how these teachers use or do not use the four language components

122

for the purpose of promoting higher-order thinking skills in their Malay or
English Language classrooms.

Fourth, the discussion will focus on how these teachers use
different strategies and techniques in relation to the promotion of higher-
order thinking skills in their classrooms, including whether these teachers
are able to use the infusion approach which is encouraged to be used in
Malaysian classrooms. The final section will focus on student participation
in the teaching and Ieaming processes in these classrooms. Wnat
promotes or inhibits student participation which is an important aspect in

promoting higher-order thinking skills will be discussed.

Teaching in Malaysian secondag school classrooms
Malaysia has a centralized education system. The Ministry of

Education is responsible for formulating, implementing and monitoring the
implementation of a national curriculum in all public schools. The State
Departments of Education and the District Departments of Education
function as agencies of the ministry in carrying out these tasks. At the
primary school level, emphasis is on the acquisition of basic skills of
reading, writing and arithmetic; the provision of basic knowledge that will
ensure the holistic development of potential; and the inculcation of values
(Curriculum Development Center, 1989). These basic skills are further
developed and reinforced at the secondary school level. At the same time

knowledge is further increased and broadened.

123

There is a specific curriculum for secondary schools called, “The
Integrated Curriculum for Secondary School (ICSS),” which contains an
individual syllabus for eleven core school subjects, and two additional
subjects for the lower secondary level (Form 1 to 3). Besides the
individual syllabus, there are curriculum specifications for each subject for
. each year. That is, the English Language, for example, will have a
curriculum specifications of English Language skills for each form. The
textbooks used in schools need to be approved by the Ministry of
Education and need to be in line with the objectives of the national
curriculum and in line with the requirements of each curriculum
specifications for each form.

Teachers use these documents, that is the overall curriculum,
curriculum specifications, and textbooks in planning and teaching their
lessons in classes. They need to make sure that they are following the
skills spelled out in the curriculum specifications and also be sure to
complete these skills on time before the students sit for their various
examinations. At the secondary school level, there are monthly tests, and
of semester examinations, and the end of year examinations. The
students also need to sit for the National Level Lower Secondary
Assessment Examination at the end of Form Three. In this examination,
Malay Language, for example, has two papers. Paper one consists of 60
multiple choice questions of which an average of 20 questions will be

reading and comprehension type of questions, and the rest of 40

124

questions will be on Malay Language grammar. Paper two consists of
three sections: writing a composition; writing a précis, and completing a
text with 10 filling in the blank questions. Students also need to sit for
their much more important Malaysian Certificate of Education
Examination, which is the last and most important examination at the
secondary school, at the end of Form Five. Results in this examination is
often used for entry to universities, and various technical and professional

colleges.

The case of Aishah, Ambiga and their classes

Ms. Aishah: Background. Aishah teaches Form Two Malay
Language classes at Pustaka Secondary school. She graduated with a
Bachelor of Arts from one of the nine universities in Malaysia. Her major
subject was Malay Literature and her minor was Geography. Since her
four year bachelors program did not contain courses on pre-service
education, she received her one-year Post-Graduate Pre-service
Teaching Education at one of the teacher education colleges. She had
Malay Language and Malay Literature as double major subjects in her
pre-service teacher education course. She taught Form Six (Grade 12)
Malay Language and History at a private secondary school for six months
in her hometown after graduating from the university, but before pursuing
her pre-service teacher education course. She started teaching at

Pustaka Secondary School in July 1994.

125

She is the head of the Malay Language Panel in the Afternoon
Session of Pustaka Secondary School. She coordinates academic
activities such as the preparation of term examination questions, and
preparing students for debates, among teachers of Malay Language in
the afternoon session. Besides this, she also takes on many other
responsibilities like participating in various sub-committees in the school.
She also provides her service as a mentor to interns who come over to
her school to do their practical training in teaching Malay Language.

She was introduced to the teaching of higher-order thinking skills in
her pro-service teacher education course in the teacher education
college. Besides this, she also attended a two half-day workshop on
teaching higher-order thinking skills in her school. This workshop was
conducted by one of her colleagues who attended a workshop on
teaching thinking skills conducted by the state department of education.
This workshop was not based on teaching thinking skills in specific school
subjects, rather on the generic skills which could be used by teachers of
various school subjects in their classrooms. The generic skills introduced
in the workshop included problem solving and decision making skills
without being grounded in any particular school subject. She, like other
teachers in the school, was expected to incorporate the teaching of
thinking skills in her teaching of Malay Language.

Aishah teaches two form two Malay Language classes. She

teaches Form 28 which is the second best class among 10 form two

126

classes in the school. At Pustaka Secondary School, students are
streamed every year based on their academic performance, and sent to
classes starting with Form 2A. She also teaches Form 2E which is one of
the lower level classes in the school. She has a total of six periods of 40
minutes weekly in these classes. Some of these periods are paired so
that she can plan longer activities for her students. Her Form 28 class has
42 students, of which 17 of them (40.1 percent) are Malays, 15 of them
(35.7 percent) are Chinese, and 10 of them (23.8 percent) are Indians.
She has a total of 44 students in her Form 2E class, of which 21 of them
(47.7 percent) are Malays, 11 of them (25 percent) are Chinese, and 12 of
them (27.3 percent) are Indians. The ethnic composition in these classes
seems to be in line with the ethnic composition of the country’s

population. That is, the major ethnic groups are represented
proportionately in these two Malay Language classes.

Ms. Ambiga: Background. Ambiga teaches Form Two English
Language classes at Pustaka Secondary school. She received her four
year bachelors course which has the pre-service teacher education
component at one of the nine universities in Malaysia. She graduated with
a Bachelor of Education in TOEFL (Teaching of English as a Foreign
Language). Her major was Teaching of English as a Second Language,
and her minor was teaching of English Literature. Her pre-service teacher
education included three months of internship (practical training), where

she was observed and given feedback six times by a faculty (Teacher

127

interview, 1T1 A1 ). She graduated in August 1993, and taught in two
different schools before starting to teach at Pustaka Secondary School
from the end of 1994.

She is the head of the English Language Panel in the Afternoon
Session of Pustaka Secondary School. She coordinates academic
activities such as in the preparation of term examination questions, and
preparing students for oratory contests, among teachers of English in the
afternoon session. She is asked, although very rarely, by her colleagues
about grading English Language compositions, teaching students to read,
and making students interested in English Language (Teacher interview,
1T1 A9). Besides this, she also takes on many other responsibilities like
participating in various sub-committees in the school. She also provides
her service as a mentor to interns who come over to her school to do their
practical training.

She did not receive any formal training in the teaching of higher-
order thinking skills in her pre-service teacher education course.
However, sheuattended two half-day workshops on teaching thinking skills
in her school. Teachers who attended this workshop, including Ambiga
was expected to incorporate the teaching of higher-order thinking skills in
her English Language classes (Teacher Interview 1T1 A2).

Ambiga teaches two form two English Language classes. She
teaches Form 2A which is the best class among all form two classes in

Pustaka Secondary School. She also teaches Form 2| which is one of the

128

lower level classes in the school. She has a total of five periods of 40
minutes each every week in these classes. Some of these periods are
paired so that she can plan longer activities for her students. Her Form 2A
class has 44 students, of which 18 of them (40.9 percent) are Malays, 14
of them (31.8 percent) are Chinese, and 12 of them (27.3 percent) are
Indians. The ethnic composition of students in this class also represents
the overall ethnic composition of the country. She has a total of 41
students in her Form 2| class and all of them are Malay students. Among
the four classes under investigation, only this class has students from

only one ethnic background.

How prepared are Ambiga and Aishah in terms of
their knowledge, adagogical skills and attitude
to teach Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills?

Ambiga, the English Language teacher, seems to feel confident
about the subject matter knowledge she possesses for teaching English
Language in her classes. She thinks that she has been prepared
adequately in her pre-service teacher education program to teach English
Language in these form two classes. She actually thinks that she faces no
problems in teaching English Language, and also believes that she knows
more than enough to teach the students.

Raj: ...Could you say about your knowledge? Are you prepared?

Do you think you have been prepared sufficiently to do this?
Then you can talk about English Language and higher-order

129

thinking. What do you think about English Language in
terms of knowledge to teach English Language?

Amb: English Language I can teach. I am capable of teaching
that. No problem.

Raj: In terms of knowledge you think you have more than
enough?

Amb: More than enough to teach the students. Okay, HOT as far
as I am concerned that will be a big problem.

(Teacher Interview 1T1 C4)

She, however, suggests that it is a problem for her in terms of her
pedagogical skills to teach higher-order thinking skills in her classes.
Ambiga believes that teaching higher-order thinking skills in her English
Language classes is important. For a question whether it is important to
teach higher-order thinking skills in her English Language classes, she
suggested that, “To me its very important, but very difficult“ (Teacher
interview, 1T1A3).

Amb: A big problem in the sense that well, we are studying HOT,
they didn’t teach a skill for HOT. They didn’t say okay, this
is the course for you. When you go out you teach, this will
be one of the course[s]. No. So, there’s no HOT as a
subject. So all throughout the years of our Ieaming to be a
teacher they sort of like infused in us ‘okay, if you want to
teach the okay you do brain-stonning, you do this okay if
you come to this idea. But when we be a teacher well we
just go out and teach like that. There’s no such thing as
okay we have to teach HOT along with English. So we have
a problem. We are still in a mist how, what is HOT.

(Teacher Interview, 1T1C4)

Ambiga attributes the problems to her pre—service teacher
education program where she suggests higher-order thinking skills were

not introduced as one of the courses. Ambiga seems to have a problem in

130

even trying to understand what are higher-order thinking skills. She
suggests that she is trying to understand the “HOT thing” (Teacher
interview, 1T1C4).

Amb: Ya. So first time when I do a survey about HOT, higher-
order thinking skills really I have a problem of really trying to
recall how to teach higher-order thinking. That’s a problem.
You want to teach skills to the students. Higher order. So
that’s the problem. I am trying to understand HOT
thing...whether I’ve learnt it during the six years of study [two
years of matriculation and four years degree study].

(Teacher interview, 1T1 C14)

Ambiga believes that throughout her Ieaming experience to be a
teacher, she was not exposed to the teaching of higher-order thinking
skills as a separate entity or through the infusion approach, that is
teaching thinking skills through school subjects like the English
Language. She explains that, 'There were no such thing as okay we have
to teach HOT along with English“ (Teacher interview, 1T1C4). She
suggests, however, that there were activities like brainstorming to bring
out ideas from students in her pre-service teacher education course.

She also suggests that this is one of the activities the teacher educators
used to encourage students like her to think (Teacher interview, 1T1C4).
She also suggests that there were activities like creative writing, public
speaking, and reading literature materials, which in her opinion helped
prospective teachers like to her to think.

Raj: Despite that in the pre-service when you were doing your
degree, in..

131

Amb: Degree..., no we didn’t. No specific .. we are going to
teach you how to teach students higher order... No such
thing.

Raj: Can you elaborate a little bit more on that?

Amb: In our subject, usually during matriculation, we have this
course for creative writing. That is in term of writing. And
then we have public speaking. So, the lecturer asked us
to give a speech in front of the students among our friends
and do whatever you like. Creative things... . Something like
that. Literature.

Raj: Literature, ah..

Amb: Literature. Literature throughout the course. .. of
critical thinking.

Raj: What about the like. during your degree program? How
your... did you see any explicit attempt to incorporate
thinking into your subject as a part of your
elective? I mean infusion.

Amb: I’m not so sure. No, I don’t think so.

(Teacher interview, 1T1A2)

Activities like brainstorming and creative writing certainly help
students to think on issues at hand. Students benefit from other students
in the class where everyone is encouraged to contribute towards an issue
being discussed. There is certainly an opportunity for students to know
the multiple perspectives of an issue through this brainstorming session
together with their friends in the class, which otherwise they might not
see for themselves. However, one wonders whether there were attempts
to go beyond gathering multiple perspectives. Whether there were
attempts to analyze, synthesize or evaluate the points raised by students
in the brainstorming sessions which might have provided the students

with the opportunities to acquire higher-order thinking skills.

132

With no explicit attempts in her pre-service teacher education
course to provide teachers with the necessary pedagogical skills to teach
higher-order thinking skills in English Language classrooms using the
infusion approach, it seems no surprise that she finds it difficult to infuse
higher-order thinking skills in her classes. What seems more problematic
is that she seems to be not convinced of the need to infuse thinking skills
explicitly in the content instruction. She seems to be satisfied with her
present way of teaching in her classrooms. She believes that a number of
strategies she is using help promote thinking. She is not sure whether
these strategies are called higher-order thinking skills strategies. As a
result she suggests that she does not agree with the Ministry when it
suggests that teachers need to infuse thinking skills in content instruction.

Amb: How, okay I take a subject. So let’s say essay writing.

Composition titled ‘Social problems.’ So I ask them to base
on their discussion. Those are the strategies. But I do not
know whether these strategies I use is called HOT. That’s
the problem. That is the problem. There’s no straight line. I
don’t know HOT or just one of the strategies. Which one? If
they highlight okay, what you are doing now okay you are
now on the right track, all the While HOT, no problem. You
can go on. But Kementerian [Ministry] is saying like we
haven’t done this HOT all these while. That’s why
Kementerian [Ministry] says okay you must infuse in the
subject HOT. That’s why I don’t agree.
(Teacher interview, 1T1 C5)

Even the in-house training which was conducted in her school, as
stated earlier, was not conducted to provide the teachers with the subject-
specific pedagogical skills to infuse higher-order thinking skills in their

school subjects. Generic thinking skills were given by the facilitator, and

133

the teachers were expected to devise their own strategies to infuse the
higher-order thinking skills in their subjects. The case of Ambiga seems to
demonstrate the problems teachers face in trying to infuse thinking skills
in their school subjects.

In the case of Aishah, the Malay Language teacher, she too seems
to feel more confident about the knowledge she possesses to teach Malay
Language, but not higher-order thinking skills (Teacher interview,
1T2810). However, she suggests that she is still Ieaming about both the
teaching of Malay Language and higher-order thinking skills. In terms of
her subject matter knowledge to teach Malay Language, she suggests,

Ais: Even my knowledge for teaching Malay Language, I am still

Ieaming. The reason is that I still don’t understand the word
and sentence formation. I still refer to books....Since Malay
Language keeps changing very often...there is pressure,
pressure for teachers, especially, in terms of the language
itself. (Teacher interview, 1T288)

When it comes to the knowledge about higher-order thinking skills,
both Ambiga and Aishah seem to suggest that it is a problem for them.
They both think they don’t know enough to teach higher-order thinking
skills in their classes. Although Aishah was exposed to the teaching of
higher-order thinking skills in her pre-service teacher education course,

she thinks that she doesn’t know enough about higher-order thinking

skills to teach her students.

134

Raj: Aishah, in your opinion, were you ever exposed to teaching
higher-order thinking skills? Whenever, either during your
pre-service or through in-service courses?

Ais: During my pre-service teacher education course, I was
exposed to the teaching of higher-order thinking skills. But,
not much was given...But when I am teaching here, I was
exposed during the in-house training. But it was too short.
What to be taught to students was very limited. Coupled with
limited resource materials. So the thing is it cannot be
effectively passed on to students.

(Teacher interview, 1T2A3)

Aishah suggests that although she is still Ieaming how to teach
Malay Language and higher-order thinking skills, she is more confident of
her pedagogical skills to teach Malay Language than higher-order
thinking skills. She believes that the pre-service teacher education course
prepared her adequately to teach Malay Language confidently in her form
two classrooms. She also thinks that she can refer to reference books to
know how to teach certain aspects of Malay Language in her classes. She
believes that there are books available for this purpose. She does not
seem to consider her pedagogical skills to teach Malay Language in her
form two classes as a problem.

However, when it comes to pedagogical skills to teach higher-order
thinking skills, she believes that it is a problem. She suggests that very
little of higher-order thinking was infused into their pre-service teacher
education course (1T2A4). The present situation is that, although she
believes that the teaching higher-order thinking skills is important, and
she needs to teach higher-order thinking skills in her Malay Language

classrooms, she is not sure as how to do that in her form two Malay

135

Language classrooms. That is, she seems to lack the pedagogical skills
to combine the teaching of Malay Language and higher-order thinking
skills in her classrooms.

Raj: What about the skills to teach, pedagogy? For Malay
Language, do you feel confident Mrs.Aishah? For example,
say, teaching composition, comprehension, or language?

Ais: That I think, I can teach. Because that has been taught. So I
can teach. And then, as I have said, even if I have a
problem...l can look for books. There are books.

Raj: What about for higher-order thinking skills?

Ais: Higher-order thinking skills, teachers themselves have to
think creatively. So that is difficult. Want to ask students
think like how teachers think. May be, teacher’s thinking and
students’ thinking are not the same ..... Although, that is
certainly important, but the time is too short. 80 the pressure
is on the teacher to prepare herself for something which is
so complex.

(Teacher interview, 1T289)

Again, the in-house training which was conducted in her school
also left Aishah in the same position as Ambiga where teachers were
given generic thinking skills and were expected to infuse thinking skills in
their subjects. Aishah suggested that the course was too short, what to be
taught to the students was also very limited. She believes, coupled with
the problem of lack of resource materials, higher-order thinking skills
cannot be effectively passed on to students. Since the course was
basically a ‘sit and get’ type of in-house training, and there were no
attempts to provide teachers with the subject-specific pedagogical skills to

teach higher-order thinking skills, that is to teach higher-order thinking

skills in specific school subjects, teachers like Aishah and Ambiga seem

136

to have been left to wonder how to teach higher-order thinking skills in
their own classrooms. There were also no opportunities for teachers
teaching specific school subject to discuss the ways of infusing higher—
order thinking skills in their school subjects as a group in that in-house
training.

Besides the subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skills to
teach Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills, it also
seemed important to investigate what these two teachers think about the
importance of teaching higher-order thinking skills in their content
instruction. Although the teaching of higher-order thinking skills is
mandated in these classrooms, what teachers like Ambiga and Aishah
believe about the teaching of higher-order thinking skills in content
instruction reflects their attitude and also may largely influence their
attempts to infuse higher-order thinking skills in their Malay or English
Language classrooms.

Ambiga and Aishah both seem to believe that it is very important to
teach higher-order thinking skills in all school subjects, and particularly in
their English Language (Teacher interview, 1T1 A3) and Malay Language
(Teacher interview, 1T2A7) classes. When Ambiga was asked why she
thinks that teaching higher-order thinking is important, she suggested
that, “It’s important because you have to make a lot of decisions. So
higher-order thinking skills is very helpful“ (Teacher Interview, 1T1A3).

She also believes that teaching students the higher-order thinking skills

137

Iwill be good because in her opinion, “Higher-order thinking skill, meets
the person who really sit down and think and find ways, means and ways
to try to solve the given problem“ (Teacher interview, 1T1A3). As such,
she certainly supports the Ministry of Education’s efforts to encourage
teachers to teach school subjects and higher-order thinking skills because
she believes that this could produce very good thinking students. Again,
she has her reservations about the preparedness of teachers to do this in
their respective classrooms.

Raj: ...I mean more emphasis on that, more explicit, and teachers
consciously do it, to infuse it. What are your thoughts about
this kind of stress now given by the Kementerian [ministry]?

Amb: It is a good idea. We will produce very good thinking
students but we are so short of time and like I told you
before we [have] only been trained to teach English. How
could this be done. So I think Kementerian’s [Ministry] idea
is very good. No doubt about that But if you want to cany it
out you must make sure what you think before you say
‘okay, teachers must do this.’ You must make sure that the
teachers [are] really trained to teach this HOT.

(Teacher interview, 1T1CZ)

Aishah too seems to support the attempts to teach higher-order
thinking skills through school subjects. She too, like Ambiga, thinks that
teaching thinking skills to students will help produce better, and
independent thinkers (Teacher interview, 1T2AQ). She believes that
teaching thinking will assure students do not accept blindly what their
teachers say.

Raj: Now, specifically on teaching higher-order thinking skills in

Malay Language classes. What are your thoughts about

efforts to infuse higher-order thinking skills into Malay
Language instruction?

138

Ais: Good. It is good to infuse higher-order thinking skills in
Malay Language instruction. The reason is that students will
be able to think for themselves without teachers’ help. They
wouldn’t accept blindly what their teachers are saying. So I
like students like that because although they protest, but at
least they are able to think. They talk based on logic. That is
their own logic. That, for me is good.

(Teacher interview, 1T2A9)
She thinks that students will be able to evaluate what their
teachers say, and if they do not agree they may protest. This, she
believes, will enable them to think. However, she suggests that it is

important that students base their argument on logic.

How do Ambiga and Aishah teach in
their own classrooms?: An Qverview

Having understood how Ambiga and Aishah have been prepared to
teach Malay or English Language in their form two classrooms, and also
how they perceive their preparedness to teach higher-order thinking skills
in content instruction, it is now important to investigate how they actually
teach in their classrooms. That is, what are the common practices in their
classrooms in the context of Malay or English Language instruction, and
in relation to the acquisition of higher-order thinking skills. A much more
detailed description of their practices in the four classes on specific topics
like how they use the four language components and different strategies
and techniques will be presented later in the chapter. A general overview

of common practices in their classes will suffice at this point.

139

Aishah teaches one high level Malay Language class (Form 2B)
and one lower level Malay Language class (Form 2E) (Appendix B -
Matrix). Aishah teaches three times a week in each of these classes.
Each of these periods are one hour and ten minutes or one hour and
twenty minutes periods. The table (Appendix B) shows the major activities
observed over a period of two weeks in each of these classes, except for
one of the classes canceled for sport activities. There is a mix of listening,
speaking, reading, and writing activities carried out in these classes. The
teacher uses the prescribed textbook extensively in planning and carrying
out activities. Students in these two classes almost during every class
period read a passage on factual material from the textbook The teacher
seems to play the role of explaining the passages most of the times. They
also often end the class period doing writing assignments.

A typical lesson in Aishah’s class contains four components
(Diagram 1): a simple introduction about the Ieaming aspects of the day;
students’ narration of their experiences; the main activity of the day; and
the writing task The main activity of the day usually is reading and
comprehension of a passage from the text book, or an aspect of Malay
Language grammar. The main activity of the day usually consists of sub-
components like teacher’s explanation of the activity, students reading the
passage, teacher’s explanation of new aspects in the passage, and
sometimes small group discussions among students, although these

seem to be very rare in these classes.

140

Diagram 1 : The structure of lessons in Aishah’s classes.

 

Step 1:
Introduction

I

Step 2:
Students’ narration of their
personal experiences

1

Step 3:
Main activity:

 

 

 

 

 

  
    
 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Teacher’s b. students reading c small group d whole group;
explanation the passage discussion discussion 5
(optional) (optional) 3
V
Step 4:
Writing task

 

 

 

There was only one small group discussion (Form 2E - Day 4 -
Refer to Appendix - B) in the two week period in these two classes.
Students are either asked to read the passage on their own, or invited to
read the passage one by one with the teacher intercepting with
explanations of parts of the passage. However, students get to talk about
what they are studying as a whole class, and also they sometimes get
opportunities to present to the class what they have worked on

individually.

141

Aishah seems to use this structure of lessons in her classes quite
consistently. She provides opportunities for 2 or 3 students a day to
narrate their experiences in their classes with the hope of promoting
public speaking, and students’ self-confidence. After the main activity,
students are required to carry out their writing task. The class ends with
students sending their exercise books to Aishah. There are usually no
summing up of the day's activities or the Ieaming task.

Ambiga teaches one higher level English Language class (Form
2A) and one lower level English Language class (Form 2|) (Appendix -
Matrix showing major activities in the four classes). Ambiga teaches three
times a week in each of these classes. Two of those times are one hour
and ten minutes or one hour and twenty minutes periods each, and the
rest is a thirty five minutes period. The table (Appendix 22) shows the
major activities observed in her two classes over a period of two weeks,

except for one of the classes canceled for sport activities.

142

Diagram 2: The structures of lessons in Ambiga’s classes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

structure 1 I I Structure 2 I
Introduction of the Introduction
Ieaming components (Explanation of the
and activities by the Ieaming task by
teacher. the teacher.)
Ir

Main activity:

i. few students read

it. teacher’s explanation

iii. small group discussion

iv. whole group discussion

(optional)
1 v
[ Writing assignment Writing assignment.

 

 

 

 

 

There is a mix of listening, speaking, reading, and writing activities carried
out in these classes, although reading does not seem to be popular
activity in her lower level English Language class. Students in the higher
level English Language class seem to read or talk about a topic and end
up doing the relevant writing assignments. Students in the lower level
English Language class seem to listen to the explanations of the day’s
task and also end up doing the relevant writing assignments. However,
students get to discuss about some issues in small groups, and also get
to present to the whole class in both these classes.

Ambiga’s classes usually have two structures (Diagram 2). It
seems to have a much simpler structure compared to Aishah’s classes.

The first structure consists of three components: an introduction of the

143

Ieaming components and activities; the main activity of the day; and the
writing task. The main activity of the day could be reading and
comprehension, or a problem solving activity. This component could also
consist of sub-categories: teacher asking a few students to read the text;
teacher’s explanation; and small group discussion on a particular task
from the text the students are reading. There could be whole-class
presentations after students have had discussions in small groups before
they begin to write.

The second structure consists of only two components (Diagram
2). The first is the introduction where Ambiga explains the day’s Ieaming
component, which is basically the task the students are expected to cany
out. The task the students are expected to carry out is usually a writing
assignment. This takes up about 10 minutes of the class time. The
students spend the rest of the time doing the writing assignment and the
class ends with the students sending the exercise books to their teacher.

There is usually no summarizing of the activities of the day.

144

How are higher-order thinking skills perceived
in the Form Two Malay and English Language classrooms?

The innovation of infusing higher-order thinking skills in content
instruction is being implemented in classrooms across the country in
Malaysia. Teachers are expected to treat higher-order thinking skills as
important as content area when planning and teaching in classrooms. The
Malay and English Language teachers teaching form two classes in the
Perdana School District are also expected infuse the higher-order thinking
skills in their Malay or English Language instructions. Likewise, Ambiga
and Aishah are expected to infuse higher-order thinking skills in their
Malay or English Language instructions.

The question is what do they know about higher-order thinking
skills? What do teachers like Ambiga and Aishah and students in their
classes perceive higher-order thinking skills to be? It seems important to
investigate teachers and students’ understanding of what higher-order
thinking skills are because that understanding seems to influence their
expectations towards teaching and Ieaming. processes pertaining to
acquiring higher-order thinking skills in classrooms. Also, it seems
important to investigate the Ieaming activities which, in their opinion,

represent higher-order thinking skills.

145

What are teachers’ perceptions of higher-order thinking skills?

Ambiga, the form two English Language teacher seems to

differentiate higher-order thinking from ordinary thinking. She seems to

suggest that higher-order thinking requires one to go much higher than

just performing the routines. That is, she suggests, the person really sits

down, thinks and finds ways to solve a problem. She believes that routine

thinking is a very mundane matter that will not help find solutions to

problems. One needs to take the extra effort to think hard to find the

solutions.
Raj:

Amb:
Raj:
Amb:

Raj:

Amb:
Raj:

Amb:

In your opinion, what do you think can be considered as
higher order thinking skills?
Higher order thinking skills..
If you’re asked to.... what should be considered as higher
order thinking skills.
Means, you can think much higher than ..I mean listen to
instruction, but you can go further on your own. Without
being guided too much. That’s what I can see.
How do you differentiate? In your opinion, how do you
differentiate routine thinking and higher order thinking? In a
classroom, given your classroom for example. How do
you differentiate?
Routine thinking.
Which is normal, typically goes on as usual. But here, there
is a distinction between higher order thinking and routine
thinking. How do you feel different?
Difierence.. Higher order thinking skill, meets the person
who really sit down and think and find ways, means and
ways to try to solve the given problem. Routine thinking is
just very mundane matter. So you have to use your
intelligence to... its really a mundane thing.

(Teacher interview, 4T1 A2)

146

There seems to be two important aspects raised by Ambiga. That
are, in doing higher-order thinking one needs to be allowed to go further
than just conducting the routine thinking basically on their own. Also, she
seems to suggest that one does the higher-order thinking without much
guidance. She also touches on someone using his intelligence to conduct
the higher-order thinking to solve the problem. Although she does not
elaborate what she means by intelligence, it seems fair to infer that she is
not just referring to intelligence in the very literal sense which is often
represented in the IQ scores, but is actually suggesting that one exploits
his or her higher cognitive abilities to solve a given problem. In Bloom’s
(1956) taxonomy, for example, the higher cognitive abilities could mean
the application, analytical, synthesis, and evaluative skills.

It seems interesting to also note that Ambiga‘s perceptions of
higher-order thinking skills at least partly seems to be in line with the
definition provided by Onosko and Newmann (1994) of what they consider
to be higher-order thinking skills. She seems to differentiate higher-order
thinking from routine thinking which often requires basic cognitive abilities
like the use of knowledge or recall skills. She like, Onosko and Newmann
(1994), seems to perceive that higher-order thinking skills need to involve
students in activities like critically evaluating ideas and opinions. She also
seems to suggest that students need to be allowed to use the instruction
in the class as the basis and do further all these if possible on their own

with little guidance.

147

In the case of Aishah, the Malay Language teacher who teaches
form two classes, higher-order thinking skills are very closely related to
students’ intelligence. Her perception of higher-order thinking skills seems
to be in an operational form relating to how that could be translated into
teaching and Ieaming activities in classrooms. She tends to make a
distinction between what smart students could do and what weak students
could not do. Like for example, she suggests that good students can be
asked to give their own views. Students in lower classes may not be able
to perform such tasks.

Ais: Higher-order thinking skills, in my opinion, teacher asks
students to give their views on their own, that is based on
students’ level. If students are from poor classes, the level
which the teacher could pass on to those students, how
students give responses back to the teacher.... are all based
on students’ level. If students are with higher intelligence,
their thinking ability is certainly higher. That’s all.

(Teacher interview, 4T2AB)

That, in her opinion, seems to reflect higher-order thinking skills.
Unlike Ambiga, Aishah seems to think and plan activities very much
based on behavioral objectives, that is what she thinks her students could
be seen as doing. Like for example, after reading the passage or after the
teacher explains a grammatical component, students do the writing
assignments. Aishah, however, does not seem to pay attention to the

underlying thinking processes students have to go through while
performing such tasks.

148

Unlike Ambiga, Aishah seems to make a literal reference to
intelligence in her perception about higher-order thinking skills. She
seems to correlate very closely students’ intelligence and their thinking
abilities. Furthermore, her notion of intelligence seems to be based on
what she calls “student levels.” Student levels here means the type of
classes these students are in. As stated earlier, students in the Pustaka
Secondary School, where both these teachers are teaching, are streamed
into classes based on their grades. In other words, the first 40 students
with highest grades will be in Form 2A, followed by other classes. It
seems to be that, in Aishah’s opinion, students in Form 2A have higher
intelligence than students in Form 28. She may be right when she bases
her understanding of intelligence based on academic achievement. After
all, IQ tests often test linguistic and mathematical skills, and less of
analytical and reasoning skills. However, what seems to be more
problematic here is that she tends to correlate closely intelligence and
thinking.

One of the myths which inhibits the teaching of thinking skills is
that students with high IQ are better thinkers than students with lower IQ
scores (de Bono, 1992). This is in line with the thinking among certain
educators that thinking is the by-product of good academic achievement.
They seem to believe one will eventually be able to think well if one is
taught the basic linguistic and mathematical skills, suggesting that there is

no need to emphasize the explicit teaching of thinking skills. The serious

149

problem here, however, is that this notion of thinking seems to be
contrary to the notion that higher-order thinking skills need to be treated
as important as content instruction, and need to be infused in the
teaching of content to all students. Furthermore, De Bono cites a classic
study by Getzels and Jackson which claimed to show that up to an IQ of
120, creativity and IQ went together, but after that they diverged. As such,
de Bono suggests, “an ‘intelligent’ person may be a poor thinker if that
person has not acquired the skills of thinking. A less intelligent person
may have better thinking skills” (p.42). Aishah, for example, seems to
think that intelligence and thinking are closely related, and students in
good classes could perform activities which require such higher-order

thinking abilities and not students in weak classes.

mg are students’ groeptions of higher-order thinking skills?

Students in Form 2A, the best form two class in Pustaka Secondary
School seem to suggest that they have hardly heard about thinking skills.
However, a few students admit that they have heard others talk about
thinking skills. For the few who have heard of thinking skills, it means
making use of the intemet and how to take notes in the class. For many
others, they seem to have not even heard of thinking skills, and they
seem not to have any opinion about what it means. It seems important to

note here that these students were randomly selected students from the

150

best form two class in the school. Their opinions may be taken as

representing opinions of other students in that class as well.

Raj:

Ss:

Raj:

S7:

Raj:

$6:

Raj:

...Have you ever heard about thinking skills? Do people talk
about thinking skills?

No.

Thinking skills?

Yes.

Yes. So what have you all heard? What do you know?

How to make use [of] intemet and how to take notes.
Anybody else?

(Student interview, 4S1A7)

Students in Form 28, the second best form two class in the school,

seem to be also in almost a similar position with their friends in Form 2A

about their understanding about thinking skills. They seem to suggest that

they have only heard about the topic of thinking skills, but do not know

what it means. When pushed a bit further to think about what they

understand about higher-order thinking skills, they suggested things like

concentrating on the task and not wavering away from it, paying attention

to the teacher while she is teaching, and also trying to understand the

meaning of words the teacher is explaining.

Re]:
86:
32:
S1 :
Raj:

S3:
Raj:

S4:

Have you all heard about thinking skills?

Yes.

Yes. I have heard....but...

Have heard, but don’t know.

How many of you have heard? Have heard about thinking
skills?

The topic only.

Ok How many of you understand? Or how many of you
know about thinking skills? What are thinking skills?
Don’t know.

83:

Raj:

S1:

Raj:

Raj:

$2:

Raj:

Ss:

151

He thinks. When doing something, think of that only. Don’t
think of other things. Think of what the teacher is teaching.
Others, anything?
Thinking about something...or paying attention to the
teacher when she is teaching, we concentrate....what the
teacher is explaining.
Others?
When the teacher is explaining a word. We have to listen to
the word, make sure we know the meaning.
Ok, others?
For me thinking skills are skills to solving problems which
are given by
I think thinking skills give me the confidence to make a
decision. Say for example, in a question, given in an
objective test, I may see two close answers. So, I must have
the confidence to make the right decision. For me, that is
thinking skill.
So, do make decisions you need thinking skills, do you all
agree?
Yes.

(Student Interview INTS3A5)

When students where pushed even further to think about what they

understand by thinking skills, they seemed to agree that thinking skills are

related to the ability to solve problems and also thinking skills raise their

confidence in making decisions. For example, they suggest that when

there are two close answers to a question in a multiple choice test, they

need to be able to make the decision. They generally seem to agree that

to be able to make such a decision they need to possess the thinking

skills. It seems as though these students find it hard to explain what they

understand about thinking skills, but have some ideas about how to use

them.

152

S3: His thinking is open minded. Read a lot of books and
newspapers. You get a lot of general knowledge, then
improves your thinking.

Raj: Ok. Good. So we say someone who has an open mind,
reads a lot, he is exposed to many things, yes, others?

S1: Someone who has a lot of experience.

Raj: Lot of experience. How. Please explain what you mean by
experience.

S1: Like he goes into the forest, and things like that. He gets
experience about some living things, you know like that.

Raj: Ok One type of experience. Others?

Ss: ...........

(Student interview, 4S4A4)

Even students in a lower level Malay Language class have their
own perceptions of what thinking skills are (Student interview, 4S4A4).
They tend to suggest that being a good thinker means having an open
mind, reading a lot of books and newspapers, and having general
knowledge. They seem to believe that having these things will help one’s
thinking ability to prosper. They also seem to believe that effective
thinking is equivalent to having vast experience.

Data presented above seem to suggest that students generally
seem to have only vague ideas of what thinking skills are. Many of them
have not even heard what thinking skills are. Even if they have heard,
they seem to think that many of the activities they do routinely help them
improve their thinking. These activities include reading, paying attention
to the teacher while the teacher is teaching, understanding the meaning
or words explained by the teacher, and taking notes. It needs to be noted,
however, that they also seem to think that thinking skills are important for

problem solving and decision making, although they seem not clear about

153

how acquiring thinking skills could help in problem solving and decision
making. They also suggest that thinking skills give them the confidence to
make decisions. It does not seem clear again whether they are trying to
suggest that having thinking skills provides them with the thinking
processes which one could use to make good decisions.

They seem to share a notion that acquiring thinking skills is
equivalent to acquiring knowledge, more specifically acquiring knowledge
in the subject matter area. In other words, they seem to be suggesting
that they are Ieaming how to think when they are Ieaming the subject
matter. This is yet another myth which inhibits efforts to teach thinking
skills explicitly in classrooms. This perception stems from the belief that
thinking will be a by-product of Ieaming subject matter content. This
means that there need not be explicit attempts to include thinking skills in
content instruction. This particular belief of the students’ seems to be in

line with what Ambiga and Aishah believe about teaching thinking too.

Analflic summag

It has become a commonplace belief that Ieaming is the result of
the interaction between what the student is taught and his current ideas or
concerns (Posner, G, J. et al., 1982). This is by no means a new view of
Ieaming. However, what understanding students, and also teachers have

about a certain aspect they teaching or Ieaming seems to influence their

154

expectations or even their accomplishments in that particular task they do
in the classrooms.

McCloskey (1983), for example, in his study of naive theories of
motion found that people develop on the basis of their everyday
experience remarkably well-articulated naive theories of motion. He also
found that the assumptions of naive theories were quite consistent across
individuals. The more important finding, however, seems to be that
although this basic theory appeared to be a reasonable outcome of
experience with real-world motion, it was strikingly inconsistent with the
fundamental principles of classical physics.

These inconsistent assumptions of motion certainly seem to bring
implications to instruction in the classroom. How do teachers handle
these naive theories of motion when teaching theories of motion in a
physics class. This and other naive assumptions hamper students’
understanding of a certain aspect. Schools generally do not seem to be
very successful in changing these naive theories (Gardner, 1991).
Gardner suggests that this is because schools are really not concerned
about engendering deep understanding. In school context, educators
have accepted rote, ritualistic and conventional performances. McCloskey
(1983), for example, suggests that one way of overcoming such problems
is to have physics instructors to discuss with students their naive beliefs,
carefully pointing out what is wrong with these beliefs, and how they differ

from the views of classical physics. He believes that in this way students

155

may be induced to give up the impetus theory and accept the Newtonian
perspective.

Using the same argument, it seems important to evaluate the
perceptions of the teachers and students about higher-order thinking
skills. In the above discussion, it could be seen that educators are
concerned with students, and the naive theories students bring with them
to the classrooms, which are often inconsistent with what they are taught
in the classrooms. It becomes the duty of the teacher to help change
these naive assumptions.

The problem here, however, seems to be that both the teachers
and students in these form two Malay and English Language classrooms
generally seem to have naive assumptions of higher-order thinking skills.
Teachers have assumptions like someone who sits down and solve his or
her own problems, and students with high IQ could think better than those
with low IQ. Students on the other hand, generally think that it means
using the Internet, paying attention to the teacher when she is teaching,
and how to take notes. However, teachers and students also have
mentioned aspects like the ability to solve problems, giving one’s views
without much help, and the ability to make decisions which have at least
some relevance to what higher-order thinking skills are. It seems
important to evaluate their perceptions of higher-order thinking skills
using two of the frameworks used in this investigation. One is the Bloom’s

taxonomy of educational objectives, and the other is the definition of

156

higher-order thinking skills provided by Onosko and Newmann (1994).
Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), although is about 40 years old, is important
because of teachers’ familiarity with the taxonomy and the extensive
usage of this taxonomy in teacher preparation in Malaysia.

The discussion above seems to suggest that in the Bloom’s
taxonomy, for example, teachers and students’ understanding of higher-
order thinking skills seldom go beyond the application level. In the six
levels: knowledge; recall; application; analysis; synthesis; and evaluation,
it is often accepted that knowledge and recall levels are lower order
thinking, and the rest are higher-order thinking. Teachers and students
often talk about thinking hard, concentrating, understanding meaning of
words, and taking notes. They also talk about being open-minded,
decision making and solving problems. Although the students talk about
decision making and problem solving they do not refer to the processes
one goes through to make decisions or solve problems which could induct
someone to become a good thinker.

Teachers do not seem to be referring to any of the activities they
do requiring the students to apply their understanding of concepts to
different situations, breaking something down into its component parts
and then examining the parts and determining their relationship to each
other and to the whole, combining or unifying separate ideas or materials

to create something new, or making judgments about the purpose, worth

157

or quality of something. All these activities require higher-order thinking
on the part of the students to perform their tasks.

Even using Onosko and Newmann’s (1994) definition, although
one of the teachers makes a distinction between routine thinking and
higher-order thinking, her notion of higher-order thinking seems to be only
partly in line with what Onosko and Newmann suggest that to be. In their
opinion, if students need to acquire higher-order thinking skills, students
need to critically think about information, ideas, and opinions. Students
also draw conclusions, inferences or generalizations. Besides that, they
produce original communications, make predictions, propose solutions,
create, solve life-like problems, judge ideas, express opinions, and make
choices and decisions. In one of the teacher’s opinion higher-order
thinking is, “Higher order thinking skill, meets the person who really sits
down and think and find ways, means and ways to try to solve the given
problem” (Teacher interview, 4T1A2). The other teacher only has vague,
and in fact contrary ideas of what higher-order thinking skills are. The
teachers and students seem to have a notion of higher-order thinking
which is quite similar to what Onosko and Newmann call lower-order
thinking, and suggest to be representing routine, mechanistic application
and limited use of the mind. This also includes the repetitive operations
such as listing information of previously Ieamed formulae, applying

procedural rules, and other routinized or algorithmic mental activities.

158

Teachers and students’ perceptions of higher-order thinking skills
which seem to be inconsistent with general definitions of those skills
certainly seem to be influencing the teaching and Ieaming of those skills
in classrooms. The implication of such perceptions to instruction seems to
be that they work against achieving the objective of infusing higher-order
thinking skills in content instruction. Since both the teachers and students
do not have clear understanding of higher-order thinking skills, they seem
to have a limited notion of higher-order thinking skills, and as a result
seem to be content with routine practices in the classrooms.

There are three aspects to be considered here. First, since they do
not have a clear understanding of what higher-order thinking skills are,
they do not even seem to have an expectation to try to acquire them in
the classes. For example, if the students understand what acquiring
higher-order thinking skills entails, their expectations of classroom
teaching and Ieaming processes will be raised in line with the teaching
and Ieaming practices in the classrooms which encourage higher-order
thinking skills. This may ultimately change many practices in the
classrooms. That does not seems to be the case both for the teachers
and students.

The second related issue is that since teachers and students do
not possess the positive conceptions of higher-order thinking skills they
seem to be content with present practices in the classrooms. There is

clearly a distinction between activities in the classrooms which cater for

159

lower-order thinking and higher-order thinking. Since teachers and
students are not in a position to make that distinction they are content
with what they are doing now. More importantly, teachers do not even
seem to see the need to change their practice because they seem
contended with their present practices.

The third point relates specifically to what implications such naive
conceptions bring to teachers who are teaching higher-order thinking
skills in their Malay or English Language classrooms. Teachers need to
have overarching conception of teaching a subject to construct the
necessary pedagogical content knowledge. This conception is in his or
her knowledge and beliefs the nature of the subject and what is important
for students to learn. Here teachers seem to lack that conception about
higher-order thinking skills. Teachers also seem to lack the extensive
repertoires of powerful representations and ways to adapt these
representations to meet the needs of specific Ieamers, which is another
requirement to construct the pedagogical content knowledge.

An important point which needs to be stated here is that majority of
the Malay and English Language teachers are capable of identifying
pedagogical practices which are in line with what many educators and
researchers recommend that promotes higher-order thinking in their
classrooms. A total of 56.7 percent of the teachers suggested that
practices similar to Approach 3 (Refer to Appendix A), an approach in line

with most recommendations for promoting higher-order thinking skills,

160

best promotes higher-order thinking skills among students (A more
detailed discussion of the different approaches will be presented in a later
section). However, having investigated the case of Aishah and Ambiga, it
seems that teachers may be able to identify pedagogical practices which
promotes higher-order thinking in classes besides theirs, but may find it
hard to explain their own understanding of such practices in relation to
promoting higher-order thinking skills. Also, it seems that teachers find it
hard to translate what they think promotes higher-order thinking into
pedagogical practices in their own classrooms. What this entails is that
teachers need not only be able to identify the kind of practices which
promotes higher-order thinking skills, but also need to be able to state
their understanding of such practices, and also be able to translate such
understanding into pedagogical practices in classrooms.

As such, there seems to be a real need to educate, especially the
teachers on what higher-order thinking skills are which will add to their
understandings of their subject matter knowledge of higher-order thinking
skills. When they have better understanding of what those skills are and
with the understanding of the need to teach those skills in classrooms,
they may realize the need to improve their practices. Once they see the
need to change their practices, one may be able to see significant efforts
on the part of teachers to infuse higher-order thinking skills in the form of
classroom activities. Ultimately, students too will have a better

understanding of higher-order thinking skills, and that too could help

161

improve teaching and Ieaming practices in the classrooms for acquiring

higher-order thinking skills.

162

The Four Language Components In The Four Classrooms: Do They
Provide A Foundation For The Teaching Of Higher-Order Thinking Skills?

A review of the literature suggests that all four language
components, listening, speaking, reading, and writing have the potential
to improve the higher-order thinking abilities of students, if planned and
used effectively in the classrooms. It also seems that there are close
parallels in the thinking processes in all four language arts areas (Jones
8. F., et al., 1987). The following section will investigate how the four '
language components are used or not used to promote the acquisition of

higher-order thinking skills in the Malay or English Language classrooms.

Listening and sgaking

As discussed earlier, researchers including Cazden (1979) have
shown that the use of oral language by both teachers and students serves
to establish a classroom atmosphere that either elicits or discourages
certain types of thinking. Cuing and questioning are two primary ways that
teachers use overt speech to elicit specific types of thought. Cuing
involves teachers’ use of overt speech to signal specific Ieaming
episodes. That is, teachers verbally signal the type of Ieaming expected
within a given period of time. Teachers could use the potential of listening

and speaking to promote higher-order thinking skills among students.

163

Ambiga seems to use listening and speaking components
extensively in her English Language classes (Refer to the Appendix B -
Matirx). There were major listening speaking activities in 3 out of 5 days
(Days 1, 4 and 5) in the higher level English Language class. For
example, on Day 5 students prepared dialogues on two situations given
by the teacher and presented to the class in the role play activity. There
were also major listening and speaking activities in 4 out of 6 days in the
lower level English Language class. For example, on Day 6 there were
long exchanges between the teacher and students when the teacher
explained words and how to pronounce them (Refer to Appendix B). She
seems to place a lot of importance on these components because English
Language is taught as a second language, and also because of the
relatively low proficiency of students in English Language as compared to
Malay Language. Also, she seems to use much of the class time to
improve their pronunciation of words through the listening and speaking
activities in English Language since the students hardly use English
Language outside of the English Language classes. There is also almost
no need to use this language outside of the classroom.

She uses language drill to make students pronounce the words
and phrases correctly. She also explains the meaning of words whenever
she introduces new words. This pattern seems to be consistent in both of
Ambiga’s classes. It has to be noted that she uses the Malay Language

quite extensively to explain the meaning of words, especially in the lower

164

level English Language class. In the following excerpt it could be seen
that both the teacher and students from the lower English Language class
are involved in a discourse where the teacher is trying hard to have the
students understand the meaning of the different words and also how to

pronounce them.

Amb:

Amb:

T: Perkataan- perkataan ini adalah perkataan yang anda
salah sebut [These are the words which you all pronounced
wrongly]. Ok.

T: Ok Begin with the first one. Apa nama ni [What is the
name of this]... first question, ‘examine’.

$1: Examine.

Amb: Examine.

Sl: Examine.

82: Examine! [shouted]. ‘

Amb: This one, yang kedua [number two], bunyinya bukan [the
sound is not] “belding”, its... ‘building’.

Ss: Building.

Amb: Building.

Ss: Building.

Amb: Building.

Ss: Building.

Amb: This one, ‘two stories’

Ss: Two stories.

Amb: Two stories.

Ss: Two stories.

Amb: Yang ini [This one], maknanya ialah pintu masuk [The
meaning is entrance] ye. Pintu masuk disebut [entrance is
pronounced], ‘entrance’.

Ss: Entrance .....

Amb: This one bukan [not] she-tion ye. ‘Section'.

Ss: Section.

Amb: Section.

Ss: Section...

Amb: This one, bukan [not] ‘hag’, bukan [not] ‘hug’, bukan [not]
‘huj’. Huge!

Ss: Huge.

Amb: Huge.

Ss: Huge.

165

Amb: Once again.

Ss: Huge.

Amb: Huge means besar [ big] ye.

(Class observation, 72l62)

Ambiga introduces the word, provides the correct pronunciation,
and requests the students to pronounce the words. She conducts the
language drill until they get them right. This seems fine for improving their
basic listening and speaking capabilities. However, one wonders whether
Ambiga is really exploiting students’ prior knowledge, that is whether
students themselves are able to pronounce any of these words, in her
teaching. She introduces all the words, even when there are students in
the class who may know how to pronounce some of these words. Also
allowing students themselves to provide correct pronunciation of words,
and providing opportunities for students to provide contextual meaning of
those words would be in line with encouraging students to think.

A close look of the excerpt above suggests that she controls the
discourse, and seems satisfied with one word answers from students.
There seems to be no attempt to expand the one word answers to provide
opportunities to students to construct phrases, sentences, or even getting
them to talk about the words being introduced. None of the words were
introduced in a sentence. Students may be invited to give meaning of
words being introduced, and other students too could be invited to
contribute towards understanding the meaning of the word or even to

pronounce those words. As suggested by Jones, B. F. et al. (1987), both

166

listening and speaking research defines the underlying thinking
processes as goal oriented, the goal being to construct or communicate
meaning. The listening and speaking skills of students may be improved if
they are encouraged to do such things than just listening and repeating
such words. Ambiga also seems to assume, even before introducing any
words, that students will have the wrong pronunciation of those words,
and every time she introduces a new word, she seems to be starting with,
“This one, yang kedua (number two), bunyinya bukan (the sound is not)
“balding”, its... ‘building’” (Class observation, 72l62).

Even extending the class interaction to include other advanced
language activities seems to be a problem here, let alone exploiting
these listening and speaking activities for the purpose of promoting
higher-order thinking skills. Although there seems to be some reasons
like the low proficiency of students in English Language and English
Language being taught as a second language, they do not seem to be
sufficient reasons to justify why listening and speaking components are
not used efficiently, including students using the words in larger language
discourses like phrases or sentences, and giving contextual meaning, in
these classes.

Aishah too seems to be using listening and speaking extensively in
her Malay Language classes (Refer to Appendix B - Matrix). Listening and
speaking components make up substantial portions of classroom activities

in the two higher level and lower level Malay Language classes. These

167

activities could include students narrating their experiences in front of the
class, students listening to teacher’s explanation and providing
responses, or students presenting outcomes of their small group
discussion to the class. However, it is important to note that Aishah only
requires students from the higher level Malay Language class to narrate
their experiences. Students in the higher level Malay Language class got
the opportunities to narrate their experiences in front of the class 4 out the
5 days in the beginning of the lesson (Refer to Appendix B). Students in
the lower level Malay Language did not get this opportunity on any one of
the five days. This seems to be in line with her belief that students in the
higher level classes are capable of performing much tougher tasks than
those in the lower level classes. This may be one of the activities which
she considers students in the lower level class to be unable to do.

The pattern of interaction between Aishah and her students in the
higher level Malay Language class does not seem to differ much from the
interaction between Ambiga and her-students in a lower level English
Language class. The higher level Malay Language class and the lower
level English Language class represent the two best and worst scenarios
in terms of students’ proficiency. In this listening and speaking activity,
students are clearly playing a much more active role than students in
Ambiga’s lower level English Language class. However, the question is
whether students are able to construct and communicate the meaning, the

meaning they are making out of the contexts they are talking about. Using

168

Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), are there attempts to move beyond the
knowledge or recall level? Are students encouraged to analyze,
synthesize or even evaluate information being provided?
Ais: bagi contoh lain [give other examples]. Salah tak pe (If it
wrong it is ok). Saya tak marah [I won’t get angry].
S: Setiap hari Rabu Ali berjalan di tepi taman [Every
Wednesday, Ali walks along the garden].
Ais: Setiap hari Rabu, Ali berjalan di....
S: Tepi taman.
Ais: Di tepi taman. Tepi taman? Tepi-tepi aja diajalan? [he only
walks along the garden?].
8: Di taman [In the garden].
Ais: Setiap hari Rabu, Ali berjalan di taman [Every Wednesday,
Ali walks in the garden]. Ok, di taman bunga [Ok, in the
garden].
(Class observation, 72815)
Aishah asks students to provide a response for her question. A
student gives a sentence, “Setiap hari Rabu, Ali berjalan di tepi taman
(Every Wednesday, Ali walks along the garden)” Instead of encouraging
students to analyze the sentence and finding out for themselves what
could be wrong with the sentence based on Malay Language grammar,
she makes the evaluation. Students could have evaluated for themselves
whether the sentence is grammatically correct. In Bloom’s taxonomy, this
is the highest level of cognitive operation. After asking the student to
repeat the sentence, she asks, “He only walks along the garden?”
Students were given a clue that there is something wrong with the

sentence and they seem to have figured that ‘along’ is the wrong word

judging from the teacher's intonation of the sentence, ‘He only walks

169

along the garden?“ They replace the word ‘along' with ‘in.’ When
students provided the correct preposition, the teacher repeats the
sentence with the correct preposition. She did not even ask the students
whether ‘in’ fits in the sentence, another opportunity for students to
evaluate the response on their own. Even repeating the sentence, she
does it on her own, to reaffirm that the sentence she is repeating is the
correct one.

Whether it is the higher level Malay Language class or the lower
level English Language class, the best and worst scenarios, the teachers
seem to be not using enough of the potential of listening and speaking for
the purpose of promoting higher-order thinking skills among students.
Even for the purpose of extending the interactions to include advanced
language activities, it seems to be a problem. Aishah and Ambiga, once
again, seem to be caught in their own conceptions of playing their
dominant role as “knowledge transmitters,” which denies opportunities to
students to play an active part in the teaching and learning processes,
and causes the underutilization of listening and speaking components for

the purpose of promoting higher-order thinking skills among students.

Mia
Reading could also be used to promote higher-order thinking skills

among students. In reciprocal teaching (Palinscar and Brown, 1984), for

example, teaching employs a process of cooperative question-asking

170

between teacher and students to highlight many of the metacognition
demands of reading. The teacher models the overt summarizing,
questioning, clarifying, and predicting processes, which are assumed to
be internal processes executed during reading, while students comment
on the quality of questions, and summaries, and try to construct better
ones.

A close investigation of the practices in Aishah and Ambiga’s
classes seems to provide information to understand whether the potential
of the reading component is being exploited to develop the higher-order
thinking abilities of the students. In Aishah’s classes, reading and
comprehension seem to be used consisteme as part of the teaching and
Ieaming structure (Refer to Appendix B - Matrix). Students got to read
passages from the textbook in all the five days in the higher level and
lower level Malay Language classes. In fact, she often uses reading and
comprehension as the main activity or as a preparatory step leading to
the main activity which is often the writing activity (Diagram 1).

Raj: When Mrs.Aishah does reading and comprehension with
you all, how do you all usually do? Do you all read the
passage first?

S1: We read the passage from the text book.

Raj: From the text book?

82: Usually from text book

Raj: Usually from the text book Does Mrs.Aishah bring passages
from newspapers, or magazines?

Ss: Yes.

83: Yes. But seldom.

(Student interview, 7S3A2)

171

It could be seen that Aishah often gets students to read the
passages from the text book. Although students from this higher level
Malay Language class have suggested that she sometimes brings
passages from newspapers or magazines for students to read, this did not
happen during the period of this investigation. Aishah seems to plan her
lessons using aspects of grammar as the main focus. She seems to find
passages and also writing exercises which fit into her grammar
component of the week As such, her reading passages which she picks
seem to be more for the purpose of teaching the grammar component
than for purpose of reading and comprehension. It is fine to use the
reading passages for the purpose of teaching grammar. The problem,
however, seems to be that when the reading passages are often used to
emphasize the grammar component, students do not enjoy the benefits of
the reading and comprehension as a language activity. This also seems
to further inhibit the possibilities of the activity being used for developing

students’ higher-order thinking abilities.
I What Aishah’s pedagogical style in teaching reading and
comprehension entails is that she seems to be using the didactic method
of introducing the grammar component and using the passage as a
resource material for students to find examples. She also seems to
believe in teaching grammar using a disintegrated approach, that is the
direct teaching of grammar as opposed to incorporating the teaching of

grammar in the language components. For example, on March 12, 1997,

172

in her Form 28 class, she started her class by saying, “OR. Open page
126. ‘Kata sendi nama’ (adjective) (Class observation, 72851 ). She then
goes on to explain, “Ok Ye. ...what do you understand by ‘kata sendi
nama?” She then goes on to explain further before asking students to
read the relevant passage. Adjective is introduced in a decontextualized
manner. There are usually no discussions in class as a large group or
even in small groups about the information found in the passages after
the students have read them.

Even when some other aspect is the focus of the lesson, teacher
uses the reading passage to introduce those new aspects to students. On
Day 2 in the high level Malay Language class (Refer to Appendix B), the
teacher introduces students to writing formal letters. The reading passage
used from the textbook for the day is a formal letter. Teacher asks
students to open page 60 in the textbook and goes On to explain how
should a formal letter look like. She goes on to explain the different parts
starting with the address of the sender. She also suggests that students
pay attention to all the parts because they may lose marks if they omit any
of the parts of the formal letter in the examination. All this happens even
before students have a chance to look at the format of the letter in the
textbook and comprehend the contents.

Ais: Open page 60. Formal letter....

So, this is the format of a formal letter.

Ais: So, this is the format for a formal letter. So, you need to do
all. If in the examination, if you don’t have all this

173

information... .marks will be deducted. To write a formal
letter, a lot of marks you can get in the examination...

Ais: On page 60 you have a formal letter. You know how a formal
letter is written. Ok. First of all, address of the sender. When
you write the address of the sender....

(Class observation, 72821)

Aishah’s long explanation of the format of the formal letter was
coupled with students’ contribution as how to write the different parts of
the formal letter, like introduction, the main paragraph, and the
conclusion. The teacher wrote samples of these parts on the board with
contributions from the students. Students were then asked to write a
formal letter of 180 words. The reading passage was used in the long
explanation to show examples of the different parts. Students had to read
parts of the text aloud when the teacher requested and she wanted to
explain the respective parts.

These practices seem to constitute the structure of lessons
commonly found in Aishah’s classes. One of the implications of this type
of pedagogical style seems to be that students do not get to enjoy the
. various possibilities of reading and comprehension in enriching their
linguistic abilfiies like decoding meaning of words, vocabulary and
concept development, and comprehending literal and inferential
meanings, let alone their higher-order thinking abilities. Comprehending
inferential meanings, for example, has very close relationships to

students’ ability to conduct higher-order thinking. They need to critically

think about information provided before they could make inferences or

174

generalizations. There needs to be discussions among students if they
are to critically evaluate the information they read in the passages. They
also do not seem to get to do the metacognitive activities often
recommended for reading activities. There seems to very little
opportunities for students to do such things in Aishah’s classrooms.

Ambiga believes that reading has the highest potential of improving
the higher-order thinking skills of students as compared to the other three
language components. For a question which of the four components has
the highest potentials to improve students’ thinking abilities, she
suggests, “Reading. Read, you have to read a lot before you can think
highly. Then goes writing” (Teacher interview, 7T1 A6). She seems to
believe that the quantity of materials one reads is directly related to the
facts one can retain, and in her opinion that seems to be good thinking.
She further suggests, “A well read man, person, just like Lee Kuan Yew
(Former Prime Minister of Singapore). He can read so fast, he can
remember the facts, he can think” (Teacher interview, 7T1A6).

Ambiga too uses reading and comprehension almost consistently
in her two classes (Refer to the Appendix 8). Students in her higher level
English Level class got to do reading and comprehension activities in
three out of five days. Whereas, students in the lower level English
Language class got to do reading and comprehension activities four out
of six days. A common practice in her classes seems to be reading the

passage and doing the comprehension exercises. At least on two of the

175

three days students Ieam English Language, they do reading and
comprehension exercises. One of the special activities which relate
closely to providing opportunities for students to acquire higher-order
thinking skills were when she used a problem solving activity in her two
classes.

She brought a reading passage titled, “Robbery on a stormy night,”
(Class observation, Day 4, Form 2A - Refer to Appendix), and the
students were requested to read and find reasons to why the police
arrested the couple. This she did in her Form 2A class, which is a high
level English Language class. For her lower level English Language
class, Form 2|, she wrote a total of 19 items on the board and gave
students a problem to solve. They were requested to read and understand
the 19 items, and were requested to select only six items which they are
allowed to bring with them when they are jumping out of a troubled plane.
She prepared relatively an easier exercise for this class as compared to
Form 2A because their proficiency in English Language is very low.

What happened in these English Language classes as an outcome
of these activities is that students had to read, comprehend the meaning
of words, and use that understanding to solve real-life problems. For
example, in the Form 2A class, students had to read and comprehend the
meaning of words so that they could find reasons as to why the couple
were arrested although they are the ones who went to the police to make

a report that they were robbed of the supermarket cash they were

176

carrying. Students needed to really understand what they told the police
to make inferences to their intentions. There were no explicit clues found
in the passages. In the Form 2| class, although there were no right or
wrong answers to what were the six items to be brought with them, they
had to make their own justifications to the six most important items which
they choose. Finding that justification or explanation involved at least
some high level thinking. This kind of activities are certainly in line with
promoting students’ higher-order thinking. The pattem of activities
observed in Ambiga’s classes, however, suggests that this kind of activity
is not used often, and makes one wonder whether she decided to use
such an activity because the researcher was there.

A more popular reading and comprehension activity seems to
follow the type of activity on Day 1 in the high level English Language
class (Refer to Appendix B). Ambiga brought photocopied reading
passage on ‘Ants’ for all students. There was an interaction between the
teacher and students about ants. Some of the questions the teacher
asked in the interaction include, “What do you think when you read about
ants?” and “Any specific names for those types of ants?” (Class
observation, 72A11). Teacher asked three students to come to the front
of the class and draw on the board the segments in an ant. After this
interaction, students were given the reading passage and asked to read

silently for 5 minutes and then do the comprehension exercise.

177

Although reading and comprehension are used quite extensively in
these four classes, generally they do not seem to be extended to a level
which requires students’ higher level cognitive operations. They seem to
be used as regular language activities but not with the aim of promoting
higher-order thinking among students. Researchers recommend that
teacher and students should highlight many of the metacognition
demands of reading. Furthermore, one of the five steps of the infusion
lesson calls for metacognition, that is providing opportunities to students
to evaluate their own thinking processes. The kind of lesson structures
discussed so far which are found in Ambiga and Aishah’s classes do not
seem to cater for such metacognitive demands of reading.

An analysis of reading and comprehension questions given to
students in the four classes on a particular day, Day 1 (T able 4) suggests
that questions given to test students’ comprehension of the passages they

read in classes are generally of lower cognitive levels.

178

Table4: o nitive levels Bloom’s Taxonom of uestions in

Readin and cm rehension exercises

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cognitive levels
of questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Day 1 Higher Level
2125/97 Eng. Lang. class 7 7 14
Day 1 Lower Level
2I24I97 Egg. Lang. class 11 3 14
Day 1 Higher Level
3/11/97 Malay Lang. 4 9 14
class
Day 1 Lower Level
3110/97 Malay Lang. 8 5 13
class

 

 

 

The six cognitive levels in the Bloom’s Taxonomy were used to
categorize the questions given to students for reading and
comprehension exercises. For example, after students in the high level
English Language class read a passage on ‘Ants,’ on Day 1, they were
requested to answer 14 questions. The questions were categorized based
on the kind of responses they intended to elicit from students. That is
whether they require students to use the knowledge level, the first level
for which the answers are often found in the reading passage or whether
the questions require students to evaluate the given information, the sixth
level for which the answers would not be found in the reading passages
but the students are expected to create on their own. There were 7
questions of the first level, which included questions like, “Where are ants

most commonly found?” and there were 7 more questions of the second

179

level requiring them to state their comprehension which included
questions like, “Explain the meaning of the word ‘secrete’ as it was used
in the passage”.

Except for five questions given to students in lower level Malay
Language class, all other questions given to students, including the
higher level English Language class were of the first and second
cognitive levels. The first cognitive level in the Bloom’s Taxonomy require
students to recall, locate or match information. The second level requires
students to restate, identify or estimate responses. Both these levels are
considered as lower level cognitive operations. The third level requires
students to translate, interpret or employ the information found in the
reading passage. The other three levels require students to analyze the
information, synthesize or originate information, and even evaluate the
given information on their own. The questions given to students on a
selected day (Day 1 - Refer to Appendix B) in all the four classes do not
seem to go beyond the second level, except in one case. What students
and up doing is that they locate and or restate information readily found in
the reading passages. In Onosko and Newmann’s (1994) opinion, this
only requires routine thinking.

The reading passages used or brought by the teachers to the
classes are also something which need to be evaluated. Whether there
are opportunities for students to conduct higher order thinking depends

on the kind of passages used by teachers in these classes. The question

180

is whether the topics are of interest to students and those which motivate
them to know more about the topics. As students in the higher level
English Language class suggest, the subject of the reading passages
used in the four classes are common t0pics like ‘ants,’ ‘Keris’ (a Malay
traditional weapon), ‘importance of giving donation,’ and ‘robbery on a
stormy night.’ Students from the high level English Language class
suggest that the topics used in the reading and comprehension passages
also do not interest them.

84: I don’t think

Raj: So, normal lah. Why is it normal? Because of the classes
you do?

S3: Sometimes, from like Standard 1 to Form 2, they’re teaching
the same thing over and over again. Make the
questions...

82: Anything new when we go to higher standard. Anything new
like.

Raj: What do you want it to be new? That’s the one I want to
know. You’re saying, from Standard 1 to Form 2, reading,
comprehension, composition. How you think it’ll be
interesting? Like something we discussed just now.

S4: More interesting topic.

Raj: More interesting topic.

S4: Aliens, UFO..

(Student interview, 8S1A10)

As the‘students suggest, these topics are repeated very often from
the time the start their standard one (grade one). These topics may be
boring to students and they seem to think that they do not have much to
learn from reading these passages. This seems certainly a problem in
Aishah’s classes more than in Ambiga’s classes because Aishah uses the

textbook consisteme to cany out reading and comprehension exercises

181

in her two Malay Language classes. The topics in the textbook she uses
in the class was published in 1993 and much of the information contained
in this book may be outdated. Ambiga is in a slightly better chance of
bringing topics which interest students because she sometimes brings

photostated materials from other sources.

Writing

Writing like other language components has the potential to
promote higher-order thinking among students. Flower and Hayes (1980a,
1980b, 1981), for example, characterized writing as a set of iterative,
recursive phases, which include planning, translating and reviewing.
Within each phase the writer is continually weighing the effects of current
decisions on those previously made. This phase is line with the
metacognitive step in the infusion lesson.

Writing component is also used consistently in Ambiga’s classes
(Refer to Appendix 8). Students in the higher level English Language
class had writing assignments four out of five days. Students in her lower
level English Language class had writing assignments five out of six days.
These writing assignments include filling in blanks, answering multiple
choice questions, copying sentences, and writing a composition. Except
for writing a composition, all other writing assignments are based on the

reading passages used in the classes. Very often writing assignments

182

seem to be the focus of the lessons in Ambiga’s classes (Refer to
Diagram 2). In either of the two structures she uses in her classes,
activities are geared towards preparing students to do the writing
assignments. In fact, in the second structure (Diagram 2), students work
exclusively on writing assignments after listening to the explanations of
the teacher about the task.

In Ambiga’s English Language classes, students seemed to have
had one of the rare opportunities to conduct some serious thinking
through the problem solving activity, where she used the reading
passage, “Robbery on a stormy night,” and finding the six most important
things to be carried along, in both the classes. This is the only such
activity she used in the two classes during the period of this investigation.
Also, Ambiga suggests that this is the first time she has prepared such an
activity during the first three months of the school year to have active
student participation. For a question, “So, you were saying, this is the first
time you are actually having something specifically to get the students
involved?', she answered, “Ya, for this year (Teacher interview, 7T182).
Students needed to find answers based on logic and then write about
them, although the writing assignment related to this assignment was
relatively brief as compared to the listening and speaking exercises
conducted based on this activity. There were no right or wrong answers
for the problems given by the teacher. Students had to find legitimate

reasons to support their arguments.

183

Students also had the opportunities to discuss with their friends in
small groups about solving this problem. As Ambiga suggests, the
students did discuss about many interesting aspects like, “Why this
couple (were) convicted? Why? Then the other sense is like.., you read
this la..., open window and all. So they.., one couldn’t see what the other
can. So they do that kind of discussion till they found out” (Teacher
interview, 7T1814). It could also be seen from the excerpt below from the
high level English Language class where students were involved in this
activity. Students also found out the contradictions in statements given by
the couple to police, and they talked about it. Ambiga also believes that
since they were requested to write reasons later, there was a more
serious discussion. It seems that the discussion which led them to the
writing assignment became more intense because the students knew that
they had to write about the reasons later.

Amb: Ok, groups, first you have to read the story. Ok. [teacher
reading part of the passage].

Amb: Ok! You’ll be given 10 minutes to solve the, the case ah!

S1: Robbery...

82: You also write lah...

S3: Oi.. Oi.. Teruklah [Terrible you know].

[Students talking to each other].

Because they were trying to cheat him.

If I see a lot of money, I’II..

This type of money. If you keep it,...

Someone else has money. So police find ah .....

Bank where got open at night?

Eh.. Everybody also got jawatan [job] right?

Eh! How come you go an add up like that.

Open window... One man put the gun through the open

window...

184

S: Oil What la that fellow, I don’t understand the storylah.

8: Actually, that no logic you know.

(Class observation, 72A43)

The important question, however, seems to be how often do
students get to do such activities in these English Language classes
taught by Ambiga. Does she consciously plan to include such activities in
her classes as often as possible? Observation of her two English
Language classes seem to suggest that such activities where students
take an active part in exploring issues which requires thinking are rare
(Refer to Appendix 8). She herself admitted that this is the first problem
solving activity she planned and conducted in these classes in the first
three months of schooling (Teacher interview, 7T182). In fact, even other
writing assignments seem to be rarely given for students to benefit from
the construction processes of writing. The writing process has been
described as a recursive act that includes identifiable yet amorphous
stages, such planning, translating, and reviewing (Flower & Hayes, 1981).
Students in these classes seldom benefit from such activities as much as
one would expect because writing assignments which require such
thought processes seem rarely planned and implemented in these
classes. Except for the composition assignment, the kind of writing
assignments given to students suggest that there were no explicit
opportunities for students to do metacognition, evaluating their own

thinking processes. Students in her higher level English Language class,

185

for example, suggested that after about three months of school, they have
only done one composition (Student interview, 7S1A1). Even if writing
assignments are given, they seem to focus on simple assignments like
filling in the blanks, or comprehension exercises for which answers are
often available in the reading passages. The questions in the
comprehension exercises seldom go beyond the knowledge and recall
level. Even for improving students’ writing abilities it seems to be a
problem. The use of writing to improve students’ thinking abilities in her
English Language classes seems much more problematic.

Writing component is also used consistently in Aishah’s classes
(Refer to Appendix 8). Students were given writing assignments on all five
days in the higher level Malay Language class. Students in the lower level
Malay Language class had writing assignments on four out of five days.
These writing assignments include, copying a poem, filling in blanks,
reading and comprehension exercise, and writing a letter. The most
popular writing assignments in Aishah’s classes are reading and
comprehension exercises.

In Aishah’s Malay Language classes, as has been discussed
above, much of the writing carried out is centered around the grammar
component and the relevant reading passages read by the students. In
other words, often students are required to conduct writing assignments
which test their comprehension of the grammar components Ieamed or

the passages they read. Again, these writing assignments mostly seem to

186

require comprehension or recall abilities of students and most of the times
the answers are found in texts. Very rarely do students need to use their
analytic, synthesis or evaluative skills in their writing assignments. There
certainly seems to be no opportunities to originate new information. Even
when students are required to write compositions where students may
have a better chance of using those skills, like when students in the
higher level Malay Language class were required to write a formal letter,
more attention was paid to the format of the letter, like where to place the
address of the sender and date, than the contents (Class observation,
7282). Aishah also discussed in detail what needs to be in the various
sections of the letter, leaving little opportunity for students to create the
contents of the letter on their own.

However, there seems to be reasons why Aishah is doing such
things in her classrooms. What seems to be real problematic is Aishah’s
belief that only students in her higher level classes are able to think. She
believes that writing assignments which require students to think hard to
find answers could only be given to students in higher level classes.
Students in higher level classes, in her opinion, read a lot and because of
this they could conduct their own thinking. On the other hand, she thinks
that students in the lower level classes will want to cheat and copy from
their friends if they are given writing assignments which require them to
think. Once again, in her opinion, these students are lazy and they like to

cheat. These beliefs of hers seem real problematic for even teaching

187

Malay Language, let alone using writing to improve students’ thinking. Her
perceptions of students in lower level classes certainly seem to inhibit
students’ opportunities to benefit from writing assignments as compared
to their friends in her higher level classes. Even in the higher level Malay
Language class, that seems to be a problem.

Raj: What about the issue of writing? The writing assignments
given to students. Like the question just now, in your
opinion, do they help them think? That is beyond the
ordinary.

Ais: You mean in writing?

Raj: Yes. The writing assignments given. Like composition,
comprehension, and so on. Do these exercises help?

Ais: As for me, I believe it only helps students in good classes.
For students in poor classes, even if we ask them to write,
they ask others for help. If possible, they will want to cheat.
They want to copy from their friends. So it is really difficult to
get those students to think. But for those good students,
they are able to think. They read a lot of books. So do things
by thinking. They use their thinking. Those students in poor
classes, most of the students want to cheat if possible.
There are also some good students who can think in these
classes. Like, when they a sentence, I can see and be
sure that those students also read a lot of books. There are
also students who take the sentences from their books. That
is because they cannot really think. For them it is too
difficult. So it is difficult to ask such students to think hard
from what they can do. Only to the level they can do.
Because these students are lazy, they do not want to think.

What’s the reason they want to cheat by copying their
friends’ work.
(Teacher interview, 7T2A15)

Observations of Aishah’s two Malay Language classes also seem
to support the notion that writing component is used quite consistently like
other language components but lack the extra explicit attempts to raise it

to a higher level to include higher order thinking abilities in the processes.

188

Writing, like other language component, is used to fulfill the aims of
teaching Malay or English language. There seems to be lack of
understanding on the part of the teacher on the potential of writing
component to promote higher-order thinking skills among students, and to
use writing for that purpose. This lack of understanding inhibits the
opportunities of exploiting writing to promote thinking abilities of students.
There certainly seems to be very few or no opportunities for students to
possess the active nature of writing, providing a medium for exploring
implications entailed within otherwise unexamined assumptions.

As a result, writing seems to be grossly underutilized in terms of its
potential for both promoting writing abilities, and for improving students’
thinking in both Aishah and Ambiga’s classes. Students do not receive
much opportunities to carry out activities such as planning, translating,
and reviewing which could improve students’ thinking abilities. Students
do not get to do, for example, process of synthesis in which they combine
or unify separate ideas or materials to create something new in their
writing assignments. Student also rarely get the opportunities to evaluate
the information given to them by making judgments about the purpose,
worth, or quality of something. One wonders whether Ambiga and Aishah
are aware of the high potential of writing to improve student thinking in

content instruction.

189

Analflic Summag

. Much of what goes on in Ambiga and Aishah’s classrooms seems
to suggest that all four language components are underutilized in relation
to their potential in promoting higher—order thinking skills. Much of what
goes on in the four classes taught by Aishah and Ambiga seem to be in
line with the curriculum requirements. That is, the four language
components are explicitly stated in the syllabus, curriculum specifications,
and in textbooks. Although the teaching of higher order thinking skills is
stated explicitly as one of the objectives of the secondary school
curriculum, that is “to develop and enhance their intellectual capacity with
respect to rational, critical and creative thinking,” (Curriculum
Development Center, 1989), they are not stated as separate categories
like the four language components in these curricular documents. One
reason for this is that The Integrated Curriculum for Secondary Schools
was implemented in 1988, and the curricular specifications and textbooks
were written based on these documents. The explicit treatment of higher
order thinking skills in content instruction was only implemented in 1993.
This, coupled with the lack of understanding as how to use the four
language components in teaching higher-order thinking skills, could be
the reasons why Ambiga and Aishah do not pay special attention to the
aim of including higher order thinking abilities in their planning and

teaching in their classes.

190

Another curriculum requirement which seems to influence teachers’
planning and implementation of the language components in their classes
in relation to the acquisition of higher order thinking skills is the testing
requirements. Tests and examinations are organized based on the
language components, and specifically on the reading and
comprehension and writing components. So far there are no separate
categories in testing instruments which test students’ thinking abilities.
Majority of the questions in examinations now are also of low cognitive
levels. However, there are attempts to increase questions in national
examinations which require students’ higher order thinking abilities to 60
percent by the year 2000 from the present 5 to 10 percent, as suggested
by Bakar from the Curriculum Development Center (Interview 9JOS3).

At present teachers are used to planing and teaching based on
how students are required to answer the Malay or English Language
papers in national examinations. It could be seen that much of the
language activities in Ambiga and Aishah’s classes, especially reading
and comprehension, and writing assignments are organized in line with
how students are tested in examinations. For example, when Aishah
teaches how to write a formal letter she iterates the fact that students
need to pay attention to all of different parts of the letter. Otherwise, they
will lose marks if they omit any of those parts (Class observation, 7284).

There are two papers in the National Level Lower Secondary

Assessment Examination. The first paper has 60 multiple choice

191

questions, of which 20 questions were reading and comprehension
questions and the rest of 40 questions were on language usage in 1992.
The second paper has three sections: writing a composition; writing a
précis; and completing a text in the form of filling in blanks (10 blanks) in
a given passage. Although there are attempts to increase the exam
questions requiring students’ higher-order thinking abilities in stages, it
does not seem to be an important focus now.

The kind of language practices in Ambiga and Aishah’s classes
observed seem to suggest that they are planned and taught very much in
line with what is expected of students in the examinations. Once again,
higher order thinking skills are not the core components of the
examinations and this, besides teachers’ lack of understanding of the
potential of four language components to promote higher-order thinking
skills and lack of the pedagogical skills to use them in their classrooms for
the purpose of promoting higher-order thinking skills seem to influence
how teachers use the four language components in the teaching of higher

order thinking skills.

192

Different Strategies And Techniques In Teaching
Higher-Order Thinking Skills In Malay Or English Language Classrooms
In this section, some of the major strategies and approaches used

by Ambiga and Aishah in their form two Malay and English classes will be
investigated in relation to their effectiveness in promoting higher order
thinking skills in classrooms. This section will specifically address the
second component of pedagogical content knowledge where teachers are
required to know of instructional strategies and representations for
teaching particular topics. The analysis will include what teachers
generally perceive of strategies and techniques which promote higher
order thinking skills in content instruction, and what they think of the
strategies and techniques they use in their classrooms. This will be
followed by the analysis of teacher and student talk, questioning, small
group discussion, and problem solving strategy. Since teachers like
Ambiga and Aishah are expected to use the infusion approach to teach
higher order thinking skills in content instruction, this section will also
include an analysis of whether these teachers are able to use such an

approach.

What approaches support the
amuisition of higher-order thinking skills?

The Form Two Malay and English Language teachers in the

Perdana School District were given three hypothetical situations which

193

represent three different approaches to teaching and Ieaming in form two
English Language classrooms in the survey questionnaire (Refer to
Appendix A - Survey questionnaire). They were requested to provide their
responses as to how much each of these approaches promote higher-
order thinking among students. The main reason was to investigate the
type of approach or approaches, in the opinion of these teachers, best
promote(s) higher-order thinking skills.

Approach 1 is a very teacher-oriented, didactic teaching strategy.
Teacher plays the role of knowledge transmitter. Students are passive
listeners. Students are evaluated on how much they have benefited from
the teacher's teaching. Questions often require right or vwong answers.
There is seldom opportunities for students’ views or questions. In
approach 2, the teacher brings into the classrooms some materials from
other sources. Students are provided with some opportunities to talk
about the issue at hand. Teacher asks questions to test student
understanding, but more to encourage students getting only the right
answers. Student responses are also not explored further. Subsequently,
students are requested to cany out the task.

In approach 3, teacher also brings in resource materials from
outside sources. The class starts with the teacher asking students to
read. There is help for students who are less able. There is a short small
group discussion, after which the students discuss the issue as a whole

class. Students are encouraged to provide responses to the issue at

194

hand. The teacher helps students to explore the points raised by the
students. Students are also encouraged to ask questions and also
wonder about the various things being discussed. They then proceed to
discuss about the task they were going to do. Students, then, carry out
their task. They were expected to share their work with their friends, and
also to provide constructive criticisms of each others’ work after they have
completed their task. Approach 3 is in line with what most researchers
recommend to be the approach which, if used frequently in classrooms,
could promote the acquisition of higher-order thinking skills by students.
There seems to be a consensus among majority of these teachers
that approach 3 best promotes higher-order thinking skills (Table 5).
Among the 104 teachers who participated in this study, 92.3 percent (72.1
plus 20.2 percent ) of them agree that approach 3 promotes higher-order
thinking skills in the classroom. Whereas, 26.9 percent (4.8 plus 22.1
percent ) of the teachers think that approach 2 could promote higher-
order thinking skills in the classroom. Only 6.7 percent (1.9 plus 4.8
percent) of the teachers chose to suggest that approach 1 promotes
higher-order thinking skills in the given classroom. What this seems to
suggest is that majority of the teachers have an idea of the kind of
teaching that best promotes higher-order thinking skills, especially in a

language classroom.

195

Table 5: Teachers’ responses on the potentials of the
three approaches in promoting higher-order thinking skills

 

Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3
Doesn't promote 37 (35.6 %) 6 ( 5.8 %)
HOT skills (1)
(2) 45 (43.3 %) 14 (13.5 %) 2 ( 1.9 %)
(3) 15 (14.4 %) 56 (53.8%) 6 (5.8 %)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(4) 5 (4.8 %) 23 (22.1%) 21 (20.2 %)
Promotes HOT 2 (1.9 %) 5 (4.8%) 75 (72.1 %)
skills (5)
Total 104 (100%) 104 (100%) 104 Q00%)

 

Key: Based on a continuum of 1 to 5.
(1) Does not promote higher-order thinking skills
(5) Promotes higher-order thinking skills

It has to be noted that the teachers who suggested that Approach 3
best promotes higher-order thinking skills may have done so based on
specific preferences they have which in their opinion promote higher-
order thinking skills. However, it seems fair to suggest that majority of the
form two Malay and English Language teachers generally agree that
higher-order thinking skills are best promoted in classrooms where there

are practices similar to approach 3, as explained earlier.

What approaches are teachers using in their own classrooms?
Among the 104 Malay and English Language teachers from the

Perdana School District who participated in this study, 56.7 percent of the
teachers suggested that approach 3 is most used in their classrooms

(Table 6). Another 37.5 percent of the teachers suggested that approach

196

2 is most used in their classrooms. However, only 5.8 percent of the

teachers suggested that approach 1 is most used in their classrooms.

Table 6: Teachers’ resmnses on
Approaches most used in their classrooms

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percentage
Approach 1 6 5.8
Approach 2 39 37.5
Approach 3 59 58.7
Total 104 100.0

 

 

It has to be noted here that majority of the teachers have
suggested that they have practices similar to what is contained in
approach 3 which best promotes higher-order thinking skills. This seems
to be in line with what most teachers often do, that is suggesting that they
carry out practices in their classrooms which are in line with what is
recommended in reforms. This was also true, for example in the
investigation carried out by Stemberg and Martin (1988).

“In talking to teachers about thinking, we found that one truism

seems always to hold, no matter who the audience is, where it is

addressed, or when the address is presented. Virtually all teachers
believe that they teach for thinking. When we have asked them
whether they believe that their students are Ieaming to think,
however, most of them shrug their shoulders or otherwise convey
an indefinite response.”
(Stemberg and Martin, 1988, p.555)
As suggested by Stemberg and Martin even teachers who were involved

in this investigation may have difficulty explaining the kind of practices

197

that promote higher-order thinking skills in their classrooms based on
their own understandings. It was certainly true in the case of Aishah and
Ambiga.

Given this situation in classrooms in the Perdana School District,
one wonders about the kind of teaching in Aishah and Ambiga’s Malay
and English Language classes. However, it is not clear where Aishah and
Ambiga have placed themselves in these three different approaches.
Nevertheless, it seems important to investigate whether there are efforts
by teachers to promote the acquisition of higher-order thinking skills by
their students? Do teachers like Aishah and Ambiga attempt to employ
approaches, strategies and techniques which have positive aspects which
are found in approach 3? Do the approaches promote active student
participation, allow for students’ questions and explorations, cater for the
less able in their classes so that they too could benefit from the teaching
and Ieaming, and allow students to be part of the teaching and Ieaming
processes including playing their part in deciding the task to be carried
out?

Although better thinking among students could be a by-product of
many activities prepared for the teaching of Malay or English Language,
one wonders whether these teachers are making explicit attempts to
emphasize thinking skills in their teaching, in line with the recent reform
efforts in schools in Malaysia. Also, are these teachers bringing the

activities in their classes to a level which possesses distinctive features

198

from traditional approaches to teaching, and clearly promote higher-order

thinking skills in their classrooms?

Teacher and student talk

In every lesson Ambiga and Aishah allocate time to talk to students
(Refer to Appendix B - Table 22). Also an analysis of structures of
lessons in both Aishah’s (Diagram 1) and Ambiga (Diagram 2) and
classes suggest that a considerable amount of time is allocated by the
teachers to do this. In Ambiga’s classes, this teacher talk could be in the
form of the teacher explaining a topic like ‘ants,’ introducing grammatical
aspects like ‘prepositions,’ and explaining meaning of words from the
passage. In any one given lesson, at the minimum there will be teacher
talk explaining the task of the day after which students do the writing
assignments (Refer to Diagram 2). Student talk in Ambiga’s English
Language classes could be in the form of students providing responses
while reading a passage, presenting the outcome of their group
discussions to the class, and students’ questions. Almost similar type of
teacher and student talk takes place in Aishah’s classes. One difference
seems to be that Aishah provides opportunities to students to narrate their
personal experiences to the class. This, however, only happens in the
higher level Malay Language class.

A close look at the interaction between Ambiga and her students in

the lower level English Language class (Class observation, 52I63)

199

provides data to understand the pattern of talk between the teacher and
the students. Teacher is introducing a number of words, and also is
interested in correcting students’ pronunciation. Although the turn taking
is equally divided between the teacher and the students, the teacher is
doing more talk in terms of time taken than the students. It is important to
note that there is not even one question asking students, “Do anyone of
you know this word (3)?” Teacher talk involves long explanations, but
student talk is limited to repeating words in chorus. Although there are
students in this lower level English Language class trying to contribute
towards what they are Ieaming, the teacher does not seem to exploit
students’ input to the maximum. For example, when the teacher
introduces the word ‘rawatan’ (treatment), a student, before even she
calls for an answer, provides the response by saying ‘treatment.’ She
seems to just go forward by getting students to say the word. She doesn’t
even explain the word, as she explained the words ‘huge’ and ‘parcel.’
Requesting students to explain the word ‘treatment,’ instead of her
explaining may provide opportunities for student talk and would also
enrich the discourse.

Amb :Yang ini adalah bungkusan [This one is parcel], we call it

parcel.
Ss :Parcel.
Amb :Parcel.
Ss :Parcel.

Amb :This one is rawatan [treatment] ye.
S1 :Treatment.
Amb :Treatment.
Ss :Treatment.

200

Amb :Treatment.

Ss :Treatment

Amb :Ok. lni bukan ‘patent’ [This is not patent]. Patent tu

maknanya Iain ye [Patent means a different thing, ok].
S1 :pe-ti-ent
Amb :Bukan [not] ‘pe-ti-ent’. Dia punya sebutan [the
pronunciation is] ‘patient’.
Ss :Patient.
(Class observation, 52I63)

She goes on to explain the next word ‘patient.’ She starts to
explain, ‘This one is not patent, ye’, even before asking whether any of
the students know the meaning of the word or even how to pronounce it.
She seems to assume that none of the students in the class knows the
word ‘patient.’ She also seems to remind the students that ‘patent’ and
‘patient’ are two different things, but did not make an attempt to explain
the difference. Also, to make things more interesting for students she
could have used any one of the students to explain the meaning of the
word ‘patient.’ This pattern of interaction seems to limit student talk and
student participation in the class. What seems important to note here is
that for effective Ieaming to occur there needs to be both equal number or
more turn taking for students to talk, and also the quality of the talk that
goes on in the discourse.

A similar scenario seems to be present in Aishah’s classes. Below
is an excerpt of an interaction between the teacher and students in the

lower level Malay Language class. The teacher and students are talking

about transitive and intransitive verbs. The teacher asks a question, “what

201

is the meaning of a verb?” A student answers, “A verb is a word which
shows an activity.” It needs to be noted that, although this is a lower level
Malay Language class, students are ready to provide responses. The
answer for the meaning of a verb is in a full sentence, unlike in most
cases where students are fond of giving one word answers.

Ais :Nuzrul, what is the meaning of a verb?

Ais :Yes. Razak.

Razak :A verb is a word which shows an activity.

Ais :Activity ye. So, a verb is part of a category of words. One
category of words showing an activity. So, a verb is
something which is carried out. It shows an activity or
someone involving in an activity. That is what called a verb.
In Malay Language, we have two types of verbs. Ok, who
can give one of the verbs? Remember, in Form One, I have
explained.

S1 :Transitive verb.

Ais :Yes. a transitive verb. Ok, the second one?

82 :An intranstive verb.

Ais :Ok. an intransitive verb.

Ais :Ok. In the text book, this is called intransitive verb .....

(Class observation, 52E11)

She seems to feel happy about explaining the meaning of what a
verb is, and later about an intransitive verb, when in fact the students
seem capable of explaining many of those terms themselves. For
example, when one of the students provided the answer ‘intransitive verb,’
she did not make an effort to ask whether any of the students knew what
an intransitive verb is. There could have been an opportunity for student
talk. She instantly started to explain what an intransitive verb is. Even
when the student Razak provided an answer for the word ‘verb,’ she did

not attempt to expand the answer by requesting him or other students to

202

contribute. One way to get students to think and wonder about what they
do in their classes, may be, is to contemplate the responses provided in
the classes. This does not seem to be happening here.

In one of the problem solving activities in the English Language
classes taught by Ambiga, students presented what they discussed in
their groups (Refer to Appendix B - Table 22 - Day 5, Lower Level English
Language class). Students had the opportunities to talk about the six
things they had decided to bring with them from a troubled plane. Ambiga
did ask them to explain why the passport is one of the six things they
selected. This particular activity obviously provided students the
opportunities to talk about the ‘why,’ in small groups, besides the ‘what.’
However, continuing the discussion about the ‘why,’ and allowing
students to talk why it qualifies to be one of the six items seems to be the
kind of activity which could provide the opportunities for student talk
involving higher cognitive operations. Among others, students need to be
encouraged to make judgments about purpose, worth, or quality of
something.

81 :Passport.

Amb :Say why you need the passport.

81 :Because we are Malaysian citizen.

Amb :We are Malaysian citizen. Ok. Next.

S1 :Matches.

Amb :Matches.

S1 :Because we can, we can smoke signal.

Amb :Ok. Signal, how?

S1 :Because when we see someone, we can give signal.
(Class observation, 52l53)

203

There may not and will not be six correct answers for this problem.

However, getting students to talk, argue, criticize, and debate these

issues would provide them the opportunity to carry out some higher-level

thinking themselves. Over time, this kind of exercises may prove useful in

educating students to conduct higher-level thinking on their own. Another

example from Aishah’s higher level Malay Language class demonstrates

how the teacher summarizes a discussion between her and the students.

Even here the teacher seems to be the one who is talking more than the

students which limits opportunities to students to talk and summarize the

discussion. Even if students get to talk, they seem to give one word

answers to reaffirm what the teacher is saying.

Ais

S1

Ais
$2
Ais
S3
Ais

Ais

Ais

:Ok, so from this passage, we understand, how a student,
Bainum binti Shukri, ....... part of her contributions is to be
given to Actually, the student Fairus pretends to use part
of his savings to buy a series of books which he likes.
...sympathize...what good values do you all see here? The
good things, which needs to be followed or Fairus’ attitude?
:Kind heartedness, teacher.
:Kind heartedness.
:Sympathy.
:Sympathy.
:Not only thinking of ourselves.
:Not only thinking of ourselves.
:Cooperation.
:Is it?
:COOperation
:Cooperation, so more...?

(Class observation, 52832)

Students proposed good values like kind heartedness, sympathy,

and cooperation for a question what could be Ieamed from Fairus’

204

attitude. There could be many students in the class who do not
understand the meanings of these values, and more Importantly how they
relate to the main story they have been discussing. Talking about them
and also providing opportunities to students to explain the values they
proposed and also to play a part in summarizing the lesson may have
provided the students with the opportunities to do some higher-order
thinking about their Ieaming task of the day. Synthesizing the many points
raised in the class seems to be one of the activities need to be promoted
in a class where improving students’ thinking is one of the Ieaming
objectives.

In all the four classes, the two teachers allocate substantial amount
of the time for talk, but it seems that much of the time is used for teacher
talk than to encourage student talk. The kind of common practices
involving teacher and student talk in the four classes (Refer to Appendix
B - Table 22), suggest that teachers control and dominate the discourse,
even when students could be allowed to talk and extend the classroom
discourse. A further investigation of the small group discussions in the
classes may help understand further how those small group discussions
did or did not help to promote student talk and higher-order thinking skills

among them.

205

Small group discussion

The small group discussions provide opportunities for students to
talk about issues at hand. Students solve problems, clarify values, explore
controversial issues, and form and defend positions during reflective
discussions (Wilen, 1990). This discussion where students are required to
synthesize and evaluate information, opinions, and ideas has the
potential to push students to the highest levels of cognition.

From the observations of the two English Language and the two
Malay Language classes (Refer to Appendix B - Table 22) and the Table
7 below, it could be seen that there were small group discussions in all
classes except for the higher level Malay Language class. There were
small group discussions in two of the five days in the lower level English
Language class, whereas there were small group discussions in two of
the six days in the higher level English Language class. However, there
was small group discussion in only one of the five days in one of the
classes taught by Aishah. There were no small group discussions on any

one of the days in the higher level Malay Language class.

206

Table 7: The usage of small group discussions

in the Malay and English Language classrooms

 

Day Day Day Day Day Day Total
1 2 3 4 5 6

 

Higher Level
Eng. Lang. X X —-- 2
class (2A)
Lower Level
Eng. Lang. X X 2
class (2|)
Higher Level
Malay Lang. --- 0
class (28)
Lower Level
Malay Lang. x ——- 1
class (2E)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the two occasions Ambiga had small group discussions in her
classes, she involved students in small group discussions to find ways to
solve a given problem and working in pairs to prepare a dialogue. In her
higher level English Language class, students had to discuss and find
reasons why the couple were arrested in the problem solving activity, and
also got to work in pairs to prepare dialogue based on two situations
given by the teacher. These were similar kinds of activities which she
carried out in both of her English Language classes. Aishah, on the other
hand, does not seem to be using much of small group discussions in her
lesson structure. The only time she used was when she requested
students from the lower level Malay Language class (Refer to Appendix B
- Table 22) to prepare questions on an episode of a drama they read in
the class. Students worked in pairs. Although students from a higher level

Malay Language class suggested that Aishah requests students to be in

207

small groups and when we are doing our essay, she asks us to gather
points for the essay.” and also suggested that, “after that we discuss
about the essay” (Student interview, 5S3A3), this did not seem to have
occurred in the classes during the period of this investigation.

Raj :Does your teacher get you all to discuss in small groups in
the class?

Ss :Yes.

Raj :Could you all explain when you get to do this?

SS :Like when we are doing our essay. She asks us to gather
points for the essay.

86 :After that we discuss about the essay.

Raj :Ok. Who else can explain?

82 :We look for views.

Raj :When you all look for views, how do you all do that?

S3 :We discuss as a group.

S4 :Everyone gives his points or views.

86 :But sometimes there are students who make noise, play, do
not want to do, or sleep.

Raj :So, there are people who wouldn’t do?

Ss :Yes.
Raj :Are there such people in all groups?
Ss :Yes.

(Student interview, 583A3)

The students seem to like discussions in small groups, although
there seems to be problems like those mentioned by students above
where there are students who do not contribute, make noise, or sleep.
The few times students were observed in small groups to discuss in three
classes, except the higher level Malay Language class, students were
very excited and showed a lot of interest in participating in the discussion.
When students in Ambiga’s class were asked whether the discussion in a

group is interesting, they seem to suggest that they like the discussions,

208

and they would like to have more of it (Student interview, 58182). They

also suggested that the discussions are sometimes challenging, besides

being interesting. They claim that because the task given to the group is

challenging, it makes them think (Student interview, 581A4).

It seems that if the tasks given to the students are interesting and

challenging students will have serious debate in the small group

discussions. When students did the problem solving activity, and as a

part of the activity they had to discuss in small groups, Ambiga suggests,

the students did discuss about many interesting aspects like, “Why this

couple [were] convicted? Why? Then the other sense is like.., you read

this la..., open window and all. So they.., one couldn’t see what the other

can. So they do that kind of discussion till they found out” (Teacher

interview, 7T1 B14).

Raj:

Amb:

Raj:

Amb:

Raj:

Inference questions, ya. OK Let’s.., we go into the writing
assignments. You give both the classes writing
assignments. Group writing assignments they did.
Remember, they wrote on the..,

Ah.. ya.

So for 2A they wrote all the reasons, and 2| they wrote the
six things they can take with them. And then they came up,
they presented. When they discussed and wrote that in
groups, do you think that they had to think about that? Think
about why they need to choose this and not that? And why
they make a decision on the reason convincing.., not
others?

While they're discussing?

Yes, while they’re discussing. Sure they have to think about
that. Otherwise.

: Ya, .......Whenlgo around to.......... They, what isthis?

Why this couple convicted? Why? Then the other sense is
like.., you read this la. Macam mana ada buka tingkap [how
could they open the window], open window and all. So

209

they.., one couldn’t see what the other can. So they do that
kind of discussion till they found out.

Raj: Sure, especially when they want to put on writing, it’s more
than just talking.

Amb: Yes. they have to really put it like.., otherwise the other
group. Then..,

Amb: And then, I think one or two groups found out that there’s a
contradiction in statements. Because they start asking me,
calling me up and said there’s something wrong with this
statement and this statement. They couldn’t figure out what.
So I just see and this.., certain things very contradicting. So I
see, ah.. ya. The wife said something else and the husband
said something else.

Raj: In that writing exercise, do you think there were
opportunities for students to state their thoughts. Related to
that topic, but they can bring in their own thinking.

Amb: Bring in their own thinking, I mean outside the.., the.

Raj: But related to that topic. What do you think? What is the
opportunity?

Amb: There will be.

(Teacher interview, 7T1B14)

Students also found out the contradictions in statements given by
the couple to police, and they talked about it. Ambiga also suggested that
students called the teacher and asked her questions when they found
contradictions. She also believes that since they were requested to write
reasons later, there was a more serious discussion. When this kind of
discussions take place in small groups, then students get opportunities to
make inferences, analyze the issue, synthesize the various perspectives
given by different students, and make conclusions.

Small group discussions have the potential to contribute towards

student Ieaming in terms of their ability to analyze, synthesize, and

evaluate information. They can also make their own judgments after

210

having done those processes. It seems that the few times small group
discussions were used in the English Language class, it motivated the
students and provided the opportunities to them to engage in higher
cognitive level thinking. It also seems that it is important for Ambiga to
increase the frequency of the usage of such small group discussions in
her classes. In the case of Aishah, she needs to understand the potential
of small groups discussions and include that in her lesson structure as

often as possible.

Problem solving stratpgy

Observations of the teaching and Ieaming in the form two Malay
and English Language classes suggest that there are certain strategies
like problem solving which have the explicit potential to promote thinking
skills among students (Refer to Appendix B - Table 22). Besides being
good language activities, they provide the opportunities to students to
think hard on issues to solve the problem at hand. However, this problem
solving strategy was only used once in the two of Ambiga‘s two English
Language classes. It was not used at all by Aishah in her classes during
the period of this investigation which was for two weeks in each of these
classes.

Ambiga gave two separate problem solving activities to her two
classes (Refer to Appendix B - Table 22). She suggested that she

prepared two separate activities based on students’ abilities, because one

211

(Form 2A) is the best form two class and the other (Form 2|) is a lower
level class. Furthermore, since she is teaching English Language, she
suggested that she needed to have relatively an easier activity for Form
2|. The English Language proficiency of students in Form 2| was very low.

For Form 2A (Day 4), the higher Ievle English Langauge class, she
prepared a problem solving activity called ‘Robbery on a stormy night’
(Class observation, 52A4). Students were requested to read a passage
about a couple who worked at a supermarket, and were apparently
robbed of the cash by two gunmen on a stormy night at a traffic light.
When they reported to the police the next day, the constable, after
listening to the story, said, “Well then, you’re both under arrest. You are
charged with robbery.” The students were requested to get into groups
and discuss why the police constable put the couple under arrest. The
students were asked to present their reasons to the whole class.

For Form 2l (Day 5), the lower level English Language class,
Ambiga prepared an activity where the students were asked to get into
small groups and discuss to solve a problem. They were given a total of
19 items which the teacher wrote on the board. They were told to pick
only six items before they could jump out of plane which has engine
trouble and would crash anytime. The items included passport, camera,
matches, cigarettes, pen knife, transistor radio, medicine, and a story

book. Ambiga told the students to discuss which six items they would

212

want to bring along after explaining each of the 19 items. They were also
requested to present their six items to the class.

The problem solving strategy used by Ambiga seems to have really
excited the students about the problem they were asked to solve (Class
observation, 52l5, 52A4). It could be seen from the observations of the
classrooms that both when they were discussing the problem in small
groups and when they presented, the students, including those in the
Form 2| class, seemed very excited. They were very eager to talk. They
were trying to ask questions to the friends who were presenting in front of
the class. In Form 2A, for example, there were students who seemed
interested in asking questions to those who presented in front of the
class. There seemed, however, no accommodations for students’
questions in the structure of the lesson. The teacher too seemed quite
unaware of some students’ eagerness to ask questions. As a result, they
lacked the opportunities to ask questions. When they could not ask those
who were presenting in front of the class, there were students shouting,
“Teacher you believe that?” (Class observation, 52A4). There were also
students shouting, ‘How does the robber know they had the money?’
(Class observation, 52A4).

These questions seemed so important for the students to discuss.
Also in the Form 2| class, there were students interested to know why, for
instance, some of the groups selected items like cigarettes. They seemed

to have a problem believing that someone will take cigarettes along when

213

someone is in an emergency situation, and also when one is allowed to
take only six items. There seemed to be no explicit attempts by the
teacher to promote such questions. These questions, if they were
discussed by the students, would have obviously provided them the
opportunities to conduct some high level thinking about the problem, for
example, critically evaluating opinions and suggestions.

The problem solving activities Ambiga prepared for her two form
two English Language classes were without doubt positive attempts to
create opportunities for students to engage in higher-order thinking. The
students seemed to have liked the activities and were eager to participate
and contribute. They also had questions which, if had been entertained,
would have led to higher-level discussions in the classes. In fact, Ambiga
when explaining the task, especially to Form 2|, did not specifically stress
the point for students to discuss why they are selecting the six items
(Class observation, 52I5). As such, the problem of discussions on the
problem solving activities not going to a higher-level may be rooted in the
lack of awareness on the part of the teacher herself. However, the
problem solving strategy used by Ambiga in her two classes showed a lot
of potential to promote higher-order thinking skills in her English
Language teaching. The important point is that there needs to be more of
such activities in her classrooms. In the case of Aishah, she needs to
understand the importance of using such strategies and use them as

often as possible in her Malay Language classes.

214

Questioning technigue

Questioning technique seems to be used quite extensively in
Aishah and Ambiga’s classes. Teachers very often seem to employ this
technique as a way to involve the students, and to break the monotonous
‘rhythm’ of only they speaking in the class. This often seems to take place
when they dominate the discourse and are teaching a new concept or
introducing a new Ieaming component. Although the questioning
technique is often used in these classes, the question is whether the
questions asked are eliciting responses which grow out of their higher
thinking processes, and whether the responses are again expanded to
provide opportunities for students to carry out higher-order thinking.

Amb :When you read about the ants, what do you think about the
ants?

Ss :Hardworking.

Amb :Hardworking.

S1 :8ites.

Amb :8ites. Ok. Others.

82 :Help each other.

Amb :Help each other. Yes. .Lain [Others].

83 :Cooperative.

S4 :Loyal to the queen.

Amb :Loyal..LoyaI to the queen. Ok. Next.

Amb :What do you know about ants? Some of you might know
little bit about ants. So..share with ...We have ‘loyal to the
queen.’ What else?

(Class observation, 52A11)

It could be seen from the interaction above that even in the higher
level Form 2A English Language class, where the students are eager to

participate and provide responses for the questions the teacher is asking,

215

the teacher seems not to be using student responses effectively. The
students gave a number of things they think about when reading about
ants. In fact, that is what the teacher wanted the students to share. Their
responses like hardworking, bites, help each other, cooperative, and loyal
to the queen suggest that the students do have a good knowledge of ants.
The students seem to have the knowledge about each of the phrases they
told the class.

But unfortunately, Ambiga did not seem to ask any of the students
to explain the phrases they were sharing with the class. Asking the
student who said, ‘Loyal to the queen,’ explain what he meant by that may
have helped the class to contextualize their thoughts about the topic they
are Ieaming on that day. Students may also have had the opportunities to
connect this information of ants being loyal to the queen to what they
might already know of ants. Extending the discourse with more questions
and responses both from the students and the teacher may have created
an opportunity for students to know about ants which they were to read
from the passage. This discourse may have been the very core of the
lesson of day because the reading passage Ambiga brought to the class
included many of the aspects the students told the class as a result of her
questions.

A similar scenario seems to be present in Aishah’s class (Class
observation, 52818). She too seems to be using the questions to break

the monotonOus rhythm of her teaching. She is teaching a grammar

216

component, transitive and intransitive verb in her higher level Malay
Language class. The curricular documents available to teachers
encourage such grammar components to be taught in an integrated
manner. That is they need to be part of other language activities and they
need to be taught in a context, and taught in the direct and disintegrated
manner as Aishah is doing.

S1 :Ahmad is..studying.

Ais :Ahmad is...., Ahmad is..studying. Ahmad is studying.

Studying is a transitive or intransitive verb?
Ss :Transitive.

Ais :What??

Ss :Intransitive.

Ais :Intransitive. Good. Can that sentence be broken into two
parts?

Ss :Can.

Ais :Can??

Ss :Cannot.

Ais :Cannot. Ahmad is reading. If you break it....that sentence

cannot be broken. Ok. Others.
(Class observation, 52818)

Here, Aishah is telling students about the different kinds of verbs,
which in her opinion, is new information. In the process, she seems to be
using the questions to get students to say what she wants to hear, and
also to reaffirm what she is saying. She seems to be taking the responses
that she would like to hear. She seems to just leave the responses
hanging if they are not what she wants. For both the responses she wants
the students to say, or what the students say by themselves, she does not

seem to make an effort to use these responses to engage the students in

a discussion or some serious thinking.

217

When she asked a question whether studying is a transitive or
intransitive verb, the students answered, ‘transitive.’ He response for this
was, ‘What?’ Her response seemed to have sent a message to the
students that, the answer is not right. Next, the students gave a response
which could not be anything other than, ‘intransitive.’ Aishah’s response
this time is, ‘Good.’ Similar thing seemed to have happened when she
asked the students whether that sentence can be broken into two parts.
When the students said, ‘Can,’ she asked, “Can??’ This again, seemed to
have sent a message that what the students said was wrong. Next, the
students said what she wanted to know, that is ‘cannot.’ There seems to
be no need for students to do any kind of serious thinking to figure out the
‘correct’ answer.

The kind of responses elicited from students largely depend on the
quality of questions posed by the teachers in classrooms. If they are low
cognitive levels, that is requiring students to recall or restate information
already provided, then one ends up getting such responses. On the other
hand, if the questions posed by the teacher require students to critically
evaluate information or to make a judgment, then one could expect such
kind of responses from students. In this respect, an analysis of questions
and responses from Ambiga and Aishah’s classes were conducted.

The analysis in Table 8 is on the interaction between the teacher
and students in the higher level English Language class where they were

talking about ‘ants’ the topic of the reading passage the students were

218

going to read. The interaction between the teacher and students went on
for 18 minutes (Refer to Appendix E - The interaction between the teacher
and the students), after which the students read the passage and did the
writing assignment. This is one of the rare times when the teacher and
student interaction went on for 18 minutes which is about one-third of the
class time. There was active participation from students in providing

responses.

Table 8: Classification of Teachers’ uestions

and Students’ Resmnses based on B_loom§

 

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

 

Cognitive
levels of 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
questions
Teacher’s
Questions 26 26
Students’
responses 30 30

(:91:

Higher Level English Language class

Form 2 A: Day 1 (2125197)

Total time of the class : 1 hour 10 minutes

Total time of interaction and analysis: 18 minutes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There were a total of 56 turns in this segment. The teacher had 26
questions, and the students had 30 responses. An analysis of the
questions and responses (Table 8) suggests that the questions and
responses are all of the first category in the Bloom’s Taxonomy. The
categories were decided on the kind of responses they intended to elicit.

Teacher’s questions required students to name, list, recall, or repeat

219

information previously stored, which is the first cognitive level in Bloom’s
taxonomy. Teachers’ questions included, “What do you know about
ants?” and “What do you call the black one?” (Refer to Appendix E).
Most of the responses were one word answers. Students’ responses
included, “Hardworking,” “Cooperative,” and “Loyal to the queen.” There
were no attempts to extend the responses from students. Very often they
followed the IRE (i.e., Initiation, Response, Evaluation) sequence. In other
words, there was a question from the teacher for which there was a
response, and the teacher evaluated the response. Since there were no
speculation on the responses, and also because teacher’s questions
basically requested students to recall or repeat information, all of
students’ 30 responses were at the lowest level of cognitive operations.
Students basically had to rely on their recall, relocate, and restating
abilities.

The analysis in Table 9 shows the type of questions and responses
in the interaction between the teacher and students in the higher level
Malay Language class. This interaction went on for a total of 25 minutes
(Refer to Appendix E - The interaction between the teacher and the
students), after which students were introduced to a poem and later
copied the poem in their books. This interaction also represents one of
the rare opportunities where it went on for about one-third of the class

time. There were a total of 108 turns in which the teacher and students

220

shared equal number of turns. In this interaction, the teacher is

introducing a grammatical component, ‘verb.’

Table 9: Classification of Teachers’ Questions
and Students’ Responses based on Bloom’s

Taxonom of Educational b'ectives

 

Cognitive
levels of 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
guestions
Teacher's
Questions 41 9 4
Students’
responses 37 10 7 54

I321;

Higher Level Malay Language class

Form 2 B: Day 1 (3111/97)

Total time of the class : 1 hour 10 minutes

Total time of interaction and analysis: 25 minutes

 

it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teacher’s questions were of the first, second and third levels in
the Bloom’s taxonomy. Likewise, students’ responses were also of the
same three cognitive levels. The number of students’ responses in each
of the categories also seem to almost follow the teacher’s questions in
each of the categories. The categories were decided on the type of
responses intended to be elicited from students. Teacher’s questions
were of three categories. They included, “How many types of verbs are
there?” (Level 1), “Why is it that this is an intransitive verb?” (Level 2),
and “Ali kicked the ball. Ok In this sentence, where is the verb?” (Refer to

Appedix E). Students’ responses included, “Two types” (Level 1 ),

221

“Because they do not need an object” (Level 2), and “Kicked is the verb"
(Level3)

This seems to suggest that there is a close relationship between
the cognitive levels of teachers questions and students’ responses.
Unlike the situation in Ambiga’s class, here students provided responses
at the third level where they had to apply the information Ieamed to
provide new examples. They even tried to summarize what they had
Ieamed in the discussion. Students suggested, for example, that
intransitive verbs do not need objects in the sentence. In other words, if
teaching higher-order thinking is one of the objectives, then teachers

need to ask more of higher level cognitive level questions.

Infusion approach

Teachers in Malaysian classrooms are expected to use the infusion
approach to teach higher-order thinking skills in their content instruction.
In infusion lessons, direct instruction in thinking is blended into content
lessons (Swartz and Parks, 1994). There are five steps in the infusion
approach: introduction to content and process; thinking actively; thinking
about thinking; consolidation or enrichment activities; and applying
thinking (Teacher Education Division, 1994). .

Teachers were requested to state whether they think they have the
ability to teach Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking

skills using the infusion approach (Table 10). Among the 104 teachers

222

who participated in this study, 42.3 percent of the teachers either agreed
or strongly agreed that they are able to teach Malay or English Language
and higher-order thinking skills using the infusion approach in their
classrooms.

Table 10: Teachers’ perceptions of their m

teach Malay or English Language and higher-order

thinking skills using the infusion approach.

 

2 .
Total 104 100.0

The largest group among the teachers, that is 44.2 percent,
suggested that they are not sure whether they are able to teach both
Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills using the
infusion approach in their classrooms. The rest of the teachers who make
up 13.5 percent either disagreed or strongly disagreed that they are able
to teach Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills using
the infusion approach. An ANOVA test conducted suggest that there was
no significant difference (p= .124) between the Malay and English
Language teachers in terms of their responses towards teaching Malay or
English Language and higher-order thinking skills using the infusion

approach. This suggests that for majority of the Malay and English

223

Language teachers using the infusion approach to teach Malay or English
Language and higher-order thinking skills was a problem.

Observations of Ambiga and Aishah’s English and Malay
Language classrooms suggeSt that there are no attempts to use infusion
approach to teach higher-order thinking skills (Refer to Appendix B -
Table 22). Even the structures of lessons used by Aishah (Diagram 1)
and Ambiga (Diagram 2) do not seem to accommodate the five steps
suggested for infusion lessons. The only thing which seems to be
happening is the first step, that is the introduction of content, which is the
language content and not the content of the thinking skills. Even in that,
the introduction of process, which needs to be introduced together with
content, is omitted. The kind of practices in Aishah and Ambiga’s classes
do not suggest that there are explicit attempts to involve students in
thinking actively, metacognitive process, that is thinking about the
thinking process, or applying the thinking skill Ieamed, which are other
important steps in the infusion lessons. There were no pedagogical steps
to involve students in evaluating their own thinking processes, like
thinking about why they did or did not make a particular decision.

Another problem here why one does not find these infusion lesson
steps in Ambiga and Aishah is that, they do not seem to make a
distinction between the strategies and techniques they are using and the

specific steps recommended for infusion lessons. For example, Ambiga

224

suggests that she does not agree with the Ministry’s proposal to teachers

to infuse thinking skills into content instruction.

Raj:

Amb:

Not of much help. You see like the first thing is you must
know what you are supposed to teach. In English
Language, yes, you are fine. You have done a four year
degree program. But when it comes to higher order thinking
skills, I mean
How, okay I take a subject. So let’s say essay writing.
Composition titled ‘Solving Social llls.’ So I ask them to base
on their own knowledge. Those are the strategies. But I do
not know whether these strategies I use is called HOT.
That’s the problem. That is the problem. There’s no straight
line. I don’t know HOT or just one of the strategies. Which
one? If they highlight okay, what you are doing now okay
you are now on the right track, all the while HOT, no -
problem. You can go on. But Kementerian (Ministry) is
saying like we haven’t done this HOT all these while. That’s
why Kementerian (Ministry) says okay you must infuse in the
subject HOT. That’s why I don’t agree.

(Teacher Interview, 1T1C5)

The reason why Ambiga finds it hard to accept the Ministry’s

proposal is that she believes the strategies and techniques she is using

now are fine for teaching thinking. She is also not sure whether the

strategies and techniques she uses could be called higher-order thinking

skills strategies. That is suggesting that she and Aishah do not seem to

see a distinction between the new strategies to infuse thinking into

content instruction and what they are doing now in their classes. Ambiga

also seems to oppose the ministry's proposal because she believes that

ministry’s proposal is coming out of an assumption that teachers are not

teaching thinking now.

225

Analytic Summagy

Both Aishah and Ambiga seem to be using various approaches,
strategies, and techniques in their Malay or English Language classes.
They basically seem to use these strategies to teach the Malay or
English languages which are the main foci in their teaching. These
strategies and techniques are not extended to a level to cater for the
acquisition of higher-order thinking skills by the students. However, some
of the strategies have shown promise of promoting higher-order thinking
skills if teachers deliberately plan and use them effectively in their
classrooms. On the whole, it seems that the teachers lack the
understanding of the potential of many strategies in promoting higher-
order thinking skills in their language classrooms, engaging students in
what could be challenging problems, guide student manipulation of
information to solve problems, and support students’ efforts. Their
practices in the classrooms do not seem to suggest that the various
approaches and techniques are used effectively in the context of
promoting higher-order thinking among students, except in the use of
problem solving strategy. .

To be able to use these strategies and techniques with high
potential to promote higher-order thinking skills, teachers need to possess
the subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skills to combine both the
teaching of content and thinking skills. For this, they need to be able to

constmct the pedagogical content knowledge necessary to conduct the

226

teaching and Ieaming processes in their classrooms. Investigation of how
they use or do not use different strategies suggest that Ambiga and
Aishah lack at least two of the four categories required to construct the
pedagogical content knowledge, especially for the teaching of higher-
order thinking skills (Grossman, 1990). The two categories are, the
overarching conception of teaching a subject, that is the teachers’
knowledge and beliefs about the nature of the subject and what is
important for students to Ieam, and knowledge of instructional strategies
and representations for teaching particular topic. What this entails is that
Ambiga and Aishah seem content with their present practices. They do
not seem to see the need to change their current practices. Even if they
do see the need to change their current practices to promote higher-order
thinking skills in their Malay or English Language classrooms, they need
to possess the necessary knowledge and pedagogical skills, which they
lack now, to construct the pedagogical content knowledge to teach Malay
or English Language and higher-order thinking skills together in their own
classrooms.

Teachers too do not generally know about using the infusion
approach which is expected to be used by teachers to teach higher-order
thinking skills in content instruction. First of all, since they do not know
about the specific steps to be used, and also the pedagogical skills to use
them in their classrooms, it is no surprise that these infusion approach

seldom found in these classrooms. There also seems to be a clear

227

dissonance between the type of strategies and techniques Ambiga and
Aishah use in their classrooms, which in their opinion is sufficient to teach
thinking, and the type of strategies and techniques and the practices
which accompany them that promote higher-order thinking skills. This
also includes the infusion approach. It could be that teachers like Ambiga
and Aishah suggest that they happy with their present practices, and also
suggest what they are doing now could be seen as higher-order thinking
strategy to avoid being labeled as doing a bad job of teaching in general,

and teaching higher-order thinking skills in particular.

228

Student Participation In The
Teaching And Learning Processes And How That
Influences The Acquisition Of Higher-Order Thinking Skills
O’Flahavan J. F. and Tierney, R. J. (1991) believe that one’s
reasoning ability is best developed in conjunction with Ieaming situations
that nurture student initiative. They also believe that empowering Ieamers
with the unalienable right to guide their own Ieaming is an important
aspect of our view of critical thinking; without this, the behaviors
associated with independent Ieaming (e.g., intrinsically driven
involvement in their own Ieaming) may fail to emerge. In language
classrooms, specifically, Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) suggest that
students need to be prepared to gradually take over all the goal-setting,
context-creating, motivational, analytical, and inferential actions.
Student participation in the teaching and Ieaming processes plays
a vital part in the promotion of higher-order thinking skills in classrooms.
There seems to be overwhelming amount of evidence to support this
notion. As has been suggested by O’Flahavan and Tierney (1991) above,
failure to cater for students taking responsibility for their Ieaming will
hamper efforts to promote higher-order thinking among students. The aim
of this section is to investigate whether such attempts are being made in
the form two Malay and English Languages. First, the question whether
students are capable of becoming involved in such activities will be

investigated. In the process, the type of teaching and Ieaming that goes

229

on in these classrooms, especially in relation to student participation will
be explored. Second, some reasons as to why students do or do not

participate will be investigated.

Are students capable of becoming involved?

Ambiga teaches two from two English Language classes. One is a
higher level, and the other is a lower level class. In the lower level
English Language class, much of the interaction between the teacher and
the students is conducted in Malay Language. A close analysis of the
discourse in this class suggest that students are eager to participate and
contribute to the Ieaming process even without much effort from the
teacher. They do not only provide answers, they also ask questions for
which students themselves find answers.

S1: Makanan [food], pakaian [clothes],

82: Al! Cikgu [teacher], makwe-makwe pun kena bawak cikgu

[girls also must bring along, teacher].

Amb: lyela (yes)...! Rindu..kan [will be missing them isn’t it?].

S3: Sambil terjun tu kan tengok aii [when jumping you must see]

S4: Mancis pun kena bawak [matches must be brought too].

85: Mancis memang ah! [matches, yes].

S1: "‘ Nak bakar ape? [what do you want bum?]

S2: Api ..... unggun api [fire camp fire].

(Class observation, 82I51)

It seems interesting to note that the pattern of interaction is

different from the pattern of interaction common in these classes. As has

been discussed in the teacher and student talk, and questioning

techniques sections this pattern of interaction is not common in these

230

classes. The popular pattern of interaction is teacher - student interaction
pattern. That is, teacher asks a question, and one or many students
provide responses. The teacher then provides her response. This follows
the traditional IRE sequence (Initiation, Response, Evaluation). Two other
patterns, which take the initiative of students to participate, that are
student - teacher and student - student patterns, are not commonly found
in these classes. In these two patterns of interactions, students ask
questions, or provide opinions which are directed towards the teacher or
other students on their own. The structure of lessons used by teachers in
these four classes do not seem to allow such flexibility (Refer to Diagram
1 8. 2). However, in the interaction above, it could be seen that there is
student - student pattern. It could also be seen that students go on for five
turns without assistance from the teacher. And also, what they are saying
is in the form of questions and answers, and are not the usual type of one
word answers. More importantly, it seems to occur spontaneously without
much effort from the teacher. It is also important to note that this is taking
place in the lower level English Language class. One of the reasons why
students are actively participating could be because of the kind of
problem they are talking about.

Aishah and her students in the lower level Malay Language class
discussed verbs, transitive and intransitive verbs. Although this is a lower
level Malay Language class, students seem interested in participating in

the discussion. The provide responses to all questions raised by the

231

teacher. Students’ responses suggest that they are following the
development of the lesson closely. Teachers’ questions were arranged to
in the order of “What is the meaning of a intransitive verb?”, and then
“What do you mean by does not need an object?” Teacher developed the
second and the following questions based on students’ responses. The
interaction pattern suggest that students from this lower level Malay
Language class are following the development and provide responses
accordingly.

Ais: Ok. Apa yang dimaksudkan dengan kata kerja tidak transitif
[What is the meaning of an intransitive verb] ? Cuba
[try]... ha apa [what] ?

S1: Kata kerja yang tidak mempunyai objek [a verb which does
not need an object].

Ais: Kata kerja yang tidak mempunyai objek [a verb which does
not need an object]. Ok Apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan
tidak mempunyai objek [what do you mean by does not need
an object]? Apa dia objek [what is an object ?

$2: Benda-benda cikgu [like things teacher].

Ais: Ye [is it] ?

$2: Benda-benda cikgu [things, teacher].

Ais: Benda, benda yang macam mana [things like what]? Selain
daripada objek [other than object], apa kita [what do we
say]... Kata kerja yang tidak mempunyai objek [a verb
which does not need an object] atau (or) kata kerja yang
mempunyai objek [a verb which needs an object] ?

S3: Objek [object].

Ais: Objek [object]).

S4: Perbuatan [verb].

Ais: Penyambut [object]. Kata kerja yang tidak mempunyai
penyambut [a verb which does not need an object].

(Class observation, 82E11)

In the same lower level Malay Language class when the teacher
and students discussed about adjectives on another day, students also

contributed for the development of the lesson. Students were making

232

connections of what they were Ieaming on that particular day ‘adjectives,’

with what they have already Ieamed previously ‘verbs,’ although the

teacher did not seem happy with that question by saying “Why are you

talking about verbs now?” More importantly, a student initiated a

question, “What is a functional word, teacher?” since the teacher said

adjectives could be categorized into functional words category.” All this

happens if students are given the opportunity and the right discourse.

Ais:

Ais:

Ais:

Ais:

Ss:
T:
Ss:

OK, kata sendi nama ialah kata (an adjective is an) , sejenis
kata yang tergolong dalam kata tugas (a type of word which
could be categorized into functional words). la tergolong
dalam kata tugas (It is categorized in functional words).
Kata kerja (verb).
Buat apa awak cakap fasal kata kerja? (Why are you talking
about verb) Sekarang kita (Now we)...
Eh aku pulak (Eh, myself), dia (he)...
Kata tugas tu apa cikgu? (what is a functional word,
teacher?)
Kata tugas (functional word), bukan kata kerja (not verb).
Kata kerja tu penggolongan kata kerja (verb is in verb
category). Sekarang (now)... tergolong dalam
penggolongan yang lain (it is categorized under different
category). Tak sama (not the same). OK Jadi kata sendi
nama ada beberapa jenis (adjectives have different types),
den (and) ...... kata sendi nama juga mesti diletakkan
dihadapan (Adjectives must be placed infront), frasa nama
ataupun kata nama (Noun or a phrase). Mesti diletakkan
(must be placed).
Baik, jadi, kata sendi nama ni mesti diletakkan di hadapan
(Ok, so, adjective must be placed infront).
Frasa nama (Phrase - noun).
Frasa nama ataupun?
Kata nama (noun) .

(Class observation, 82E33)

What seems problematic, however, is that such interactions do not

seem to occur often in these classes. At least in Ambiga’s classes

233

(Diagram 2), one of her structures incorporates small group and whole
group discussions. Otherwise, the interaction in the classroom is based
on teacher explanation of the passage or the Ieaming task. In Aishah’s
classes (Diagram 1), small group and whole group discussions are rarely
included, and the interaction is basically on teachers’ explanation of the
reading passage, teaching of a grammatical component, or a Ieaming
task. However, she provides opportunities for student participation in
higher level Malay Language class by requesting them to narrate their
experiences.

On the whole, from observations of the four classrooms (Refer to
Appendix B - Table 22) it could be said that seldom are discourses such
as the one discussed above created in the classrooms where students
actively participate as they were doing in this lower level English
Language class. Students from the higher level English Language class,
where a similar activity was conducted, seem to suggest that they had
only one such opportunity to participate, although they have been through
three months into the school year. Students generally tend to believe that
there should be more of such activities (Student interview, 881810).

$1: No, but we already did the participation only once only, so

we ......
Raj: Before this never?
83: Never.

Raj: So tell me. That means you have had only one experience
participating like that.

$1: Yes.

Raj: Others? Do you all agree?

234

Raj: Ya. That means, except for this, you have no other activity
where you got involved, you can talk about it, you present in
front of class. Sure?

Raj: What about reading? When there is reading, do you get
chance to read one by one, or something in the class. And
then you all correct each other.

84: Actually teacher asks us to volunteer, who want to speak.
But not... correcting

Raj: No OK The participation part, from what you all
say, except for this, there was nothing else before. So, do
you think there should be more or not?

85: Yes.

S4: Yes.

Raj: Rizal? Should.

Rizal: Not more not less la.

Raj: Macam ini pun [even like this is] OK.

Rizal: Ya.
Raj: Others, what do you all think?
83: More.

(Student interview, 881810)

There seems to be a similar scenario in the Malay Language
classes as well. Students from the higher level Malay Language class,
when discussing about opportunities to participate in discussions or
creating student - teacher or student - student patterns, suggested that
they seldom get such opportunities (“Kadang-kadang sahaja [seldom
only]” - Student interview, 883A8). They seem to think that it is because
the teacher gives a lot of attention to grammar components (Student
interview, 8S3A8). This, they believe, leaves very little room to talk and
contribute because the teacher teaches about the grammar components

and students tend to be passive listeners.

235

WhiLa_re stiggents not getting enough opportunities to participate?

 

The problem here seems to be that they are not given enough
opportunities to participate. The teachers often seem to take the
prominent role in the classroom discourse, be it listening and speaking,
reading and comprehension or writing. Even when there are excellent
opportunities to encourage students to extend the discussion further, the
teachers seem to be dominating the discourse by telling them what they
ought to know, when in fact students could have figured that out by
themselves if they had been given the chance. This seems to happen
even in the simplest form of activities.

For example, when Aishah and students in the higher level Malay
Language class were having an exchange on sentence formation (Class
observation, 82814), she asked students to provide alternatives for object
in a sentence. Students gave responses like, “near the river,” and ‘in
Karaoke.” After students had given the two alternatives, not the students,
but the teacher repeats the whole sentence, “Everyday Ali sings in
karaoke,” with the object given by a student. Although she requested
students to give examples of other sentences, she seemed to be happy
with one word or phrase answers. Encouraging students to provide
sentences will certainly be a more challenging activity than getting them
to give one word or phrase answers, when in fact constructing sentences

with intransitive verbs is the objective of this particular activity.

236

Ais: .boleh ubah [can change]. Setiap hari Ali bemyanyi
[everyday Ali sings], di mana [where]?

81: Di tepi sungai [near the river].

Ais: Di tepi sungai [near the river].

$2: Di karaoke [In karaoke].

Ais: Setiap hari Ali bemyanyi di karaoke [everyday Ali sings in

karaoke], Ok....

Ais: Ok. Contoh lain [Ok, other examples].

(Class observation, 82814)

Teachers like Aishah and Ambiga seem to still hold on to a pattern
of interaction, that is the ‘initiation - response - evaluation’ (IRE)
sequence which gives them the dominance in the class. They are the
ones who provide the initiation for which the students are expected to
provide responses. With this pattern often being used in the classrooms,
students’ initiative to participate is rarely tapped. This pattern of
interaction could be said as one of the main reasons which inhibits
student participation. As Edwards and Westgate (1994) suggest, “The
frequency of those exchanges, and the overwhelming tendency of
teachers to make the first and third moves, is ‘essentially’ what makes
classrooms so distinctive” (p.125). The sequence establishes a
pedagogical frame of reference which is renewed with every ‘third
(evaluative) turn.’

Such interactions seem problematic even for helping students
acquire linguistic competencies, let alone extending those activities to
include higher-order thinking abilities. For that, as has been suggested by
O’Flahavan and Tierney (1991), there have to be deliberate attempts by

teachers to extend the discourse to include higher-order thinking skills. In

237

Bloom’s taxonomy, for example, extending the discussion beyond the
knowledge and recall levels mean that they should include analysis,
synthesis or evaluation levels. If the teacher extends the discourse to
require students to use their synthesizing skills, for example, students
could involve themselves in combining or unifying separate ideas or
materials to create something new. Again, teachers need to be committed
to plan and conduct such activities in their classrooms. Besides this,
teachers also need to know how to do such activities in their classrooms
and actually do them.

When the form two Malay and English Language teachers in the
Perdana School District were asked whether they think that they are able
to involve students actively in the teaching and Ieaming processes (Table
11), one third (32.7 percent ) of the teachers either disagreed or were not
sure whether they are able to involve students actively in the teaching
and Ieaming processes for teaching Malay or English Language.
However, 67.3 percent of the teachers either agreed or strongly agreed
that they are able to involve students actively in the teaching and Ieaming

processes in teaching Malay or English Language.

238

Table 11: Teachers’ perceptions of their ability to involve students
actively in the teaching and Ieaming processes for Malay or

English Language and Higher-order thinking skills

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teaching Malay or Teaching HOT

English Language skills
StrongElLdisagree 1 (1.0 %)
Disagree 2 (1.9 %) 14 (13.5 %)
Neutral 32 (30.8 %) 43 (41.3 %)
Agree 52 (50.0 %) 28 (26.9 %)
StronglLagree 18 (17.3 %) 15 (14.4 %)
MissinL 3 ( 2.9 %)
Total 104 (100%) 104 (100%)

 

 

 

 

It seems even more problematic to look at teachers’ responses in
terms of involving students in the teaching and Ieaming processes in
teaching higher-order thinking skills (Table 11). A total of 14.5 percent of
the teachers either strongly disagreed or disagreed that they were able to
involve students actively in the teaching and Ieaming processes in
teaching higher-order thinking skills. Another 41.3 percent of the teachers
were not sure they are able to do this in their classrooms. In other words,
almost three fifth of the teachers (55.8 percent) think either they are not
able to involve students actively in the teaching and Ieaming processes,
or are not sure whether they are able to do that in their classrooms,
especially in the teaching of higher-order thinking skills. For both the
teaching of Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills,
this aspect seems to be a problem for teachers. It could be seen from

Aishah and Ambiga’s classes how majority of the teachers’ perceptions

239

about their unpreparedness to involve students actively in the teaching
and Ieaming processes are manifested in classroom practices. However,
teachers are not the only reason why students are not taking active part in
the teaching and Ieaming processes.

There seems to be at least two other closely related reasons why
students in these Malay and English Language classes are not
participating as one would like. One reason is the students themselves.
That is how students are and what type of orientations, including in their
homes, they have received in life so far which either support or inhibit
their active participation in the classrooms. The other is the culture of the
classrooms, that is the environment in these classrooms which promotes
or inhibits student participation, besides the factors contributed by the
teachers.

Students in these classes are generally nervous and shy when it
comes to taking part in class discussions, especially when they need to
stand in front of the class. The main reason for this seems to be that they
are not confident of the language they are using, especially English
Language. They, in fact, seem to think that they do not know how to use
the language. It is surprising that students from even the best form two
class (From 2A) think that they do not know how to talk the language
(Student interview, 8S1A3). They seem to feel that they might make a

mistake if they talk.

Raj:

$2:

Raj:

S3:

Raj:

Raj:

S1:

Raj:

$2:

Raj:

Ss:

Raj:

Raj:

$2:

Raj:

Ss:
S4:

86:

Raj:

82:

240

No. Why? You don’t get.
I don’t think so anyone wants to talk also. No one wants to
talk.
Why?
Because very nervous.
Very nervous! Why do you
We don’t know how to talk the language.
Don’t know how to talk in English.
Our English [is] not good.
English is not good.
After they talk, then, all will start to laugh at them.
That’s the main problem is it?
Yes.
So that’s basically why people don’t want to talk. But if they
don’t talk, if people don’t try, when are we going to Ieam,
isn’t it?
Yes.
The main reason you think, is people are nervous.
Yes.
Because of their language. Is that true also for Bahasa
Malaysia [Malay Language], in the BM class?
No.
Everybody knows how to speak BM.
Other than that, do you think any reason why people don’t
want to talk. Any other reasons?
Depends on yourself. Whether, you want to speak, you have
to speak in front... ..teacher .........
So they go and talk to the teacher. Not in the class, not..,
they put up their hand and say ......
Some of them are feeling shy or worried because the
students will start to laugh at them,
(Student interview, 8S1A3)

Students in this higher level form two class seem to think that

students do not have problems in the Malay Language class because as

they suggest, “Everybody knows how to speak in BM [Malay Language].”

Students are relatively more confident about their proficiency in Malay

Language than their proficiency in English Language. As a result, they

think that they cannot talk and participate in the English Language class.

241

Students obviously seem to feel more confident about their command of
Malay Language better than English Language because the medium of
instruction for all subjects, except for English Language, Chinese
Language and Tamil Language, is Malay Language. Furthermore, a pass
with good grades in Malay Language is mandatory if one needs to pass
any examination. However, it seems that students’ perceptions of their
better command of Malay Language as compared to English Language
alone do not make qualitative differences in their participation in the
Malay Language classes, as could be seen from the data discussed so
far.

The reason why students are shy seems more to be that they are
afraid other students in the class will laugh at them if they make mistakes.
This certainly seems to be a serious problem, not only for the purpose of
participation but for the teaching and Ieaming processes as a whole. An
observation of these classes suggest that laughing and shouting at their
friends especially when one makes a mistake is very common. Also very
seldom the teacher discourages such things in order to encourage the
nervous and shy students to participate. As a result, students, even from
the best class, seem not so eager to participate.

A closely related issue is that students are not used to being
criticized in these classes. Although, laughing, shouting and belittling are
not healthy activities and should not be allowed, encouraging students to

ask questions, provide their reactions, and even respectfully criticizing

242

friends and teachers are healthy activities which need to be cultivated in
these classes. However, that does not seem to be the case in these
Malay or English Language classes. Students seem very wary of being
criticized.

Students also seem to suggest that the kind of topics discussed in
these classes are another factor which either encourages or discourages
them from talking and participating (8S1A10). They suggest that the
topics have to be new, interesting and with lots of new information. They
think they need to know new information. They tend to think that topics
are often repeated from the time they start their standard one. The
outcome is that they think they have little to benefit from the topics being
discussed and they seem to think that it is not worth talking. It is
interesting to note that students prefer topics like aliens, or UFOs instead
of ants. This seems to be general thoughts of students in this group.
Students think that they benefited from the passage on ants which they
read and discussed but they seem to think that topics like aliens and
UFOs will get students more interested in what is going on in the class.

S1: Not that much. If ....very good topics, yes la. The latest

topics, ..maybe the latest, maybe we can get more
with our.. most of us know how, because they don’t want....
They won’t feel that.

Raj: They wouldn’t feel bored, is it?

S4: I don’t think.

Raj: So, normal. Why is it normal? Because of the classes you

S3: cSkt)3'r?netimes, from like Standard 1 to Form 2, they’re teaching

the same thing over and over again. Make the
questions...

243

S2: Anything new when we go to higher standard. Anything new
like.

Raj: What do you want it to be new? That’s the one I want to
know. You’re saying, from Standard 1 to Form 2, reading,
comprehension, composition. How you think it’ll be
interesting? Like something we discussed just now.

84: More interesting topic.

Raj: More interesting topic.

84: Aliens, UFO..

(Student interveiw, 8S1A10)

There also seems to be a general reluctance among students,

especially among those in lower level classes, to provide responses. This
seems to be in line what they have been doing in their classrooms so far.
They are often given the answers. This is usually done by the teacher.
They are not used to be pushed for responses. Again, there are seldom
situations where they have to really think hard using their higher cognitive
abilities to arrive at solutions. This is because, the questions often require
right or wrong answers, and very often only test their knowledge or recall
abilities. The consequence of this practice seems to be that students
often wait for the teacher to just give the answers. As Aishah suggests,
“They just want the teacher to give the answers. May be because they
think the tea‘éher already knows, why doesn’t she just tell us” (Teacher
interview, 8T284). This situation does not seem surprising given the fact
that students have most of the time been encouraged to do that, that is

being passive listeners receiving information from the knowledge

transmitter, the teacher.

244

Why students tend to be passive listeners is, besides the
environment in the classroom, due to how they have and still are getting
their orientation to voice out their opinions. Are they encouraged to freely
but respectfully share what they think about something being discussed?
Be it in their homes or when they are among their friends, does this seem
to happen or encouraged?

There is certainly the influence of cultural aspects in how students
perceive their roles in classrooms, and how they actually participate.
Ambiga, for example, attributes much of the problem of the reluctance on
the part of students to participate in class discussions to how they are
treated in most homes (Teacher interview, 8T1 87). She suggests that
parents rarely allow their children to participate in the discussions in
homes, especially when elders are involved. However, she suggests
students with educated parents tend to fair slightly better. Students from
these homes may be more prepared. They may be better prepared for
school and this is what sociologists call the “cultural capital.” To support
this notion she shared her own experience and suggested that most of
her students are also facing this situation in their homes.

Amb: Apply to most students. I agree. Coming to, coming back
to... OK, see the students in my classes, I think I agree with
you. Because ...... my family, same type. When I try to
barge in, so mum says, “Diam, shut up. Jangan kacau [don’t
disturb], jangan ganggu [don’t bother us], see. Orang-orang
tua ni [look at the elders here]. OK, so just shut up, just
listen. Or just go away and to something else”. You’re not

allowed to say anything. Even if you have ., our
parents will not listen. Only later on, only now, not now, only

245

when I’m in matriculation, my mum read a lot about

psychology.., then only she tried to apply all those

things and tried to listen to them.

(Teacher interview, 8T1B7)
There is an extensive literature to suggest how the home

influences the children in many ways relating to their educational
achievements. It is not the intention hereto explore in detail the many
influences of the cultural practices in the homes of these students in
these form two Malay or English Language classes and how those
practices influence their willingness to participate in classroom
discussions. However, it seems sufficient to suggest that based on the
observations of classrooms, and students’ testimonies as being nervous
and shy to take part in classroom discussions, could be due to how they
are treated in their homes by their parents. It is also important to accept
that experiences of Ambiga and most of other students in their homes are
culturally accepted norms. That is, children are often discouraged from
participating in discussions in homes if those discussions involve elders.
The main concern, however, is that some of the cultural practices seem to
be contrary to what teachers are trying to promote in classrooms,

especially when teachers attempt to infuse higher-order thinking abilities

in their content instruction.

246

Analflic summary

It is imperative to have an active student participation in the
teaching and Ieaming processes in the classrooms, especially when one
intends to infuse higher-order thinking skills into content instruction. It
also seems important that teachers need to be aware of this need and
deliberately plan and conduct the lessons which promote student
participation. The classrooms need to provide a conducive Ieaming
environment to encourage active student participation. Student
participation should become a common practice.

Based on the discussion above, it seems that teachers are playing
their predominant and traditional roles as “knowledge transmitters,” which
is antithetical to involving students actively in the teaching and Ieaming
processes. It seems that teachers need to also drop their beliefs that
there is a fixed body of knowledge which needs to be transmitted to
students, and instead need to accept the fact that knowledge is
constructed in the process of interaction between the teacher and
students. This seems to be especially true if teachers want students to
exploit their analytical, synthesis and evaluative skills. These skills cannot
be taught but could be acquired by students in activities which warrant
such high cognitive operations.

Teachers also need to be aware of the fact that they need to

encourage student participation by talking less in the classrooms. Data

247

presented above suggest that they tend to dominate the classroom
discourse most of the time. Rather than trying to dominate the discourse
most the time, they should try to involve students to extend the
discussions. As Duckworth (1987) suggests, one of the two aspects of
teaching is to have the students try to explain the sense they are making,
and, instead of explaining things to students, do try to understand their
sense.

Data presented above also suggest that students are capable of
performing tasks which require their active participation. Theyalso seem
to be accomplishing tasks which require high cognitive operations if given
the opportunity. However, they tend to be nervous and shy when comes
to taking part in classroom discussions. They also wait for the teacher to
provide the answers most of the time. There seems to a number of
reasons contributing to this state in the Malay and English Language
classrooms.

It seems very important that teachers discourage belittling and
shouting in classrooms when a student makes a mistake, and instead
encourage students to share their views, questions, and criticisms all in a
respectful manner. This will cater for students’ concern of having to talk
with very low proficiency in English Language, and also in the Malay
Language classes. They could be more willing to participate in the

classroom discussions.

248

Some of the cultural practices in the homes seem to be counter
productive to encouraging students to participate actively in the teaching
and Ieaming processes. While accepting those practices as culturally
accepted norms, teachers may need to be aware of this fact and in fact
create their classrooms to be places where students could compensate
for their losses in their homes. Schools and teachers should not help to
perpetuate what students already lack. More conscious and concerted

efforts by teachers may go a long way in overcoming this problem.

TEACHING HIGHER-ORDER THINKING SKILLS IN
LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS: THE NEED FOR
TRANSFORMATION OF TEACHING PRACTICE

VOLUME II

By

Rajendran Nagappan

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1 998

Chapter 5
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE,
PEDAGOGICAL SKILLS, AND ATTITUDE TO TEACH MALAY
OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND HIGHER-ORDER THINKING SKILLLS

A detailed description of how the two Malay and English Language
teachers perceived their preparedness to teach higher-order thinking skills
in their Malay and English Language classrooms, and of their practices in
their four classes, two Malay and two English Language classes, was
provided in the last chapter. It provided the data to understand how
teachers grapple with many issues in trying to infuse higher-order thinking
skills in their language classrooms. This chapter will provide data on the
perceptions of teachers in the Perdana School District, where the Aishah
and Ambiga teach, in relation to their preparedness to teach higher-order
thinking skills in their Malay or English Language classrooms.

Teachers in the Perdana School District, like their colleagues in
other schools in Malaysia, are required to infuse thinking skills in their
content instruction. That is, they are expected to give equal treatment to
both school subject they are teaching and thinking skills in their planning,
teaching and evaluation of student improvement in classrooms. To be
able to carry out this task in their own classrooms, they need a deep
understanding of the subject matter and pedagogical skills of both the

content and thinking skills to teach them together in their classrooms.

249

250

They also need the right attitude to carry out this important innovation in
their own classrooms.

The following section will provide data and discussion on form two
Malay and English Language teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge,
pedagogical skills, and attitude towards teaching Malay or English
Language and higher-order thinking skills. Data presented here were
obtained from 104 teachers, who represent 93 percent of all form two
Malay and English Language teachers in one of the school districts in
Malaysia, the Perdana School District. Besides teachers’ perceptions of
their knowledge, skills, attitude, the discussion will also involve if there
are any factors which have influenced their perceptions. Also, there will
be a brief discussion about the percentage of class time they allocate to
teach Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills in their

own classrooms.

Teachers’ Perceptions Of Their Subject Matter Knowledge
Teachers were requested to provide responses on eight items
which cover many aspects of the curriculum, knowledge about planning,
using different strategies, using the infusion approach and involving
students in the teaching and Ieaming processes (Refer to Appendix A -
survey questionnaire). The aim of the items (Refer to Table 12) was to

investigate what are teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge for

251

teaching Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills. It
has to be noted that these eight items had an Alpha level of .9231 in the

reliability analysis test.

Table 12: Teachers’ greeptions of their knowledge to teach Malay
or English Language and Higher-Order Thinking Skills

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Std. I value sig (2 -
Dev tailed
know details of the MUEL 3.94 .74
curriculum for 7.467 .001
HOT 3.19 .96
know how to plan to ML/EL 4.11 .70
teach 6.678 .000
HOT 3.52 1.00
know how to use MUEL 3.86 .77
different strategies and 6.316 .000
techniques to teach HOT 3.38 .94
know how to teach MUEL 3.17 1.03
ML/EL and HOT using 2.232 .028
the infusion approach HOT 3.02 1.01
know how to stratify the MUEL 3.81 .73
Ieaming components to 6.723 .000
the level of students for HOT 3.30 .90
know how to involve MUEL 3.87 .70
students actively in the 5.292 .000
teaching and Ieaming HOT 3.47 .95
cesses in
know how to develop the MUEL 3.70 .73
individual potential of 3.855 .000
students in HOT 3.43 .93
know how to evaluate MUEL 3.75 .71
student improvement 5.085 .000
- HOT 3.35 .93

 

 

 

Key: Responses were on a Likert scale
1 - Strongly disagree
5 - Strongly agree

It could be seen (Table 12) that the means of all items for the
teaching and Ieaming of Malay or English Language is consistently higher

than the means of all items for the teaching of higher-order thinking skills.

252

For example, on the item whether teachers think they know the details of
the curriculum for both the Malay or English Language and higher-order
thinking skills, the mean for language teaching is 3.94 and for higher-
order thinking skills is 3.19. Also for the item, whether teachers think they
know how to plan to teach Malay or English Language and higher-order
thinking skills, the mean for language teaching is 4.11 and for higher-
order thinking skills is 3.52. Teachers responded on Likert scale of 1 to 5,
with 1 being the value for strongly disagree and 5 being the value for
strongly agree. This suggests that for both the items stated above, the
Malay and English Language teachers have indicated that their average
response is 3.94 or above which means they state their agreement on the
items for Malay or English Language teaching. Whereas, their average
responses for items on higher-order thinking skills are 3.19 and 3.52
which means that they are more undecided on these items. Also for each
of the items pertaining to teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge to
teach Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills,
teachers feel they are better prepared to teach Malay or English
Language than to teach higher-order thinking skills.

Table 12 also shows that the standard deviation of all items for
teaching Malay or English Language is consistently lower than the
standard deviation of all items for the teaching of higher-order thinking
skills. For the item whether teachers’ think they know the details of the

curriculum, for example, the standard deviation for language teaching is

253

.74 and for higher-order thinking skills is .96. The Malay and English
Language teachers’ responses were consistently more dispersed from the
mean for higher-order thinking skills as compared to the teaching of
Malay or English Language. T-test results indicate (Table 12) that the
Malay and English Language teachers significantly differed in their
responses for each of the items for the teaching of Malay or English
Language and higher-order thinking skills.

Table 13 shows the composite values of all eight items constituting
the knowledge component for teaching Malay or English Language and
higher-order thinking skills. The composite mean of all items for teaching
Malay or English Language is 3.78 and higher-order thinking skills is 3.33
suggesting teachers rate their perceptions of their knowledge to teach
Malay or English Language as higher than their knowledge to teach
higher-order thinking skills. The composite standard deviation for all eight
items (Table 13) for teaching Malay or English Language is .52 and
higher-order thinking skills is .77 suggesting the Malay and English
Language teachers are more dispersed from the mean about their
perceptions of their knowledge to teach higher-order thinking skills
compared to teaching Malay or English Language. This suggests that
there is relatively a larger variation in the Malay and English Language
teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge to higher-order thinking skills as
compared to teaching Malay or English Language. There is also a

statistically significant difference (p= .000) in teachers’ perceptions of

254

their knowledge to teach Malay or English Language and higher-order

thinking skills.

Table 13: Malay and English Language teachers’ knowledge

(comgsite - 8 items) to teach Malay or English Language and

Higher-order thinking skills

 

Mean Std. t value
Dev.

Sig (2 -
tailed)

 

Malay and English
Language teachers’
perceptions of their 3.7823 .5245
knowledge to teach
Malay or English
Language

7.863
Malay and English
Language teachers’
perceptions of their 3.3346 .7750
knowledge to teach
higher-order thinking
skills

 

 

 

 

 

.000

 

Key: Responses were on a Likert scale
1 - Strongly disagree
5 - Strongly agree

Teachers who participated in this study teach Malay and English
Language in form two classes. It was important to investigate whether
these teachers who teach two different subjects, Malay and English
Language, differed significantly in their responses on their knowledge

towards teaching Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking

skills.

 

255

Table 14: ANOVA of Malay and English Language
te_achers’ knowlegge to teach Mfiy or English Language

and Higher-order thinking skills

 

Mean F F
Sq. Ratio Prob.

 

Malay & English Language
teachers‘ perceptions of their
knowledge to tpach Malay or .0144 .0514 .8210

Epglish Language

 

Malay and English Language
teachers’ perceptions of their
knowledge to teapn pigher- 1.348 2.273 .134

order mipkipg skills.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANOVA test results (Table 14) suggest that there is no significant
difference in the Malay or English Language teachers’ responses for
teaching Malay or English Language (p= .8210) and higher-order thinking
skills (p= .134). This suggests that the Malay and English Language did
not significantly differ in their responses suggesting that they are better
prepared in terms of knowledge to teach Malay or English Language as

compared to teaching higher-order thinking skills.

Teachers’ Perceptions Of Their Pedagogical Skills

Besides knowing what the Malay and English Language teachers
perceive of their knowledge to teach Malay or English Language and
higher-order thinking skills, it also seems important to investigate what

these teachers perceive of their pedagogical skills to teach Malay or

256

English and higher-order thinking skills. Teachers were requested to
provide responses on nine items which cover many aspects including
planning a lesson to teach, being able to use different strategies and
techniques, using resource materials, involving students in the teaching
and Ieaming, and evaluating student improvement (Refer to Appendix A -
survey questionnaire). The aim of the items (Refer to Table 15) was to
investigate what are teachers’ perceptions about their pedagogical skills
to teach both Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills.
It has to be noted that these nine items had an Alpha level of .9511 in the
reliability analysis test.

It could be seen (Table 15) that, except for one item, the means of
all items for the teaching and Ieaming of Malay or English Language is
consistently higher than the means of all items for the teaching of higher-
order thinking skills. For example, on the item whether teachers think they
are able to plan a lesson to teach for both the Malay or English Language
and higher-order thinking skills, the mean for language teaching is 3.99
and for higher-order thinking skills is 3.42. Also for the item, whether
teachers think they are able to use different strategies and techniques to
teach Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills, the
mean for language teaching is 3.79 and for higher-order thinking skills is
3.35. The only item where the mean score was higher for the teaching of
higher-order thinking skills (3.49) than the teaching of Malay or English

Language (3.38) was for the item whether teachers think that they are

257

able to use resource materials for the effective Ieaming of Malay or

English Language and higher-order thinking skills.

Table 15: Teachers’ @rceptions of their pedagogical skills to teach

Malay or English Language and Higher-Order Thinking Skills

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Std. t value sig (2 -
Dev tailed
able to plan a lesson MUEL 3.99 .74
to teach 6.625 .000
HOT 3.42 .82
able to use different MUEL 3.79 .72
strategies and 6.284 .000
techniques to teach HOT 3.35 .84
able to teach MUEL and MUEL 3.26 .84
HOT using the infusion 3.228 .002
approach HOT 3.09 .94
able to stratify the MUEL 3.81 .70
Ieaming components to 6.673 .000
the level of students for HOT 3.36 .93
able to use resource MUEL 3.38 .73
materials for the 5.638 .000
effective Ieaming HOT 3.49 .88
of
able to provide feedback MUEL 3.84 .68
to students for the 5.708 .000
effective Ieaming of HOT 3.41 .83
able to involve students MUEL 3.83 .73
actively in the teaching 5.858 .000
and Ieaming HOT 3.42 .94
processes in
able to develop the MUEL 3.61 .76
individual potential of 3.764 .000
students in HOT 3.37 .94
able to evaluate student MUEL 3.71 .71
improvement in 4.701 .000
HOT 3.38 .93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key: Responses were on a Likert scale
1 - Strongly disagree
5 - Strongly agree

Except the responses for one item, teachers’ perceptions of their

pedagogical skills to teach Malay or English Language and higher-order

258

thinking skills seem to suggest that teachers feel they are better prepared
to teach Malay or English Language than to teach higher-order thinking
skills.

The Table 15 also shows that the standard deviation of all items for
teaching Malay or English Language is consistently lower than the
standard deviation of all items for the teaching of higher-order thinking
skills. For the item, for example, whether teachers’ think they are able to
stratify the Ieaming components to the level of students, the standard
deviation for language teaching is .70 and for higher-order thinking skills
is .93. Teachers’ responses were consistently more dispersed from the
mean for higher-order thinking skills as compared to the teaching of
Malay or English Language. T-test results indicate (Table 15) that the
teachers significantly differed in their responses for each of the items for
the teaching of Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking
skills.

Table 16 below shows the composite values of all items
constituting the pedagogical skills component for teaching Malay or
English Language and higher-order thinking skills. The composite mean
of all items for teaching Malay or English Language is 3.75 and higher-
order thinking skills is 3.36 suggesting teachers rate their perceptions of
their pedagogical skills to teach Malay or English Language as higher
than their pedagogical skills to teach higher-order thinking skills.. The

composite standard deviation for all items for teaching Malay or English

259

Language is .53 and higher-order thinking skills is .76 suggesting
teachers are more dispersed about their perceptions of their pedagogical
skills to teach higher-order thinking skills compared to teaching Malay or
English Language. There is also a significant difference (p= .000) in
teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge to teach Malay or English

Language and higher-order thinking skills.

Table 16: Malay and English Language teachers’
adagogical skills (composite - 9 items) to teach Malay or

English Language and Higher-order thinking skills

 

Mean Std. tvalue Sig (2-
Dev tailed)

 

Malay and English
Language teachers’
perceptions of their 3.7594 .5393
Magpgical skills to
teach Malay or
English Language
7.287 .000
Malay and English
Language teachers’
perceptions of their 3.3683 .7683

pe_dagpgical skills to
teach higher-order

, thinking skills

Key: Responses were on a Likert scale
1 - Strongly disagree
5 - Strongly agree

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANOVA test results (Table 17) suggest that there is no significant
difference in the Malay or English Language teachers’ responses for
teaching Malay or English Language (p= .74) and higher-order thinking

skills (p= .55).

260

Table 17: ANOVA of Malay and English Language teachers’
pedagpgical skills to teach Malay or English Language and
Higher-order thinking skills

 

Mean F Ratio F Prob.
Sq.
Malay & English Language .0307 .1046 .7470
teachers’ perceptions of their
pedagogical skills to teach

Ia or En lish Lan e

Malay and English Language .2108 .3548 .552
teachers’ perceptions of their
pedagogical skills to teach
I'h I Ilil' !°!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This again suggests that the Malay and English Language did not
significantly differ in their responses suggesting that they are better
prepared in terms of their pedagogical skills to teach Malay or English

Language as compared to teaching higher-order thinking skills.

Teachers’ Attitude Towards Teaching Malay Or
English Language And Higher-Order Thinking Skills
Generalpedagogical knowledge includes a teacher’s knowledge
and beliefs about teaching, Ieaming, and Ieamers. When teachers try to
Ieam new instructional practices, as in this case where teachers are
expected to teach thinking skills in content instruction, their existing views

of teaching and Ieaming and their knowledge of instructional strategies

261

can have a profound influence on the changes they actually make
(Putnam & Borko, 1996).

Teachers were requested to provide responses on eleven items to
which reflect their attitude and beliefs towards teaching Malay or English
Language and higher-order thinking skills (Refer to Appendix A - survey
questionnaire). The items include teachers’ perceptions on their
responsibilities, satisfaction in teaching, influence on the life of students,
the need for teachers to receive continuous training to teach, and what
they think of teaching thinking and preparing students for tests and
examinations (Refer to table 18). It has to be noted that these eleven
items had an Alpha level of .8049 in the reliability analysis test. ‘

It could be seen (Table 18) that the means of all items for the
teaching and Ieaming of Malay or English Language is consistently higher
than the means of all items for the teaching of higher-order thinking skills.
On the item whether teachers find a great deal of satisfaction in teaching
for both the Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills,
for example, the mean for Malay or English Language teaching is 3.51
and for higher-order thinking skills is 3.33. Also for the item, whether
teachers think that to be a better teacher one needs continuos training to
teach Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills, the
mean for language teaching is 4.22 and for higher-order thinking skills is

4.05.

262

Table 18: Teachers’ attitude towards teaching Malay or English

Language and Higher-Order Thinking Skills

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Std. I value sig (2 -
Dev tailed
Teachers’ responsibilities are MUEL 2.85 1.31
confined to the school and its .324 .747
working hours in terms of HOT 2.82 1.16
teaching
I find a great deal of ML/EL 3.51 .98
satisfaction in teaching 2.877 .005
HOT 3.33 .90
l have an important influence MUEL 3.46 .90
in life of my students in terms 3.234 .002
of teaching HOT 3.29 .91
teaching never gets MUEL 3.51 .90
monotonous when teaching 1 .618 .109
HOT 3.41 .94
new and better ways of MUEL 3.69 .89
teaching are always being 2.130 .036
discovered in HOT 3.49 .89
is the duty of the teacher to MUEL 4.18 .77
know more on their own for 4.294 .000
HOT 3.91 .90
to be a better teacher one MUEL 4.22 .79
needs continuos training in 3.378 .001
HOT 4.05 .87
A good teacher should adapt MUEL 4.21 .82
the cuniculum to the needs of
students even if this involves 3.770 .000
addingmore work HOT 3.96 .86
A teacher should modify the MUEL 4.07 .89
curriculum for the good of
students even if this means 4.777 .000
not following the established
cuniculum HOT 3.77 .99
I would rather prepare MUEL 3.10 1.16
students to face examinations
than to teach them the 1.040 .301
thinking skills. In fact that is
what everybody wants HOT 3.01 1.05
I have a problem in preparing MUEL 3.40 1.10
students for examinations
and at the same time 1.347 .181
, teaching them how to think HOT 3.27 1.09

 

 

Key: Responses were on a Likert scale
1 - Strongly disagree
5 - Strongly agree

263

Teachers’ perceptions on all items seem to suggest that they demonstrate
better attitude and beliefs to the teaching of Malay or English Language
than the teaching of higher-order thinking skills.

However, it has to be noted here that the last two items, “I would
rather prepare students to face examinations than to teach them the
thinking skills. In fact that is what everybody wants,” and “l have problem
in preparing students for examinations and at the same time teaching
them how to think” were both not very effective in eliciting teachers’
responses pertaining to these particular issues. The reason is that these
items do not seem to make a clear difference between the teaching of
Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills. Furthermore,
the “I would rather prepare students...” for the teaching of Malay or
English and higher-order thinking skills had a correlation coefficient of
.683, and the item “I have a problem in preparing...” for the teaching of
Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills had a
correlation coefficient of .808, suggesting that there was a very high
correlation between the responses for these items for both the teaching of
Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills.

Although the mean scores of all items were higher for the teaching
of Malay or English Language than higher-order thinking skills, the
standard deviation of these items are mixed (Table 18). Unlike the trends
in the knowledge and pedagogical components, the standard deviation

was lower for the teaching of Malay or English Language than higher-

264

order thinking skills in five items, equal for both in one item, and was
lower for the teaching of higher-order thinking skills in four items.

For items on teachers’ responsibilities, finding a great deal of
satisfaction in teaching, preferring to prepare students for examinations
than to teach thinking skills, and having a problem in both of this, the
standard deviation of teachers’ responses for Malay or English Language
was higher than the standard deviation for higher-order thinking skills.
The Malay and English Language teachers’ responses for Malay or
English Language teaching for these items were more dispersed from the
mean suggesting teachers had a bigger range of variations as compared
to the teaching of higher-order thinking skills. This could be attributed,
once again, to the fact that these items did not really make a difference
between the teaching of Malay or English Language and higher-order
thinking. In other words, teachers seem not to make a difference between
the responses for the teaching of Malay or English Language and higher-
order thinking skills. As was stated earlier, the items, “I would rather
prepare... ,” and “I have a problem preparing..,” high correlation for both
the teaching of Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking
skills. Likewise, teachers’ responses for items, “Teachers’ responsibilities
are... ," for both the teaching of Malay or English Language and higher-
order thinking skills had a correlation of .728, and “I find a great deal of
satisfaction... ,” for both the teaching of Malay or English Language and

higher-order thinking skills had a correlation of .724,

265

Whereas, for items, influence on the life of students, teaching
never gets monotonous, duty of the teacher to know more on their own,
teacher needs continuos training, adapting the curriculum, and modifying
the curriculum, the standard deviation for the teaching of Malay or English
Language was lower than that of higher-order thinking skills. This
suggests that teachers’ responses for these items were spread out much
around the mean as compared to the responses for higher-order thinking
skills. In other words, the Malay and English Language teachers’
perceptions different pedagogical tasks explained by these six items had
much less variations in relation to teaching of Malay or English Language
as compared to the teaching of higher-order thinking skills. For the items,
new and better ways of teaching are always being discovered, the
standard deviation was the same for both the teaching of Malay or
English Language and higher-order thinking skills.

T-test results indicate (Table 18) that the teachers significantly
differed in their responses for seven items for the teaching of Malay or
English Language and higher-order thinking skills. Again suggesting that
teachers’ possessed significantly different and better attitude towards
teaching Malay or English Language as compared to the teaching of
higher-order thinking skills. However, for four items on teachers’
responsibilities (p= .747), teaching never gets monotonous (p= .109),
would rather prepare students for examinations than to teach them

thinking skills (p= .301) and have a problem preparing students for

266

examinations and teaching thinking (p= .181) teachers did not
significantly differ in their responses for the teaching of Malay or English
Language and higher-order thinking skills.

Table 19 shows the composite values of all eleven items
constituting the attitude component for teaching Malay or English
Language and higher-order thinking skills. The composite mean of all
items for teaching Malay or English Language is 3.65 and higher-order
thinking skills is 3.49, suggesting that teachers have relatively better
attitude and beliefs for teaching Malay or English Language as compared
to teaching higher-order thinking skills. The composite standard deviation
for all items for teaching Malay or English Language is .44 and higher-
order thinking skills is .52. Although, there were four items for which the
standard deviation was lower for the teaching of higher-order thinking
skills than the teaching of Malay or English Language, the composite
standard deviation of .44 for Malay or English Language was lower than
that of .52 for higher-order thinking skills. This suggests that teachers’
responses for attitude towards teaching Malay or English Language, on
average, was spread much around the mean as compared to the
responses for higher-order thinking skills. There is also a statistically
significant difference (p= .000) in teachers’ attitude towards teaching

Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills.

267

Table 19: Malay and English Language teachers’ attitude

(commsite - 11 items) to tesm MalaLor English Language and

 

Higher-order thinking skills

 

Mean Std. t value Sig (2 -
Dev tailed)

 

Malay and English
Language teachers’
st_titude towards teaching 3.6514 .4369
Malay or English
Language

Malay and English 3.774 .000
Language teacheis‘

st_titude towards teaching
higher-order thinking 3.4937 .5231
skills

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key: Responses were on a Likert scale
1 - Strongly disagree
5 - Strongly agree

ANOVA test results (Table 20) suggest that there is no significant
difference in the Malay or English Language teachers’ responses for
teaching higher-order thinking skills (p= .236). However, it seems
interesting to note that the Malay and English Language teachers
significantly differed (p= .005) in their responses to items suggesting their

attitude for the teaching of Malay and English Language.

268

Table 20: ANOVA of Malay and English Language teachers’
attitude for tesching Malay or English Language and Higher-
order thinking skills

 

Mean F F
Sq. Ratio Prob.
Malay & English Language 1.44 8.330 .005
teachers’ attitude towards
teaching Malay or English
Language

Malay and English Language .387 1.422 .236
teachers’ attitude towards
teaching higher-order
thinking skills.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the whole, it seems that the Malay and English Language
teachers significantly differed in their perceptions of their attitude as
explained by these eleven items for the teaching of Malay and English
Languages. Although the Malay and English Language teachers differed
significantly in their responses for items reflecting their attitudes for the
teaching of Malay and English Language, they did not significantly differ
in their responses for higher-order thinking skills, suggesting that they
have a better attitude towards teaching Malay or English Language as

compared to the teaching of higher-order thinking skills.

269

Are There Any Factors Influencing Teachers’
Perceptions Of Their Knowledge, Skills And Attitude?

Multivariate tests of significance were conducted on teachers’
perceptions of their knowledge, pedagogical skills and attitude towards
teaching Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills
(Refer to Appendix C - Multivariate tests of significance). Six background
variables: sex (VR02); subject taught (VR03); number of years of teaching
(VR04); academic qualification (VR05); professional qualification (VR06);
and training to teach higher-order thinking skills (VR07) were tested for
their influence on teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge, pedagogical
skills, and attitude.

Except for the variable the number of years of teaching, other
variables sex, the different school subjects taught, academic
qualifications, professional qualifications, and training to teach higher-
order thinking skills did not have significant influence on teachers’
perceptions of their knowledge, skills and attitudes towards teaching
Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking skills. What seems
surprising in this is that teachers’ training to teach higher-order thinking
skills, in which case, 41.3 percent of the teachers have informed that they
did not receive any form of training to teach higher-order thinking skills,
did not have a significant influence on how teachers perceive their
preparedness to teach Malay or English Language and higher-order

thinking skills. It seems that whether or not these teachers had some kind

270

of training (41.3 percent), or did not receive any kind of training (58.7
percent) to teach higher-order thinking skills did not have any significant
influence in their perceptions of their knowledge, skills and attitude,
especially for the teaching of higher-order thinking skills.

The only variable which had a significant influence on teachers’
perceptions was the years of teaching. Even in this case, the number of
years the teachers have been teaching has had significant influence on
only on teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge (Refer to Appendix C -
categories A1 - p= .013 and A2 - p= .029), and pedagogical skills ( Refer
to Appendix C - categories 81 - p= .002 and 82 - p= .008)-to teach Malay
or English Language and higher-order thinking skills. The number of
years the teachers have been teaching did not have a significant
influence on teachers’ attitude towards teaching both Malay or English

Language (C1 - p= .305) and higher-order thinking skills (CZ - p= 898).

What Percentage Of Their Class Time Do Teachers
Allocate For The Teaching Of Higher-Order Thinking Skills?
Teachers were requested to state the percentage of time they
allocate for the teaching of Malay or English Language and higher-order
thinking skills using the infusion approach in a medium standard form two
Malay or English Language. The aim of this item was to investigate the

common practices among form two Malay and English Language teachers

271

in the Perdana School District pertaining to the teaching of higher-order
thinking skills.

It could be seen from the Table 21 below that among teachers in
this school district, 26 percent of the teachers indicated that they do not
allocate any of the class time for the teaching of Malay or English
Language and higher-order thinking skills using the infusion approach.
Another 52.1 percent of the teachers suggested that they use 10 percent
or less of the class time for teaching higher-order thinking skills.

Table 21: Percentage of class time allocated for teaching content

and higher-order thinking skills using the infusion approach

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percentage
Percentage
of class time
(35170 mins)
0 27 26.0
1 - 10 54 52.1
11 - 20 17 16.3
21 - 30 1 1.0
31 - 40 1 1.0
41 - 100 1 1.0
Missing 3 2.9
Total 104 100

 

 

 

 

Among the teachers, 16.3 percent of them suggested that they
allocate between 11 to 20 percent of the class time for the teaching
content and higher-order thinking skills using the infusion approach. In
other words, 77.7 percent or more than three-fourths of all Malay and
English Language teachers in the Perdana School District allocate 10
percent or less of the class time to teach Malay or English Language and

higher-order thinking skills using the infusion approach.

272

Analytic Summary

The form two Malay and English Language teachers in the
Perdana School District perceive that they are better prepared in terms of
their knowledge, pedagogical skills, and attitude to teach Malay or
English Language as compared to teaching higher-order thinking skills.
Their perceptions are significantly different for the teaching of Malay or
English Language as compared to the teaching of higher-order thinking
skills. Yet, they are expected to teach both the content and higher-order
thinking skills in their classrooms. More importantly, they expected to
teach both the content and higher-order thinking skills using the infusion
approach.

Data presented above suggest that these teachers perceive that
they lack in at least two of the four categories (Grossman, 1990) required
to construct the pedagogical content knowledge, the overarching
conception of teaching a subject, and in the knowledge of instructional
strategies and representations for teaching particular topics, especially in
higher—order thinking skills. The other two categories, knowledge of
students’ understandings and potential misunderstandings, and
knowledge of curriculum and curriculum materials were not adequately
investigated in this study. There seems to be sufficient data, however, to
suggest that teachers lack in the first two categories. Given this situation,

it is no surprise that they find it difficult to construct the pedagogical

273

content knowledge to teach higher—order thinking skills. Numerous writers
have argued that teaching that emphasizes student understanding,
reasoning, and problem solving requires richer and more flexible
understandings of subject matter (Cohen, 1988b).

As a result, as has been indicated by these teachers who are
required to teach higher-order thinking skills in their content instruction,
26 percent of them do not allocate any class time to do this, and 77.7
percent of the teachers allocate 10 percent or less of their class time to
do this in their classrooms. Even if they do attempt to teach, one could
see the complex problems they face in their own classrooms, like in the
case of Ambiga and Aishah.

The basic problem seems to be that they are not adequately
prepared to make this innovation in their classrooms. It seems that there
has to be a comprehensive approach in preparing teachers to carry out
such innovations in their classrooms. Providing the ‘sit and get’ type of
courses certainly do not seem to make a difference. Although 59 percent
of the teachers have received some form of training to teach higher-order
thinking skills, and the rest of 41 percent of the teachers did not receive
any training to teach higher-order thinking skills, this did not seem to have
significantly influenced their perceptions of their knowledge, pedagogical
skills, and attitude to teach Malay or English Language and higher-order
thinking skills. It seems that the 60 percent of the teachers who received

their training may not even think that they are better prepared than those

274

who did not receive any training to teach higher-order thinking skills. A
close analysis of Ambiga and Aishah seems to provide much more
information to understand how teachers grapple with this and many other
issues. There also seems to be a real need to help all teachers Ieam,
more so for those who have taught for more than 10 years, about this new

reform and ultimately make changes in their practices in their classrooms.

Chapter 6

THE NEED FOR TRANSFORMATION

This study investigated the teaching of higher-order thinking skills
in form two Malay and English language classes. It also investigated
teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness to implement this innovation
in terms of their knowledge, pedagogical skills and attitude. Teachers in
the form two Malay and English Language classes in the Perdana School
District were expected by reformers to infuse higher-order thinking skills
in their content instruction. Data from this investigation suggests that they
are not yet prepared to perform this innovation in their classrooms.
Although they seem confident and able to teach the subject matter they
are teaching, data from this investigation suggests that even in the
teaching of Malay and English Language there are weaknesses in their
practices. What seems even more problematic is that teachers do not feel
prepared to integrate the teaching of higher-order thinking in their Malay
or English Language classrooms. Teachers see these two components:
teaching higher-order thinking; and subject matter, as different and
separate.

As a result of this, to a large extent, the kind of teaching that goes
on in the classrooms investigated seems to be distinctively different from

what is expected for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills in

275

276

language classrooms. As Anderson (1989) has argued, most current
reform efforts, including this one, are grounded in a ‘cognitive-
mediational’ conception, where Ieamers are viewed as active problem
solvers who construct their own knowledge and the teacher is responsible
for stimulating students’ cognitive activities needed for Ieaming. She also
argues that this conception is quite different from a ‘receptive-accrual’
view, often implicit in direct instruction models of teaching, in which
Ieaming is a matter of receiving and practicing information and skills
presented by the teacher. What goes on in the classrooms investigated

seems to be largely on the ‘receptive-accrual’ type.

Why Is It Difficult To Change?

Various reasons seem to have contributed towards this state of
teaching and Ieaming in these classrooms. Some of them are contributed
by the teachers themselves, and there are other factors which are
contributed by various other players. Although the reformers at the
Ministry of Education seem to have a clear objective when mandating the
teaching of higher-order thinking skills in schools, they may have failed to
help teachers integrate old and new approaches to teaching subject
matter which includes higher-order thinking skills. This integration seems
more urgent as there are attempts by the Ministry of Education to make at

least 60 percent of the national examination questions by the year 2000 to

277

require critical thinking and problem solving abilities of students. The
problem, however, seems to be that teachers have been left alone to face
a number of dilemmas in their efforts to integrate higher-order thinking

skills in their content instruction.

Issues of Teacher Learning

Refonners often assume that if directives are issued,
implementation should follow (Elmore, 1993: Cohen & Spillane, 1993).
Reform, however, is a Ieaming process for all teachers and reformers.
Thus a number of questions need to be raised if the objectives of the

reform are to be attained.

Teachers’ preparedness to teach higher-order thinking skills.

After the reform was initiated, teachers in Malaysian classrooms
were expected to teach higher-order thinking skills in their content
instruction. They were expected to infuse higher-order thinking skills in
their Malay or English Language teaching. But little preparation for
teachers to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills, lack of
exemplary models, and on-going guidance for teachers have made this
goal difficult to reach by many.

The curricular documents prepared by the Ministry of Education
state clearly the objectives of teaching thinking (Curriculum Development

Center, 1993). There are also documents which contain some of the

278

strategies, techniques, activities, and model lesson plans which could be
used by teachers in the teaching of higher-order thinking skills in content
instruction (Curriculum Development Center, 1994). However, little or no
attention was given towards understanding what it takes for teachers to
make dramatic changes in their practices as required by this innovation.
Although the basic curricular documents had been prepared, and
some basic training had been provided, other aspects such as the
dissemination of information to teachers in the centralized educational
system, structure of schools and the politics which go with it, teacher
incentives, and other support systems for teachers to continue to Ieam to
make the necessary changes in their practices were not dealt with
adequately. Specifically, the complex issue of teachers having to make
dramatic changes in their practice was not given the necessary attention.
In spite of the seemingly clear guidelines given by the Ministry of
Education, findings of this study and another study conducted by the
Teacher Education Division of the Ministry of Education discussed earlier
(Teacher Education Division, 1995) suggest that teachers find it hard to
carry out this task in their classrooms. It is possible that by seriously
listening to teachers’ concerns this intervention may be fine-tuned. In this
investigation, teachers have suggested that they perceive their
preparedness in terms of their subject matter knowledge, skills and
attitude to teach Malay or English to be significantly different from

teaching higher-order thinking skills, an argument that suggests that

279

teachers see as separate the teaching of subject matter and higher-order
thinking skills. They have suggested that they are prepared to teach
Malay or English Language, but not higher-order thinking skills. This was
also evident in the classes observed. Part of the reason for teachers’
confusion is that the reform also conceptualized language teaching as
separate from the teaching of higher-order thinking as if one could be
divorced from the other. The segmentation of the innovation regarding
expectations from teachers has impeded until now the consolidation of
subject matter Ieaming for critical thinking and understanding in Malaysia.

Because this is a complex innovation which requires teachers to do
what they have never done before, the Ministry of Education needs to
provide clear examples to themselves and to teachers of how this new
approach to teaching looks like in practice. It would be a costly mistake to
expect teachers to integrate thinking skills in content instruction by
themselves based on unclear mandates for change.

Refonners need to understand that teachers need to possess the
necessary requirements of the four categories suggested by Grossman
(1990) for both the Malay or English language and thinking skills to be
able to teach thinking skills in language instruction. Based on the data
available in this study teachers lack in at least two categories, particularly
in thinking skills, required for constructing the pedagogical content
knowledge to teach thinking skills. First, teachers’ knowledge and beliefs
about the nature of the higher-order thinking skills, and what is important

280

for students to Ieam, and second, knowledge of instructional strategies
and representations for teaching particular thinking skills. As such,
teachers found it hard to construct the pedagogical content knowledge
necessary to teach higher-order thinking skills in their Malay or English
Language classrooms.

As a consequence of this, more than three-fourths of the teachers
by their own admission allocate 10 percent or less of the time to teach
thinking skills. It could be said that from the observations of the Malay and
English Language classrooms, the percentage of the class time used to
promote thinking skills is similar to that. What seems even more
problematic is that 26 percent of all teachers have indicated that they do
not allocate any class time to teach thinking skills in their content
instruction. A result indicating the conceptualization of subject matter and
higher-order thinking as separate entities.

Besides the unclear reform mandates, other reasons seem to
contribute towards the present state where majority of the teachers, both
believe that they are not prepared and are actually not able to infuse
higher-order thinking skills in their Malay or English Language instruction.
In the case of Ambiga and Aishah, it was seen that their pro-service
teacher education did not prepare them adequately to perform this
important task Their teacher educators did not themselves try to infuse
higher-order thinking skills in their own Malay or English Language

instruction. The in-house training they received too did not help them

281

overcome many of the issues they are facing in trying to integrate higher-
order thinking skills in their Malay or English Language instruction. For
example, generic thinking skills were explained in the in-house training
and teachers were left on their own to figure out how to integrate thinking
skills in content instruction. Whatever the reason may be, the sure thing
seems to be that Aishah, Ambiga and majority of others in Perdana
School District are left in a dilemma of having to carry out a task for which
they are not prepared for.

A more serious problem here seems to be that teachers like Aishah
and Ambiga are not even aware that the implementation of the innovation
requires them to change their practice in dramatic ways. In the case of
Aishah and Ambiga, they seem to feel content with the kind of practices
they are doing in their classrooms. They do not seem to recognize the
distinctive features of pedagogical practices which are required by this
particular reform as compared to their present practices. In the kind of
teaching practices expected in their classrooms, students must spend the
larger part of their time with activities that ask them to generalize, find
new examples, cany out applications, and work through other
understanding performances (Perkins, 1993). And they must do so in a
thoughtful way, with appropriate feedback to help them perform better.

To make the changes being asked of them, teachers must reflect
deeply and critically on their own teaching practice, on the content they

teach, and on the experiences and backgrounds of the Ieamers in their

282

classrooms. They must become more adventurous to engage in the kinds
of ambitious teaching being called for (Cohen, 1988b). As Cohen (1988,
cited in Prawat, 1992) points out, “Teachers who take this path must work
harder, concentrate more, and embrace larger pedagogical
responsibilities than if they only assigned text chapters and seatwork”
(p.357). There obviously seems to be a clear dissonance between the
kind of pedagogiccl practices the ministry is requiring teachers to do, the
way the Ministry has attempted to implement the reform, and the kind of
practices teachers think are necessary to promote higher-order thinking

skills in their content instruction.

Teachers’ own orientations towards teaching.

When teachers try to Ieam new instructional practices, their
existing views of teaching and Ieaming and their existing knowledge of
instructional strategies can have a profound influence on the changes
they actually make (Putnam 8. Borko, In Press). In this investigation,
where teachers are expected to change their practice distinctively from
what they have been doing to teach higher-order thinking skills in their
Malay or English Language classrooms, this question seems very
pertinent. It seems important to investigate whether teachers see
themselves as assuming the traditional role as “knowledge transmitters”
or more of a facilitatory role in a constructivist approach to teaching and

Ieaming.

283

Observations of how Aishah and Ambiga teach in their classes
seem to suggest that they too like a majority of the teachers assume the
role of ‘knowledge transmitters’ (Cuban, 1984; Stemberg and Martin,
1988). They very often play the predominant role in the classroom. They
seem to perceive that they have a duty to impart knowledge to students.
Teachers are also content in having students as passive recipients of
information relayed to them. As Stemberg and Martin (1988) point out,
teachers conduct such practices without even realizing that it works
against creating more participatory roles for students or in providing
opportunities to students to wrestle with higher-order thinking situations in
their classrooms. Even if they realize that they seem to be not providing
the right opportunities to students to play an active role in the teaching
and Ieaming processes in which, like Beyer (1987) suggests, “the
teaching and Ieaming of thinking exists where student and teacher
thinking occur continuously, where Ieaming activities regularly require
thinking, and where students and teachers frequently reflect on and
discuss on their thinking” (p.66), they may not be able to change their
practices for at least for one reason. That is their own orientations
towards teaching and Ieaming.

How Aishah and Ambiga got their orientations towards teaching is
certainly an issue. How they Ieamed from their own teachers in schools,
and how they were taught by their teacher educators seem to have

influenced their beliefs about their role in their classrooms. Evidently

284

teacher education did not change teachers’ beliefs acquired through the
long apprenticeships of observation (Lortie, 1975). Their teacher
educators too did not seem to have played role-models for the ‘cognitive-
mediational’ model. All this become evident from observations of how they
teach in their classrooms, and how they perceive their preparedness to
teach higher-order thinking skills in content instruction. It seems no
surprise that teachers find it hard to change their current practices.
Another outcome of such practices is that teachers seem very
interested in getting only the ‘right’ responses from students. This works
antithetical to creating a situation in the classroom for students to
speculate, analyze, and evaluate the given information. This emphasis,
without doubt, is related to how examination questions are organized in
schools and in national examinations, at least for now. The other reason
is related to how teachers and students view knowledge. Most of the
activities in their classrooms are geared towards students getting the
‘right’ answers. Knowledge is not seen as a human construction but as a
static event. Writing a composition, for example, which is a different type
of activity, however, is not done as often as it should be in these
classrooms. What this entails is that students are orientated towards
configuring their understandings of meanings into two realms - right
versus wrong; and good versus bad (Perry, 1988). Instead, to encourage
thinking, teachers may need to guide students towards multiplicity,

diversity of opinion and values recognized as legitimate in areas where

285

right or wrong answers are not yet known, or guide students towards
diversity of opinion, values, and judgment derived from coherent sources,
evidence, logic, systems, and patterns allowing for analysis and
comparison (Perry, 1988).

Common practices in Aishah and Ambiga’s classrooms seem to be
an outcome of a larger problem too, that is how teachers conceptualize
knowing. That is, the epistemological beliefs about the process by which
one comes to know. This includes the beliefs about the source of
knowledge and the justification for knowing, which includes evaluation of
evidence, the role of authority, and the process of justification (Hofer and
Pintrich, 1997). As suggested by Hofer and Pintrich, it is generally
assumed that knowledge originates outside the self and resides in
external authority, from whom it may be transmitted. The evolving
conception of self as knower, with the ability to construct knowledge in
interaction with others, is a developmental turning point of most recent
models. Obviously, many seem not to be prepared to accept this recent
phenomena. This belief, that knowledge originates outside self, which
obviously influences teachers’ practices in classrooms, certainly works
against creating a conducive Ieaming environment in the classrooms
where students are expected to play an active role in the meaning making
progress. This is particularly so for the integration of higher-order thinking

skills in Malay or English Language instruction.

286

Myms about teaching thinking.
There seems to be at least three myths which inhibit the teaching

of thinking in Malaysian classrooms. First, there is the myth that when one
has high IQ he or she can think well. Research suggests that this is not
true. Gardner (1993) suggests that there are multiple intelligences which
include linguistic and logical; spatial ; musical; bodily kinesthetic; and two
forms of personal intelligence - one oriented toward understanding of
other persons, the other toward understanding of oneself. More recently,
Goleman (1995), drawing on important findings on brain and behavioral
research, show factors at work when people of high IQ flounder and those
of modest IQ do surprisingly well. These factors add up to a different way
of being smart - one Goleman terms “emotional intelligence” (p.35).

A closely related problem is teachers’ belief that only students in
higher level classes are capable of performing tasks involving higher-
order thinking. This kind of belief discriminates students in lower level
classes from benefiting from classroom activities which require higher
cognitive operations. Contrary to what many teachers believe, even
students in the lower level classes have demonstrated their capability to
involve themselves in higher-order thinking activities as was seen in the
case of the problem solving activity.

A second myth is that imparting subject matter content is sufficient

to improve student thinking. This belief stems from the assumption that

287

good thinking will be a by-product of acquiring subject matter knowledge,
denying the need to shape subject matter knowledge within a higher-order
thinking framework in what Shulman (1986; 1987) calls pedagogical
content knowledge. This results in teachers not seeing the need to make
significant changes in their current practices: thinking skills instruction is
seen as something that one can add on or subtract without altering too
much what goes on in classrooms. There is overwhelming evidence now
requiring the need to provide more explicit attention to the teaching of
thinking skills in content instruction than assuming that it will naturally
happen in the teaching of subject matter content.

The third myth among teachers is that effective thinking will evolve
with extensive reading, traveling, and doing lots of writing assignments.
There is no doubt that these activities would help improve one’s thinking
abilities. But they are means to an end, and not the end themselves.
Accepting them as sufficient requirements to improve students’ thinking,
without even considering the quality of what students read and write,

creates a real problem.

Qpportunities for teachers to Ieam to teach.

Given the situation where teachers are not adequately prepared to
implement the innovation in their own classrooms, the obvious question
seems to be, are there other opportunities for teachers to change their

practices? Are there opportunities for teachers to discuss this important

288

innovation with their colleagues? Are there opportunities for these
teachers to access resource materials in the schools or in the district?
What support do they receive from the school administrations, the in-
service training programs or the Ministry of Education?

Ambiga suggested that she had never discussed with her
colleagues the reform mandate to infuse higher-order thinking skills in her
English Language teaching. She suggested that there was no discussion
among English Language teachers at form two level in her school even
after the in-house training where, as she confessed, this problem was
also not discussed (Teacher interview, 9T1 A9). Aishah too suggests that
there is no opportunity for her to discuss with her colleagues in her school
about the teaching of higher-order thinking skills in her Malay Language
classrooms. She suggests that the only person who knows something
about teaching thinking skills, in her opinion, is the one teacher who
attended a short course organized by the State Education Department.
She is the teacher who conducted the in-house training in the school.
Again, in her opinion, this teacher herself is not confident about teaching
thinking skills in content instruction (Teacher interview, 1T2A4).

There could be many reasons as to why there are no discussions
among teachers about this very important innovation in their schools. One
of the reasons, as has been pointed out by Aishah, is that teachers
believe that they are all in the same position of not knowing how to infuse

thinking skills in content instruction. They seem to believe that only after

289

someone has attended a course on teaching thinking skills they will have
something to contribute. And this observation may not be too far off since
written mandates mean little in practice. Data from this study shows that,
contrary to what these two teachers believe, 59 percent of the teachers
involved in this study have received some kind of training to teach
higher-order thinking skills. Paradoxically, whether teachers got to attend
any one of these courses or not, did not seem to matter in how they think
of their abilities in teaching higher-order thinking skills. Teachers like
Aishah and Ambiga do not seem to believe that talking to other
colleagues, although they might not have attended any courses, may help
to figure out a number of things pertaining to infusing thinking skills in
their content instmction. Knowing that teachers do not form collegial
communities to Ieam from each other spontaneously, there needs to be
support systems, including incentives for teachers, to promote such a
culture among teachers.

The other reason is that teachers also find it hard to have the time
to discuss educational innovations. Although teachers like Ambiga seem
to like the idea of getting together to talk about new ways of teaching, the
day-to-day school routines make it difficult for them to find the time to talk
about new innovations like this one. Ambiga, for example, suggested that
although she likes the idea of having discussions with her colleagues

about making this innovation in her classrooms, finding a suitable time to

290

get teachers together is extremely difficult, and as such she thinks that it
cannot be carried out (Teacher interview, 9T1C26).

Teachers also suggest that they already have so many routine
responsibilities that they find it hard to explore what the teaching of
higher-order thinking skills in their Malay or English Language classrooms
would entail. They see the routine duties they are already performing as
basic and mandatory. They consider the teaching of Malay or English
Language as separate and more important over the teaching of higher-
order thinking skills. For this reason, Ambiga suggested, “They want us to
teach thinking skills. But don’t expect us to do it by ourselves. We have
other things to do” (Teacher interview, 9T1 C19).

Besides having no opportunities to discuss with colleagues what it
means to teach Malay or English Language within a higher-order thinking
skills framework, Ambiga and Aishah said that another problem in the
process of Ieaming to conduct this specific task is that there are no
resource materials like reference books available to them for guidance.
They believe that they could use resource materials to Ieam more about
integrating higher-order thinking skills in their content instruction. To a
question whether there are resource materials on this subject available for
teachers to read, Aishah suggested. “there were none in her school,
including the school library” (Teacher interview, 9T2811). Zaiton, who is
the key personnel for providing training to teachers to implement this

innovation, also suggests that, “There are no resource materials. I think

291

even the district as whole does not have any relevant resource materials”
(Interview, 92AL17).

In summary, as a result of the poor conceptualization of the
innovation teachers view higher-order thinking skills separate from
subject matter. Teachers have not been adequately prepared to teach
higher-order thinking skills in their Malay or English Language
classrooms. Teachers also do not seem to have the opportunities to
discuss the innovation with their colleagues and Ieam in the process. To
make this problem even more complicated, there are also no relevant
resource materials available which the teachers could use to read more
about infusing higher-order thinking skills in their Malay or English
Language instruction. The few guidelines prepared so far have proved
insufficient. Yet, they are expected to carry out the innovation in their
classrooms. A closer examination of the curriculum may help provide

some needed solutions.

Issues of curricular rguirements and students

Qentralized curriculum.

Teachers use a centralized curriculum for all subjects. Teachers
are provided with the respective syllabus and curriculum specifications for
each of the subjects, and also the textbooks for them to plan and teach in

their classrooms. Sometimes even the semester and weekly plans for

292

each of this subjects are coordinated and standardized at the district
level. Besides this, individual teacher's phase of teaching needs to be in
line with others in the school and elsewhere to ensure the students have
completed the necessary skills to sit for their school and national
examinations.

Teachers make their weekly and daily plans using the various
documents given to them and also considering the many aspects stated
above. Teachers are in constant pressure to keep up with the phase to
ensure that students get to do the necessary activities in the classrooms
to face examinations, not to mention having to manage the average of 40
students in each of their classrooms. They also have to shoulder many
other responsibilities besides planning and teaching in classrooms.

What this entails is that teachers seem to be left with little room to
implement innovations in their classrooms. Although the teaching of
higher-order thinking skills is required in all classrooms, teachers seem to
have very little or no space to accommodate the changes required by this
innovation. The freedom to plan and teach higher-order thinking skills in
their content instruction based on the individual progress of each of the
students and classes could not be done as is proposed given the
curricular requirements guiding the teaching and Ieaming in schools.
Also, extending language instruction to include higher-order thinking skills
demands considerable amount of flexibility in teaching in the classrooms

for students could play an active role. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987),

293

for example, suggest that students be prepared to gradually take over all
the goal-setting, context-creating, motivational, analytical, and inferential
actions. Teachers, however, to fulfill the curricular requirements, feel
more comfortable having a fixed structure to conform to these needs,
rather than accommodating the curriculum to the innovation.

Another important issue related to the curricular requirements is
that the Integrated Curriculum For Secondary School was formulated in
1988 with one of its thirteen objectives for teaching thinking skills. The
individual syllabi, curriculum specifications and textbooks for each school
subject were prepared based on this curriculum. More explicit attempts to
teach thinking skills were introduced in 1993. The outcome of this is that
there are no separate categories for thinking skills in the individual
syllabi, curriculum specifications, or the textbooks. For language
instruction, for example, the categories listed include listening and
speaking, reading, and writing. Since thinking skills are not stated as
separate categories like the other language components, teachers seem

to pay little attention to thinking skills in their planning and teaching.

Pre arin students for tests and examinations.

Another important curricular requirement is preparing students for
tests and examinations. Through my survey questionnaire I found that
over 40 percent of the teachers agreed that it is a problem to prepare

students for examinations and at the same time teach them how to think

294

(Refer to Appendix B - Table 23). Almost the same number of teachers
suggested that they are not sure whether it is a problem. Only one fifth of
all teachers who participated in the study disagreed that teaching thinking
and preparing students for examinations is a problem for them. In other
words, 80 percent of form two Malay and English Language teachers in
the Perdana School District agreed or were not sure whether teaching
thinking skills and preparing students for examinations is a problem.

To investigate, in light of such a dilemma, what teachers prefer to
do in their own classrooms, they were asked whether they “would rather
prepare students to face examinations than to teach them the thinking
skills. In fact that is what everybody wants.” More than one-third of the
teachers agreed that they would rather teach them to face examinations
than to teach them thinking skills (Refer to Appendix B - Table 24).
Slightly more than 30 percent of the teachers were not sure whether they
would teach them to face examinations than to teach them thinking skills,
suggesting they are in a real dilemma. The other third disagreed that they
would rather prepare students to face examinations than to teach them
thinking skills. This could be one of the reasons why more than three-
fourths of the teachers have admitted that they allocate 10 percent or less
of the time to teach thinking skills in content instruction as discussed
earlier.

There are a number of questions which arise from such a dilemma

faced by teachers teaching higher-order thinking skills in their form two

295

Malay or English Language classrooms. First, Malaysia’s education
system is a very examination-oriented system. Students at the primary
level sit for national examinations at the end of year three and year six,
although the examination at the end of year three is optional. Students
also sit for mandatory national examinations at the end of year nine, and
year eleven. Students sit for a very important Malaysian Certificate of
Education examination at the end of year eleven. All these examinations,
without doubt, put tremendous pressure on students, teachers, and
parents.

The outcome seems to be that preparing students for examinations
becomes the most important aspect of schooling. This is a problem almost
everyone including researchers, policy makers, and teachers everywhere
seem to encounter. In this respect, Gardner (1993) suggests, “I believe
that in our society we suffer from three biases, which I have nicknamed
“Westist,” “Testist,” and “Bestist” (p.12). He is concerned about the
importance given to tests in educational systems. It will be ideal if
students are prepared to become good test takers and at the same time
better thinkers. It will also be exciting to see teachers doing both of these
successfully in the classrooms. However, it does not seem to be the case
most of the time.

Parents also play an extensive part in determining what is given
importance by teachers in schools. Aishah, who teaches Malay Language

in her form two classes, suggests that besides examinations, what

296

parents want schools to do affects the teaching of higher-order thinking
skills. She suggests that parents, first and foremost, want their children to
pass the examinations. In her opinion, parents come and ask teachers
why their children did not pass an examination (Teacher interview,
9T2814). In her opinion, parents do not give much importance to the
teaching of thinking, and they do not seem to be concerned whether their
children are or are not taught higher-order thinking skills.

A related issue is that teachers are left on their own to handle the
tension between curricular objectives and parents’ desires in their
classrooms. Ambiga who teaches English Language in form two classes
also suggested that parents are more concerned about the examination
results as proxy for Ieaming. She also suggests that “What they [parents]
want is, okay they send their children to school what I [parents] want from
you [teachers] is [to] get As, that’s it” (Teacher interview, 9T1 C9). As
suggested by Aishah and Ambiga, parents are only interested in their
children getting good grades in the tests. As a result of this, teachers are
compelled to teach them to face examinations.

Another related issue is who else contributes to tension around
school examinations. The Ministry of Education adopts the policy of using
examinations for the purpose of improving practice in schools. This
certainly seems to be a commendable goal and does not directly
contradict the implementation of the thinking skills. The Ministry of

Education expects that if examination questions are gradually changed to

297

thinking skills questions requiring students to use their critical thinking
and reasoning skills, teachers will give serious attention to the teaching of
these skills. In this respect, Bakar from the Curriculum Development
Center suggested that, “The examination questions requiring thinking
skills will be gradually increased to 60 percent. So when, so when the
thinking skills you know, are in the examination questions then the
teachers will see the need for it” (Interview, 9JOS3A).

In summary, It seems to be the belief that only when the
examination questions are changed to require students to apply critical
thinking to answer examination questions, teachers will change their
focus from emphasizing memorizing skills to teaching many thinking skills,

versus the current emphasis on rote Ieaming.

Students and their emctations.

Language proficiency of students seems to be an important criteria
for students to follow and actively participate in the teaching and Ieaming
processes. As has been stated earlier, the Malay Language classrooms
have the Chinese and Indian students who are non-native speakers of the
language. In the English Language classrooms, all the Malay, Chinese or
Indian students are non-native speakers. Furthermore, there seems to be
vast differences in language proficiency between students in the higher
and lower level classes for both Malay and English Language.

Comparatively, students’, even for the non—native speakers, command of

298

their Malay Language is better than their command of their English
Language. These variations in linguistic abilities among students make it
hard for teachers to involve all students in activities in the way required
for the integration of thinking skills in language instruction.

Teachers are asked to teach higher-order thinking skills and
conduct activities which involve the use of complex cognitive abilities like
analyzing, making inferences, creating original communications, in a
context where there are so many variations among students. Ambiga who
teaches English Language suggests, “half of my 2| [a lower level English
Language class] are illiterate. They can’t read anything in English
Language” (Teacher interview, 9T1 A4). She argues that she faces
immense problems teaching these classes where the students’ proficiency
in English Language is very low. That obviously seems to inhibit their
active participation in the class activities to a large extent.

However, Aishah suggests that students do not participate enough
in the processes because, “they do not have enough exposure. They are
shy to stand up or even to stand in front of the class. They have not been
exposed enough in this” (Teacher interview, 9T2A8). In that respect, she
also suggests that because of lack of exposure and the traditionally
passive role accorded to students, students often expect teachers to
provide the answers. She suggests that students believe, “Teacher surely
knows answers for questions. So [she should] just tell that” (Teacher

interview, 8T284). The students too seem to support what Aishah has

299

suggested. Even students from a higher level English Language class
suggest that they would like to avoid having to answer questions because
they are shy to stand up or going in front of the class (Student interview,
981812)

The students may be justified in their reluctance to participate as
the typical Ieaming environment in Malaysian classrooms is not
conducive to free discussion or exposition of ideas, and allows students
to ridicule others who take the risk to participate. This fact of life in
Malaysian classrooms need to change if teachers and reformers aim to
build a conducive environment for teaching and Ieaming thinking skills.

In summary, there are a number of reasons that discourage
students from taking active part in the teaching and Ieaming processes in
the class. The main reasons for this situation, seem to be the low
proficiency in the languages, being afraid to make mistakes, expecting
teachers to provide answers, and being ‘booed’ by their friends in the
class. Cultural practices in majority homes, such as discouraging children
from involving in discussions, too do not seem to support the kind of

participation required for the teaching of higher-order thinking skills.

Implications

Teaching thinking in content instruction in Malaysia is certainly a

move in the right direction. This is in line with worldwide attempts being

300

made to include thinking in the school curriculum for all children (Resnick,
1987). The teaching of thinking is now beginning to become a part of the
curriculum in both elementary and secondary schools (Collins and
Mangieri, 1992). However, as Collins and Mangieri suggest, many
teachers know little about thinking. It has not been part of their own
education. In that respect, findings of this investigation bring implications
to further improve the teaching of higher-order thinking skills in Malaysian
schools. The implications will be divided into three categories:
implications for policy makers; implications for practice; and implications

for further research.

Implications for Poligr

There is a serious need to streamline the program for teaching
thinking in teacher education colleges and in schools. Right now there are
significant differences between the approaches adopted by the Teacher
Education Division which prepares teachers for schools, and the
Curriculum Development Center which is responsible for the
implementation of the innovation in schools. Better coherence in the
programs adopted by these agencies and better cooperation among
themselves and with teachers in the implementation will go a long way in
improving the numerous problems faced by teachers.

However, as was seen in this study, it is important that the way

curriculum is changed and the way those changes are introduced take

301

into consideration the extent to which the curriculum is accepted within
the school and the community. Consequently, educators increasingly
argue that involving the community in curriculum development is
important in building support for such changes.

Wheeler, McDonough, Gallagher, Sookpokakit & Duongsa (In
Chapman, D. W. & Mahlck, L. O, 1996, March), for example, describe a
model that has worked successfully in Thailand for bringing community
members into the instructional activities of the school through a top down
initiative to encourage local community participation. The Thai example
presents a different model of in-service teacher training and a different
view of teacher-community communications that may work in Malaysian
classrooms. Besides improving the in-service training for teachers, this
model could bring parents closer to understanding the innovations in
classrooms which could result in parents complementing efforts taken by
teachers.

Teacher education programs, both the pre-service and in-service
approaches, need to further emphasize the importance of preparing
teachers to be able to construct the pedagogical content knowledge to
teach higher-order thinking skills in content instruction. The focus of these
programs has to be on at least four categories (Grossman, 1990):
teachers’ overarching conceptions of teaching higher-order thinking skills
in their knowledge and beliefs about the nature of the subject and what is

important for students to Ieam; knowledge of instructional strategies and

302

representations for teaching particular topics; knowledge of students’
understandings and potential misunderstandings in higher-order thinking
skills; and knowledge of curriculum and curriculum materials, which
includes familiarity with the range of textbooks and other instructional
materials available for teaching various topics (Putnam & Borko, In
Press).

Teachers in this case need to fulfill the requirements of the four
categories for both Malay or English Language and higher-order thinking
skills to be able to construct the pedagogical content knowledge to teach
them successfully in their classrooms. However, the need seems more so
for higher-order thinking skills. The teaching of higher-order thinking skills
need to be contextualized in the specific subjects such as Malay or
English Language and not provided as generic skills, separate from the
subject matter content. In other words, it is important to develop subject-
specific pedagogical practices for teaching higher-order thinking skills in
Malay or English Language classrooms, and even across the curriculum.
Teacher educators should model the teaching of higher-order thinking
skills in Malay or English Language classrooms as they expect teachers
to teach their students in their own classrooms.

Curricular documents such as the individual syllabi, curriculum
specifications, and textbooks for Malay and English Language need to
integrate higher-order thinking skills in the content so that teachers do not

see as their choice to teach higher-order thinking skills. There is a need

303

to review and update these important documents on which teachers rely
in planning and teaching their lessons. Extra resource materials, including
printed materials and technology-based materials, should be made
available to teachers in schools. It was evident from the findings of this
investigation that teachers face a serious lack of resource materials to
support new ways of teaching.

On a long term basis, teachers need to be given the flexibility to
incorporate the changes they deem suitable into their teaching. In other
words, teachers need to be empowered to make their own pedagogical
decisions, and be given the necessary flexibility in their classrooms rather
than feeling compelled to follow a rigid structure. This obviously seems to
inhibit the attempts to integrate higher-order thinking skills in their content
instruction. One way this could be done is to systematically reduce the
emphasis placed on national examinations. Instead of having four
national examinations at the elementary and secondary school levels, at
least two of the four need to be made school based, and formative type
evaluations. This would certainly reduce the examination anxiety now
very prevalent among teachers, students, and parents. There is also a
need to consider the way schools are structured which often do not allow
for teachers to exercise the flexibility, and more importantly continue to

Ieam to make new innovations.

304

Implications for Practice

There needs to be serious efforts to make professional
development an ongoing part of teachers’ daily work through joint
planning, study groups, peer coaching, and research. Rather than relying
too much on the ‘sit and get’ type of in-house training workshops, ongoing
professional development efforts need to provide opportunities for
teachers to reflect on their practice, and discuss the issues among
themselves and benefit from each other. Teachers need to Ieam to
communicate openly and honestly, to confront differences and resolve
conflicts, and to sublimate personal goals for the good of the team
(Reimers & McGinn, 1997).

In specific contexts, there has to be process facilitators such the
school principals who have to determine the best ways to help groups
reach decisions and function effectively. Most groups use face-to-face
interaction, the most common and easiest way of group interaction. Other
alternatives include: brainstorming, the nominal group technique - group
participants are asked to produce solutions individually after group
exchange and prior to further exchange; Delphi exercises, to obtain
consensus among group members; ideawriting, a method for developing
ideas and exploring their meaning; and interpretive structural modeling, a
method to identify relationships among the key aspects which define an

issue or problem (Moore, 1994).

305

Teachers need to be encouraged to contextualize their discussions
on teaching higher-order thinking skills in the teaching of Malay, English
Language or any other school subject. For this to happen there has to be
support from the school administration, especially in providing the
resources for teachers to organize such study groups. There also need to
be incentives for teachers who volunteer to participate in such initiatives.
As discussed earlier, teachers need to focus on acquiring subject-specific
pedagogical skills to integrate thinking skills in their content instruction.
This is different from how it is generally being done now where teachers
are given the generic thinking skills and they are expected to figure out on
their own how to integrate those skills in their content instruction.

These ongoing professional development efforts may provide
teachers the opportunity to be members of a professional community
which may allow them to move away from the notion that teaching is an
individualistic and idiosyncratic practice (Buchmann, 1993). These
professional communities could help teachers improve their practice. In
the case of an autobiography book club, for example, F Iorio-Ruane et al.,
(1995) report that changes in teachers’ beliefs occurred after teachers
participated in these clubs. The experience consisted in helping teachers
feel comfortable with the members of the group. Once this occurred,
teachers were willing to place their own experience and beliefs on the
table to be evaluated by their colleagues. Besides this school-based

ongoing professional development initiatives, there also need to be efforts

306

to organize new sources of professional development such as Ieaming
networks and school-university or teacher college partnerships that
transcend school boundaries. Teachers may be able to keep up with
latest directions in research from such involvement, and Ieam from them

as well.

Implications for Further Research

Researchers have often discussed the construction of pedagogical
content knowledge based on the various categories suggested by
Shulman (1986, 1987) or the four categories suggested by Grossman
(1990). The discussion thus far has only focused on teaching a single
school subject, such as language arts, mathematics or science. It
certainly seems very important to investigate how teachers may construct
the pedagogical content knowledge to successfully integrate higher-order
thinking skills in Malay or English Language instruction. Although there is
sufficient data in this investigation to suggest that teachers were lacking
in at least two of the four categories of pedagogical content knowledge to
successfully integrate higher-order thinking skills with Malay or English
Language in their classrooms, it was beyond the scope of this study to
investigate how teachers actually construct the pedagogical content
knowledge to integrate higher-order thinking skills into Malay or English
Language instruction in their classrooms. As such, this question warrants

further investigation.

307

Teaching changes at a glacial pace and in fragmentary fashion
(Cuban, 1984). In most cases teachers borrowed bits and pieces of
progressive ideas and practices and integrated them into standard
classroom formats (Cohen & Spillane, 1993). One of the main reasons for
such a situation is that the policies and programs coming from the ministry
are often seen by teachers as inappropriate and out of touch with the
realities of the classroom (Chapman & Mahlck, 1996).

In centralized education systems, such as the one in Malaysia,
teachers are at the tail end of the spectrum in receiving mandated reform
policies. As Chapman and Mahlck argue, when policies are
communicated to schools, often in such vague terms, school personnel do
not understand what actions they are supposed to take. As a result, they
either implement the policy incorrectly, or do not implement it at all. As
such, it is important to listen to teachers cf their concerns in implementing
innovations. Virtually every innovation, especially in the early stages,
makes new demands on teachers, requiring them to Ieam new things,
teach in new ways, or modify their classroom practices in ways that
requires time and energy. It is important to investigate how teachers react
to such new innovations. Research should also focus on how reformers
and teachers could work together in formulating and implementing new
policies, given the socio-political situations in the country.

There is a serious need to investigate how could conducive

Ieaming environment be cultivated in Malaysian classrooms for the

308

integration of higher-order thinking skills in Malay or English Language
instruction. Students come to school with little motivation to participate in
discussion and to play an active role in the teaching and Ieaming
processes. To make matters worse, there are certain behaviors in the
classrooms which discourage students from playing an active role. In this
respect, there needs to be further research to investigate this problem,
especially given the fact that certain socio—cultural practices found in the
society work against encouraging students from participating actively in

discussions and classroom activities.

APPENDIX A

(SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE -

In English Language & Malay Language)

Department of Teacher Education
College of Education

Michigan State University

Erickson Hall

East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1034
USA

Teacher urve uestionnaire

Qusstionnaire Instructions

I request your voluntary participation in this study. You have the right to
assent or decline to answer this questionnaire. You give your permission
to participate in this study by completing the survey.

Please take time to answer all questions. Please give complete and
honest answers. All responses will be treated with the strictest
confidence and will not be seen by anyone except the research team. You
will not in anyway be affected by the analysis and reporting of the results
of this study.

We thank you for your cooperation in answering this questionnaire.

309

310

action 1: Back round Data uestionnaire

 

Fill in the blanks or mark [X] in the appropriate space.

1. Name of school:

 

2. Sex :
Male :
Female :
3. Subject taught:
Malay Language :
English Language :
4. Number of years teaching the subject (Malay or English Language):
0 - 5 years : -
6 - 10 years : -
more than 10 years : -

5. Highest Academic qualification:

 

6. Professional qualification:

 

7. Training to teach higher-order thinking skills:

a. Post-Degree Teacher Education Program

I l

b. Staff Development Course (by CDC, SED
or school)

 

 

c. No training

311

ection 2

What follows is a lesson in a Form Two English Language Arts as
observed in classrooms in 3 different secondary schools located in the
suburbs. Please read these lessons accounts and circle the appropriate
responses based on your own knowledge and experience.

“A Form Two English Language Arts class is having a 80 minute lesson
on writing an essay on the topic, “Ways of addressing the problem of
juvenile crimes’. There are 42 students in the class. They vary in their
linguistic abilities. The objective of the lesson is to have students write an
essay on the topic ‘Ways of addressing the problem of juvenile crimes’
and also to Ieam the skill of solving problems”.

Qlassroom 1 (Approach 1)
The teacher started by reading some excerpts from newspapers which

relate to juvenile crimes. Teacher, then, explained how to write this
essay. He also explained the important points which should be in the
essay to overcome the problem of juvenile crimes. Students were then
asked to write the essay.

Qlassroom 2 (Approach 2)

The teacher started the class by reading some excerpts from newspapers
which relate to juvenile crimes. The class talked about juvenile crimes.
The teacher asked many questions designed primarily to elicit facts and
feedback. Teacher responses took the form of responses such as ‘right’
or ‘wrong’. Students’ sentences were accepted if correct, and written
down on the board. They were turned down if incorrect, and not written on
the board. Right answers were not explained, and wrong answers were
treated as unreal. Students were then asked to write the essay.

Qlassroom 31Approach 3)

The teacher started the class by asking the students to read some
excerpts from newspapers which relate to juvenile crimes. The most able
students helped those less able to get through the reading. After a short
small group discussion, the class talked about the juvenile crimes.
Students were encouraged to provide their ideas based on what they had
just read as what causes juvenile crimes and the ways to address them.
The teacher commented on or added to what students had said. He
encouraged students to pose questions to him and other students.
Students were allowed to wonder why things are, to inquire, to search for
solutions, and to resolve incongruities in current ways of thinking about

312

how to address juvenile crimes. They also talked about the components of
the essay. Several students had different ideas as to how to write an
essay. The teacher allowed and encouraged variation in their writing
rather than adhering to a strict structure. Students were then asked to
write the essay. After finishing their essay student were expected to
share, discuss and provide constructive criticism of each others’ work.

Please circle the appropriate resmnses to the guestions below to the
best of your knowledge and emrience.

1. Although each teaching approach has a somewhat different purpose,
rank the three different classrooms to the degree to which, in your
opinion, they promote higher-order thinking (HOT) among students.

 

(Doesn’t (Promotes
Promote HOT)
HOT)

i. Approach 1 1 2 3 4 5

ii. Approach 2 1 2 3 4 5

iii. Approach 3 1 2 3 4 5

2. Which approach, in your opinion, is most used in your classroom?

Approach 1 2 3

Please circle the appropriate responses to the questions below to the
best of your knowledge and experience.

 

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

 

3. Approach 3 provides the most

opportunities to students to

continue to think and wonder

about what they are discussing

in class 1 2 3 4 5
4. Students get opportunities to

figure out how they arrived at

those answers in approach 2. 1 2 3 4 5

313

 

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

 

5. Approach 2 may permit the
students to think but approach
3 demands that they think. 1 2 3 4 5

6. Approach 1 helps teachers to
reduce disciplinary problems
created by students in the
classroom. 1 2 3 4 5

7. Teachers’ own experience as
students encourages the use
ofapproach1. 1 2 3 4 5

8. Language teachers often face
difficulties using approach
3 in their classrooms. 1 2 3 4 5

 

action 3

Please circle the appropriate responses to the questions below to the
best of your knowledge and experience for the teaching of Malay or
English Language Arts (Column 1), the subject you teach, and Higher-
order thinking skills (Column 2). Your willingness to provide responses for
these questions is much appreciated.

Key:
§trgngly Disagree strongly Agree
(SD) (SA)

1 2 3 4 5

 

314

A. Knowled e

 

 

Language Arts Higher-order
Thinking Skills
SD SA SD SA

Iknow,
1. the details ofthe

curriculumfor 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
2. howtoplantoteach 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
3. how to use different strategies

and techniques to teach 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
4. how to teach language arts

(Malay or English Language)

and higher-order thinking

skills using the infusion

approach 123451234
5. how to stratify the Ieaming

components to the level of

studentsfor 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
6. how to involve students

actively in the teaching and

Ieaming processes in 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
7. how to develop the individual

potentials of students in 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
8. how to evaluate student

improvement in 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

 

 

 

315

 

 

kills
Language Arts Higher-order
Thinking Skills
SD SA SD SA

lam able to,
1. planalessontoteach 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
2. use different strategies and

techniques to teach 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
3. teach language arts (Malay

or English Language) and

higher-order thinking skills

using the infusion approach 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
4. Stratify the Ieaming

components to the level of

students for 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
5. use resource materials for

the effective leamingof 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
6. to provide feedback to

students for the effective

leamingof 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
7. involve students actively in

the teaching and Ieaming

processesin 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
8. develop the individual

potential ofstudents in 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
9. evaluate student

improvement in 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

 

 

316

C. Attitude

 

Language Arts

Higher-order
Thinking Skills

 

SD SA

1. Teachers’ responsibilities are

confined to the school and its

working hours in terms of

teaching 1 2 3 4
2. I find a great deal of

satisfaction in teaching 1 2 3 4
3. I have an important influence

in the life of my students in

terms of teaching 1 2 3 4
4. Teaching never gets

monotonous when teaching 1 2 3 4
5. New and better ways of

teaching are always being

discovered in 1 2 3 4
6. Is the duty of the teacher to

know more on their own for 1 2 3 4
7. To be a better teacher one

needs continuos training in 1 2 3 4
8. A good teacher should adapt

the curriculum to the needs of

the pupils even if this involves

adding more work. 1 2 3 4
9. A teacher should modfiy‘ the

curriculum for the good of the

students even if this means

not following exactly the

established curriculum. 1 2 3 4
10. I would rather prepare

students to face examinations

than to teach them the thinking

skills. In fact that is what

everybody wants. 1 2 3 4
11. I have a problem in preparing

students for examinations and

at the same time teaching them

how to think. 1 2 3 4

 

SD SA

317

Section 4

Based on your own practice in a medium standard Form Two Malay or
English Language Arts classroom, state the percentage of the time you
use for each of the aspects stated below. Just mark (-) if any of the
aspects are not applicable to your classroom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Class Week
(40180
mins.)
. Teaching of Malay or English
Language Arts % %
. Teaching of Higher-order
Thinking Skills % %
. Teaching of Malay or English
Language Arts and Higher-
order thinking skills using the
infusion approach % %
. Preparation for tests and
examinations % %
. Disciplinary problems and
classroom routines % %
. Review of homework % %
. Grading students’ written
assignments. % %
Total 1 % 100%

 

318

Fakulti Pendidikan

Michigan State University

Erickson Hall

East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1034
USA

§oal Selidik Guru

Keterangan:

Saya memohon kepada pihak tuanlpuan untuk menjawab soal selidik ini
secara sukarela. Ingin dinyatakan dengan jelas bahawa tuanlpuan
mempunyai hak untuk membuat keputusan untuk menyertain ataupun
tidak dalam kajian ini.

Sila jawab semua soalan dengan lengkap. Kerjasama tuanlpuan untuk
memberi maklumat dengan ikhlas dan jujur sangat kami harapkan dan
hargai.

Indentiti tuanlpuan akan dirahsiakan. Maklumat yang anda berikan akan
digunakan untuk kajian ini sahaja. Tuan/puan tidak akan menerima
sebarang kesan negatif akibat maklumat yang diberi.

Kerjasama tuanlpuan untuk menjawab soal selidik sangat dihargai.

Terima kasih.

 

319

Bahagian 1: Maklumat Asas

Sila isikan tempat kosong ataupun tandakan [X] dalam petak yang sesuai.

1.

2

Nama Sekolah :

 

 

 

. Janfina:
Lelaki
Perempuan : , ,
Matapelajaran yang diajar:

Bahasa Malaysia : .
Bahasa Inggeris :

"ng

Pengalaman Mengajar (Bahasa Malaysia atau Bahasa Inggeris) :
o - 5 tahun : -
6 - 1o tahun : -

Lebih dari 10 tahun : -

Kelulusan Akademik Tertinggi:

 

Kelulusan Profesional :

 

Latihan Untuk Mengajar Kemahiran Berfikir:

a. KPLI atau SPLI

 

b. Kursus Dalam Perkhidmatan (PPK, JPN,
atau sekolah)

 

 

c. Tiada Latihan

320

Bahagian 2

Berikut adalah satu sesi pelajaran dalam Kelas Bahasa Inggeris
Tingkatan Dua yang dilihat di tiga buah sekolah menengah yang
berasingan. Sila baca keterangan tentang tiga pelajaran ini dan bulatkan
pilihan jawapan yang sesuai berdasarkan pada pengetahuan dan
pengalaman tuanlpuan.

“Sebuah kelas Bahasa Inggeris Tingkatan Dua sedang mengikuti dua
waktu pelajaran selama 80 minit untuk menulis sebuah karangan beitajuk
‘ Cara-cara menangani masalah jenayah juvenil’. Kelas ini mempunyai 42
orang pelajar yang berbeza dari segi penguasaan bahasa. Objektif
pelajaran ini adalah untuk menyediakan pelajar demi menghasilkan
sebuah karangan di atas tajuk yang diberi dan juga mempelajari
kemahiran menyelesaikan masalah.

Kelas 1 (Pendekatan 1)

Guru telah memulakan kelas dengan membaca beberapa keratan akhbar
yang berhubung dengan jenayah juvenil. Seterusnya, guru telah
menerangkan tentang cara menulis karangan dan isi panting yang perlu
terdapat dalam karangan tersebut. Selapas itu, Pelajar telah diminta
untuk menulis.

Kelas 2 (Pendekatan 2)

Guru telah memulakan kelas dengan membaca beberapa keratan akhbar
yang berhubung dengan jenayah juvenil. Kelas telah mengadakan
perbincangan tentang jenayah juvenil. Guru telah mengemukakan banyak
soalan bertujuan mendapatkan maklumat dan maklum balas dari pelajar.
Respon guru terhadap jawapan murid berbentuk ‘betul’ atau ’salah’.
Jawapan pelajar telah diterima dan ditulis di papan hitam jika betul.
Jawapan pelajar telah ditolak dan tidak ditulis di papan hitam jika salah.
Jawapan betul tidak diterangkan dan jawapan salah dianggap tidak
langsung mempunyai ciri jawapan. Seterusnya pelajar telah diminta untuk
menulis karangan tersebut.

Kelas 3 (Pendekatan 3)

Guru telah memulakan pelajaran dengan meminta pelajar membaca
keratan akhbar yang berkaitan dengan jenayah juvenil. Pelajar cerdik
telah membantu pelajar lemah untuk membaca dan memahami keratan
akhbar tersebut. Selapas mengadakan perbincangan dalam kumpulan
secara ringkas, perbincangan telah diadakan di peringkat kelas.

321

Pelajar telah digalakkan untuk memberi idea mereka berdasarkan pada
apa yang telah dibaca untuk menangani dan mengatasi jenayah juvenil.
Guru telah memberi komen mengenai jawapan yang diberi oleh pelajar.
Guru telah menggalakkan pelajar mengemukakan soalan kepada beliah
ataupun kepada pelajar Iain. Pelajar telah dibenarkan untuk memahami
keadaan, memikirkan secara mendalam tentang isu tersebut. mencari
penyelasaian dan cuba mengatasi masalah ketiadaan pakatan dalam
memahami dan mengatasi masalah tersebut.

Kelas juga telah mengadakan perbincangan tentang komponen karangan.

Beberapa orang pelajar telah mengemukakan idea yang berbeza tentang
cara menulis karangan tersebut. Guru telah membenar, malah
menggalakkan kelainan dalam cara menghasilkan karangan tersebut.
Seterusnya, pelajar telah diminta menulis karangan. Pelajar dijangka
mengongsi, membincang dan memberi kritikan membina terhadap hasil
penulisan masing-masing dalam kumpulan.

§ila bulatkan resmns yang bersesuain berdasarkan pada gngetahuan
dan psngalaman tuanlpuan.

1. Walau pun setiap pendekatan mengajar mempunyai tujuannya
tersendiri, berdasarkan pada pendapat anda, sila tentukan keberkesanan
setiap pendekatan dalam menggalakkan kemahiran berfikir di kalangan

pelajar.

 

(Tidak (Menggalakkan
Galakkan Kemahiran Berfikir)
Kem. Berfikir)

i. Pendekatan1 1 2 3 4 5

ii. Pendekatan 2 1 2 3 4 5

iii. Pendekatan 3 1 2 3 4 5

2. Pendekatan mana yang paling kerap digunakan dalam kelas yang
tuanlpuan mengajar?

Pendekatan 1 2 3

v ’1.

322

Sila bulatkan respon yang sesuai bagi setiap kenyataan di bawah
berdasarkan pengetahuan dan pengalaman anda.

 

Sangat Tidak
Bersetuju Bersetuju

 

3. Pendekatan 3 memberikan peluang
yang terbanyak kepada pelajar untuk
terus memikir dan menyelidik tentang
isu yang dibincang di dalam kelas 1 2 3 4 5

4. Pelajar mendapat peluang untuk
memikirkan bagaimana mereka
mendapat jawapan dalam
pendekatan 2. 1 2 3 4 5

5. Pendekatan 2 membenarkan
pelajar berfikir manakala pendekatan
3 memaksa pelajar berfikir. 1 2 3 4 5

6. Pendekatan 1 membantu guru
mengurangkan masalah disiplin

yang ditimbulkan oleh pelajar

dalam kelas. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Pengalaman diri guru sebagai

pelajar menggalakkan peng-

gunaan pendekatan 1. 1 2 3 4 5

8. Guru bahasa sering menghadapi
masalah menggunakan pendekatan
3 di dalam kelas. 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

323

Bahagian 3

Sila bulatkan respon yang sesuai bagi soalan/kenyataan berdasarkan
pada pengetahuan dan pengalaman mengajar Bahasa Malaysia stsp
Bahasa Inggeris (Ruang 1) dan kemahiran berfikir (Ruang 2). Kesediaan
tuanlpuan untuk memberi respon sangat dihargai.

Petua:
Tidak Bersetuju Sangat Bersetuju
(T8) (SB)

1 2 3 4 5

A Pengetahuan

 

BMI BI Kemahiran
Berfikir

 

TB 88 TB 88
Saya tahu,

1. kandugnan sukatan pelajaran
bagi 1
2. merancang untuk mengajar 1
3. bagaimana menggunakan
pelbagai strategi dan teknik
untuk mengajar 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4. bagaimana mengajar BM
atau Bl dan kemahiran berfikir
dengan menggunakan
pendekatan penyebatian 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
5. bagaimana menentukan isi
kandungan pelajaran berdasarkan
pada kebolehan pelajar 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
6. bagaimana melibatkan pelajar
secara aktif dalam proses
pengajaran dan pembelajaran1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
7. bagaimana mengembangkan
potensi individu pelajar 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
8. bagaimana menilai perkembangan
pelajardalam 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

324

B. Kemahiran

 

BMI BI

Kemahiran
Berfikir

 

Saya berkebolehan,

1.

2.

merancang pelajaran untuk
mengajar

menggunakan pelbagai
strategi dan teknik untuk
mengajar

mengajar BM atau BI dan
kemahiran berfikir dengan
menggunakan pendekatan
penyebatian

menentukan isi kandungan
pelajaran berdasarkan pada
kebolehan pelajar
menggunakan sumber
pengajaran dan pembelajaran
bertujuan mengadakan peng-

TB

1 2

ajaran dan pembelajaran yang

berkesan

memberi maklum balas yang
berkesan kepada

pelajar bagi tujuan mereka
mempelajari

melibatkan pelajar secara
aktif dalam proses pengajaran
dan pembelajaran bagi
mengembangkan potensi
individu pelajar

menilai perkembangan
pelajar dalam

1 2

1

N

1 2

1 2

SB

 

TB

SB

 

325

C. ika

 

 

BMI BI Kemahiran
Berfikir
TB 88 TB SB
1. Tanggungjawab guru adalah
terhad kepada sekolah dan
masa di sekolah bagi
mengajar 1234512345

2. Saya mendapat kepuasaan
yang cukup dalam mengajar 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

3. Saya mempunyai pengaruh
yang kuat dalam hidup pelajar

darisegipengajaran 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4. Proses pengajaran dan

pembelajaran tidak sekali

menjadi monotonous’ bila

sayamengajar 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

5. Pendekatan mengajar yang baru
dan yang lebih berkesan dikenali
dari semasa ke semasa dalam
mengajar 1234512345

6. Adalah menjadi tanggungjawab
guru untuk mengetahui lebih
banyak dengan sendiri bagi 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

7. Untuk menjadi seorang guru
yang berkesan seseorang
memerlukan latihan yang
berterusandalam 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

8. Seorang guru yang berkesan
perlu mengubahsuai kandungan
sukatan pelajaran berdasarkan
pada keperluan pelajar walaupun
ia menjadi lebih banyak tugas
baginya 1234512345

9. Seorang guru yang berkesan
perlu mengubahsuai kandungan
sukatan pelajaran bagi manfaat
pelajar walaupun itu berrnakna
tidak mengikuti dengan
sepenuhnya sukatan
pelajaran 1234512345

 

 

326

 

BMI BI

Kemahiran
Berfikir

 

TB SB

10. Saya lebih suka menyediakan

pelajar menghadapi peperiksaan

daripada mengajar kemahiran

berrfikir. Sebenarnya, itulah yang

dikehendaki oleh semua

orang. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Saya menghadapi masalah dalam

menyediakan pelajar untuk meng-

hadapi peperiksaan dan pada masa

yang sama menyediakan mereka

untuk berfikir. 1 2 3 4 5

TB SB

12345

12345

 

 

 

W

(TABLES)

327

my

Berdasarkan pada pengalaman tuanlpuan mengajar sebuah kelas BM
atau BI Tingkatan dua yang sederhana, sila nyatakan peratus masa yang
anda gunakan untuk setiap aspek yang tersebut di bawah. Sila tandakan
( -) jika mane-mane aspek tidak berkaitan dengan kelas tersebut.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kelas Minggu
(40180
min.)
. Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran
BM atau Bl % %
. Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran
Kemahiran berfikir % %
. Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran
BM atau Bl dan kemahiran
berfikir dengan menggunakan
pendekatan penyebatian % %
. Penyediaan ujian dan
peperiksaan % %
. Masalah disiplin dan tugas
rutin bilik darjah % %
. Penilaian kerja rumah pelajar % %
. Penilaian tugasan bertulis
pelajar. % %
Jumlah 100% 1 %

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6N5 :.E or ...: F a :0. :.E 0.1.: _. 9:8 :.E 3 L: F 8:8 SEE .: F 6 :0. :.E 0' 2: F
5:00 0200 w 0000> 00.098 00 00. 2:2: :. 2....0. 0020
00.9.98 00 00- 0=0_0 00 000. 00. 0020000.. 00.088 00 00. 00220.. >222
00.0; 85020 9008 00. 020 00 0Eow- 0020009 00.9.98 00 00- .08.. 830.0
...... i 80000.00 2.298 ...- 2.:00E.0E0.0 :0 02.00.00. 020 0.0 0Eom- 3.0058. mm E8“.
0:0 09300: 2.298 ...- {000000 2.298 ...- 0203 2.298 E0: 0000000
>0 0:0 3.00008: E9: 0E0.0 0 0:0 >0 0:0 0:0 0.00508: E9: 0 2.2 .08?
0000000 0 009 00- :0 000080 000.. 00- 0000000 0 009 0m - 0000000 0 002 ..r. 2.298 8:000 ._i.-
20.0. :.E on E F 60.3 :.E or E: F ?...8 :.Eo~ E _. 8:8 :.E 09 c: P S {90:29 .... F
00.9.98 05 00 00. 00.0.98 00 00- 8:0. 05 9...; 00. E000 >000 0m- 8020
00 5.3 20: 008.5 :0 9:05:00 00. E000 2.298 ... . 000020.. >222
00.898 05 00 00- .0000 20200.0 ...- .:.:00E 2.298 ...- 200: 08. 2.2 08> 2.298 9 .0 .08.. 8:2...
---- 3.00008. 05 E9: 008.: 2.298 ...- 0:0 >0 0:0 8:0. .020: 0 -. :0 >0 0:0 080 mm Eon.
0500.00. 2.298 ...- 0:0 >0 0000000 000.. 00- 2.53 2.298 ...- 00 05 009 00 -
00:0:098 0:0 0.00: 08. E0: 020.898 00080098 0020 5.3 00:00
- ..i- n ”mtuM-n. .00. I i- m - .- .0?” a u>.X-.u "i. u
«a. _._-. _ f... - _= Q ..2. _ .2. -_ . . ...
000.0 :08: :. 05 85.00008 80
05 0. E0008 0.0 - 2050000 00.0:0 .....00 2.2.802 0020
00.298 00 00. 8:08 00.205 .2222 8.520 00.098 00 mm - 9.00: ..0EE08 000020.. :0._2m
0083 0 E0: 02.5 0. 8:022:29 .00E 000.0320 00- . 0930.0 ..05 :. 0029 .08.. 830...
2.0.98 8:000 ...- >=>=00 2.200 E2 20.5 00E 05 .0 002 8:000... - 200 05 >000 00- .N E8".
00:00.20 .008 05 2.00 - 2 0.>00 20.88 05 :. 00020 >580. 3.83 0.>00 22> 20.200080. 000
000.. 200 :. 00 . .08 =0E0 :. 08 00- 5..s 25:00 00- 3.00: 08. 2.2 00. .08 2:580 00. -0092. 8:000.-
gag-0335088223334
000.0 0. 20008 00. 000.0 0. E0008. :0.:000E00 20.8000 8320. 8020
22.20 5.500 0 9:3 0:0 00E 20.00000 00 0000000 000.. 00. 000020.. 8:20
it 08008 ...00 :. 00- 2.200 E2008 05 >000 05:00am -.0:0 0.0.:0E .0 .002 .08.. 8:21.
>20 0.00 0 00 0 0000000 25 0 0:0 00E 0 :2: :. 2...: .0 .0009 00.>08 0m- <~ E8“.
8: 20:03.0 N 9:00 0 009 - 00:08 5.3 8000 02:3 0 00.0.98 020 5000
-30 00>.0 8:000 9 ..0E0 :. 020030 0: 2.8 8:000 .... 00 9:00am. 9:0. 8:000 ...-
0 >00 0 >00 0 >00 0 >00 N >00 F >00

 

 

 

 

 

 

00000.0 000020.. 8:20 0:0 >202 05 :. 00.2280 .205 :0 2505. "Na 0.00...

328

329

Table 23: Whether teachers have a groblem gregaring
students for examinations and at the same time teaching

them how to think

 

Table 24: Whether teachers would rather prepare
students to face examinations than to teach them thinking skills

 

'- .

APPENDIX C
(RELIABILITY ANALYSIS &

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE)

 

R E L I A B I L I T Y

TOTAL SCALE #18-#73
Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 90.0
Alpha = .9479
KNOWLEDGE

Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 98.0
Alpha = .9231

SKILL

Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 100.0
Alpha = .9511
ATTITUDE

Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 91.0
Alpha = .8049

A N A L Y S I S

330

of Items

of Items

of Items

of Items

L

56

16

18

22

E

(A L P H A)

EFFECT ..
Multivariate Tests of Significance

Test Name

Pillais
Hotellings

Wilks
Roy:

Note..

Value

.2098?
.24142
.79866
.15479
F statistic for WILKS'

Approx.

331

F Hypoth. DF

1.79760
1.81068
1.80441

12.00
12.00
12.00

Lambda is exact.

(S = 2, M = 1 1/2, N = 44 1/2)

Multivariate Effect Size
TEST NAME
Pillais

Hotellings
Wilks

Effect Size

.105
.108
.106

EFFECT

Variable

A1
A2
Bl
82
C1
C2

(”w-5N

(Cont.)
Univariate F-tests with

Hypoth. SS

.34237
.16045
.53160
.46499
.45722
.06029

(20

96) D.

F.

Error SS Hypoth. MS

24.
54.
24.
.74096
18.
26.

51

84856
30926
80130

25055
75876

NHNH

.17118
.08023
.76580
.73250
.22861
.03015

F Sig.

Error DP Sig. of P
184.00 .051
180.00 .049
182.00 .050

Error MS

.25884 4.52476

.56572 3.67712

.25835 6.83500

.5389? 5.06986

.19011 1.20251

.27874 .10815

of F

.013
.029
.002
.008
.305
.898

APPENDIX D

(READING AND
COMPREHENSION EXERCISES)

 

Form2A
PRA TI E 8

Read the passage carefully and then answer the questions that follow.
Your answers must be based on the passage.

Do you know that there are about 8,000 species of ants? They are
found worldwide but are especially common in hot climates. They live in
organized groups called colonies. It is because of this that ants, like their
relatives, the bees and wasps, are said to be social insects.

All ants share common characteristics. The body of an ant is
divided into three parts: a large head, a thorax and an oval abdomen. The
thorax is separated from the abdomen by a slender waist. An ant uses its
three pairs of jointed legs to move about. Ants are usually yellow, brown,
red or black in colour.

Ants hatch from eggs as legless larvae or grubs. The queen is the
only female in the colony which can lay eggs. The other females are
worker ants which build nest, collect food and tend to the larvae. The
large females, known as soldier ants, defend the colony. The function of
the male ant is to mate with the queen. Only the queen and male ants
have wings which are used during the mating ritual. Soon after mating,
the male ant dies. The fertilized queen pulls off her wings and leaves to
establish a new colony.

Ant colonies live in nests consisting of numerous chambers
connected by tunnels. Some ants colonize tree trunks or live in mounds
built of sticks and leaves. Some others secrete silk to sew together nests
or leaves. They are also found under rocks or live underground.

Ants feed on both plant and animal matter. The Atta ant of South
America builds its nest underground. Unlike other species of ants, it feeds
differently. It chews off pieces of leaves which it then carries to its nest.
The leaves are shredded into little pieces and left to rot. After some time,
fungi grow on the decaying leaves. The Atta ant then feeds on this fungi.

The honey ant obtains its food in a rather unique way. This ant
strokes the abdomen of an aphid to coax it to secrete a sweet liquid
known as ‘honeydew' which the honey ant then proceeds to eat.

Another species, the honey-pot ant, has adapted well to the dry
condition in the desert regions of North America. This ant stores liquid in
its abdomen much like the camel stores fat in its hump. Sometimes, the
abdomen is so swollen that the ant can hardly move. When this happens,
the ant will rest quietly while other members of the colony ‘milk’ the liquid
from it.

332

333

. Where are ants most commonly found?

. Why are ants called social insects?

. In what ways is the queen ant different from the other
female ants?

. What are functions of a worker ant?

. What does the soldier ant do?

. What happens to the queen and the male after
fertilization occurs?

334

7. Name some of the places ants build their nests.

8. How does the Atta ant get its food?

9. What happens when a honey-pot ant’s abdomen is swollen?

10. Explain the meaning of the following words as they are used in the
passage.

slender

chambers

860616

-coax

adapted

 

335

Form 2|

Q MAPS

J

 

 

“PA RT I Comprehension

 

A Look at this map of Pantai Cini.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E3 building church
m railway line mosque m
a.” railway station road Q

“It?" padi field temple E2]

hospital
m hotel

coconut plantation

  

market
bank
rubber estate

playing field

police station #7:?- bridge

 

ABBREVIATIONS .
Pri. Sch. Primary school P.O. postollice Sec. Sch.

 

Secondary school

 

 

 

 

Id

336

Circle the best answer.

Both hotels in Pantai Cini are on. . ..
A Jalan Pantai

B Jalan Stesen

C Jalarl Tengah

D Jalan Tasik

The . . . is in between the padi field and the
market.

A police station

B secondary school

C church

D mosque

The playing field is . . . the hospital.
A before

B opposite

C next to

D behind

To get to the railway station from the rubber
estate. you have to. . ..

A go past Golden Pond

B go along Jalan Tengah

C cross Lubok River

D turn into Jalan Pantai

The coconut plantation is . . . of the playing
field.

A north

B south

C east

D west

There are . . . bridges in Pantai Cini.
A four

B live

C six --

D seven

If you walked along Jalan Tasilr, you will
not see a. . . .

A school

B rubber estate

C padi field

D hospital

10

ll

13

14

There is a . . . across the road from the post
office.

A bank

B hotel

C mosque
D bridge

The hospital is on . . ..
A Jalan Tengah

B Jalan Tasik

C Jalan Pantai

D Jalan Steserl

The . . . is between two bridges.
A church

B temple

C hospital

D railway station

The coconut plantation is to the . ..
rubber estate.

A north

B south

C east

D west

ol' the

The .. . is on Jalan Pantai near a bridge.
A temple

B church

C padi field

D police station

Golden Pond is . . . .

A near the rubber estate
B on Jalan Pantai

C near Jalan Stesen

D beside the river

The bank is . . . .

A near the school

B next to the post office
C beside the church

D in the rubber estate

 

 

337

Form 23 (Exercises 2 & 3) - Form 2E (Exercises 2 and make sentences
using five sentences from Exercise 2).

UNIT 11 - WARISAN BANGSA

A. Membaca dan Memahami

Keris ialah salah satu jenis senjata yang bersejarah dan benilai yang
dipamerkan di muzium. Keris juga merupakan warisan yang dipusakai
sejak turun-temurun.

1. Baca dan fahami rencana berikut. F:

Keris ialah senjata yang terpenting bagi orang-orang Melayu pada .
masa dahulu. Keris juga melengkapi pakaian orang-orang Melayu .
terutamanya raja-raja atau pemerintah. Pada masa itu, terdapat
sekurang-kurangnya sebilah keris di dalam setiap rumah orang Melayu.
Sesiapa pun yang keluar dari rumah pasti memakai keris. Apabila
dicabar, kerislah yang digunakan.

Tatkala memakai keris, si pemakai harus mengikut beberapa
peraturan. Hulu keris harus dihalakan ke sebelah dalam. Semasa
menghadap raja atau pada zaman aman, hulu keris hendaklah ditutup
dengan kepala kain samping. Pada zaman dahulu, orang kebanyakan
tidak dibenarkan memakai keris yang berhias cantik. Raja atau
pemerintah sahaja yang boleh memakai keris seumpama ini.

Kini keris tidak Iagi digunakan sebagai senjata. Keris menjadi
Iambang keagungan raja dan kemegahan bangsa serta negara. Keris
juga dijadikan hiasan di rumah-rumah dan pejabat-pejabat.

Salah satu keris yang terkenal di rantau ini ialah Keris Tameng
Sari. Keris Tameng Sari wujud semasa zaman Kesultanan Melayu Melaka
tetapi sehingga kini tiada seorang pun yang tahu di mana keris ini
berada. Menurut Hikayat Hang Tuah, keris ini dianugerahkan kepada
Hang Tuah setelah beliau membunuh Tameng Sari di Majapahit. Oleh itu,
keris tersebut mengambil nama sempena orang yang dibunuh oleh Hang
Tuah.

 

Keris terdiri daripada dua bahagian, iaitu hulu keris dan mata keris.
Bahagian hulu keris dibentuk mengikut kegunaan, sama ada sebagai
senjata atau perhiasan.

Mata keris diperbuat daripada pelbagai jenis besi atau logam yang
berlapis-lapis. Bahagian ini boleh berbentuk lurus menajam atau
berkelok-kelok seperti arus air mengalir. Kelok-kelok keris ini disebut lok.
Lok ini berjumlah ganjil, iaitu tiga, Iima, tujuh dan seterusnya.

Kebanyakan sarung keris diperbuat daripada kayu, gading dan
perak. Namun sarung keris istiadat (untuk kerabat diraja) biasanya
diperbuat daripada emas dan dihiasi dengan batu pennata. Sarung keris

338

terdiri daripada dua bahagian, iaitu sampir dan batang. Sampir ialah
bahagian alas sarung yang berbentuk seperti perahu, manakala batang
pula membentuk bahagian bawah sarung.

Terdapat beberapa cara untuk mencuci mata keris. Keris yang
berkarat haruslah digosok dengan getah pokok pisang terlebih dahulu.
Selapas itu, barulah keris dilangir dengan limau nipis atau limau purut.
Selain itu, keris boleh juga dicuci dengan nasi yang dicampur dengan
belerang. Kebanyakan orang mengasah keris mereka sebelum disimpan.

2. Beri makna perkataan-perkataan yang berikut mengikut konteks
rencana.

- warisan - kemegahan

- dipusakai - rantau

- dicabar - berkelok-kelok
- diunjurkan - dilangir

3. Jawab soalan-soalan berikut.

a. Mengapakah keris begitu panting bagi orang-orang Melayu pada
masa dahulu?

b. Jelaskan peraturan-peraturan memakai keris.

c. Apakah yang menyebabkan Keris Tameng Sari begitu terkenal?

d. Apakah kegunaan keris pada masa kini?

e. Bagaimanakah sepemakai keris menjaga kerisnya?

f. Pada pendapat anda mengapakah keris dijadikan Iambang
kemegahan kerajaan?

 

APPENDIX E

(QUESTIONING -
SECTIONS or INTERACTIONS)

 

Form 2 A (Higher Level English Language class)
Date: February 25, 1997

Total time of the class: 1 hour 10 minutes

Total time of interaction and analysis: 18 minutes

T: When you read about the ants, what do you think about the ants?

Ss: Hardworking.

T: Hardworking.

$1: Bites.

T: Bites. Ok. Others.

82: Help each other.

T: Help each other. Yes. .. Iain..

$3: Cooperative.

S4: Loyal to the queen.

T: Loyal. Loyal to the queen. Ok. Next.

T: What do you know about ants? Some of you might know little bit about ants. So..
share with We have “loyal to the queen'. What else?

8: A pest.

T: Yes, a pest. Ok... Anything you know about ants.

T: You see it everyday.

Ss: Some of the are big some are small.

T: Some of them are big, some of them are small. Ok. And how is their color?

81: Red.

82: Gray.

83: Black.

84: White.

85: Orange...

T: Orange in color. Ok. Now. Any specific name for those ants? What do you call the

black one?

Ss: Black ant..

T: The black ant likes to eat what?

Ss: Sugar.

T: Sugar. .. Ok. We'll call it sugar am. How about the red one?
Ss: Fire ant.

T: Fire ant. Ok. Fire ant. We call it fire ant. ......the big one.......

S: Big Boy fire ant.

T: Big boy fire ant.

Ss: (Laughing)

T: In Bahasa Malaysia, it rs called 'kerengga'. The name for this in English... .l’m not
sure. But usually you have on rambutan trees”

T: Ok. Now about queen. How about the life of the queen? Do you know anything about
the queen? What happens from... .? Anyone knows?

T: Anyone knows?”

T: Okl I'll say the queen

T: The small, many ants, that are loyal to the queen, are called as what?

8: Soldier ants.

T: Yes. Soldier ants. These soldier ants, are female or male?

Ss: Male!!!

T: Female..l Those are female. Those ants are all female.

T: Male, are very rare. There are only one male. That is to mate with the queen. Now,
this male is a king. It’ll mate with the queen, but... What happens to the male?

81: Dies.

T:.... Ok. Right after mating, it dies.

T: Ok. Who would like to?

T: Wrong , wrrmg..

339

340

..... (Laughters)... ..
T: Try. Cuba, cuba!
T: Now, Who can label the parts? Label the parts. Who would like to label the parts?

T: .. Out of that, we have three main parts. OK! The head, the thorax, and the
abdomen. At the thorax, there are actually, one, two, three. we call,

T: That is roughly the parts of the ants. Ok. Lets start talking about ants...

T: Todays passage is about ants...

T: Okl Who knows how many species are there?

S1 : One thousand.

T: One thousand???

S1: No.no.. Several thousand.

82: Several... Be specific. Be smart

83: Forty, fifty thousand.

T: Forty.., fifty something. Fifty thousand. Fitty thousand species??

S4: 3000 species.

85: 3000 species.

86: Seven hundred species.

87: 4,900 species

T: 4,900 species. Anyone else?

88: 120,000.

89: 120,000

S10: 3000.

T: Okl Not anyone who .right. The exact number is 8000.

 

 

Form 2 B (Higher Level Malay Language class)
Date: March 11, 1997

Total time of the class: 1 hour 10 minutes

Total time of interaction and analysis: 25 minutes

T: Ok, ye. Kata kerja ye. Siapa tahu apa yang dimaksudkan dengan kata kerja? Apa

yang dimaksudkan dengan kata kerja?

: perbuatan.

Ye, kata perbuatan?

Perbuatan.

Perbuatan ye. Ok. Jadl kata kerja ni merupakan satu pendorongan kata yang

digunakan untuk menunjukkan sesuatu perbuatan. Pandorongan sesuatu perbuatan

ataupun keadaan melakukan sesuatu. Ye. ..... awak tahu tentang kata kerja.

T: Ada berapa jenis kata kerja?

Ss: Dua.

T: Dua, Ok, yang panama?

Ss: Kata kerja transitif.

T: Yang panama ialah kata kerja transitif. Yang kedua?

Ss: Kata kerja tak transitif.

T: Kata kerja tidak transitif. Jedi dalam buku awak, muka surat 62, ialah kata kerja tidak
transtif. Ataupun, kata kerja intransitif. Cuba baca .muka surat 62. Aaron Tan.
Aaron Tan: (He is reading from the book) (Not very clear what he reads, but he reads
8 sentences).

T: Jadi , semua yang dibaca oleh kawan awak itu, menunjukkan kepada kata kerja tak
transitif. ltu ..... contoh itu mempakan kata kerja tidak transltif. Ok, macam mana nak
kenal kata kerja tidak transitif dengan kata kerja transitif?

S: Macam mana awak nak kenalkan? Daripada ayat-ayat yang ada nl, lapan ayat nl,
macam mane boleh dlklaslfikasikan, la kata kerja transitif ataupun kata kerja tidak

:ISOIW’

341

transitif? Raymond!

Raymond: Kata kerja transitif ialah" ..sesuatu yang kita guna..

T: Sesuatu yang kita" bukan. Kata kerja semuanya melibat ..... perbuatan. Semua kata
kerja" macam mana awak tengok ayat kata kerja" semasa dia kata kerja yang
melibat kepada perbuatan. Macam mana kita nak tahu yang ini transtif, atau ini tidak
transtif?

T: Macam mana awak nak fahamkan Ini ialah kata kerja transitif dan ini kata kerja
tidak transitif. Macam mana? Siapa boleh jawab? Dah kita belajar dulukan......

T: Kata kerja. Macam mana, soalan yang pertama tu? ”Lagu raya berkumandang di
udara'. Kenapa la merupakan kata kerja tidak transitif?

S1:

T: Bukan

S: Sebab ia tidak perlu objek.

T: la tidak perlu kepada objek. Ya. Jadi ....... Kata kerja tidak transitif ni, bentuk ayat

‘Lagu raya berkumandang di udara'. laitu, kata kerja tidak transitif ni, dia tidak
memerlukan objek. Tidak penu?

S: Objek.

T: Objek. Mesti dis tidak perlukan objek. Kalau adapun objek dalam ayat ni, contohnya
'Lagu raya berkumandang dl udara'. Lagu raya”, berkumandang. ., ... ..Jadi dalam
ayat ni, berkumandang ialah kata kerja. Jadi, andaikata awak titikkan sahaja di sini,
selepas kata kerja. Selepas kata kerja awak titikkan ayat. Jadi, ayat ini tetap .....
Tetap ada subjek, tetap ada .. Tetap ada. Ayat ini tidak, tergantung. Tetap lengkap
ye. Cuba tengok, "Lagu raya berkumandang'. Ayat ini tidak, tergantung. Tetapi,

kehadiran ‘di udara' ini, ayat seterusnya .......... kata kerja, hanyalah bertujuan untuk
melengkapkan ayat tersebut. Tanpa ayat-ayat ini, ayat yang sebelum dia lni, tetap
lengkap. Tetap tidak tergantung. Jadi, 'di udara' ...... Lagu raya berkumandang di..
corong-corong radio. Lagu raya berkumandang di pusat membeli-belah. Lagi, 'Lagu
raya berkumandang... di mana?‘

S: Rumah..

T: Di nlmah saya. Jadi lni, ayat selepas kata kerja ni, hanyalah sebagai. dikata ‘kata
penjelang’. Ayat penlelang. Tujuannya hanya untuk melengkapkan Iagi ayat. Tanpa
ayat lni, ayat-ayat 'Lagu raya berkumandang." tetap dramatik. Lengkap. Dia boleh
berdiri dengan sendirinya. Tanpa ayat-ayat ini, dia boleh berdin' dengan sendiri. Ayat
ini tidak tergantung. Ok, tapi, ..... bagi contoh. 'Ahmad.. menendang..

S: Bola.

T: Bola. Ok. 'Ahmad menendang bola.“ Jadi dalam ayat lni, di mana pula kata
kedanya?

Ss: Menendang.

T: Menendang, ialah kata kerja. Jadi kalau dititlkkan ayat selepas kata kerja
menendang. 'Ahmad menendang.’ Bola tu saya lupakan. Kita lupakan tentang bola.

'Ahmad menendang.’ Adakah ayat ini lengkap? Adakah ayat lnl lengkap?

Ss: Tak..

T: Tidak lengkap. Kenapa ayat Ini tidak lengkap?

1': Kenapa? ‘Ahmad menendang.” Adakah ayat lni lengkap ataupun tidak?

Ss: Tidak.

T: Tidak lengkap. Balk, kenapa awak kata tidak lengkap.

S: Ayat itu tergantung.

T: Ia tergantung. Balk. Jadi ayat ini tergantung. la mesti menerima satu objek. Objek.
Mesti menerima objek untuk menyambut kata kerja di sini. Untuk menyambungkan
kata kerja di sini memertukan penyambut. Penyambut itu ialah objek. Jadi bola
dimasukkan sebagai objek, kepada ayat, Ahmad menendang. Menendang bola. Jadi
di sini, ....perkataan. Ahmad memendang. Menendang apa? Menendang bola. Jika
dla boleh ditanya dalam .. tu boleh menjadi, ayat kata kerja transitif. lni ialah kata
kerjatransitif

Ss: Transitif.

342

T: Balk, bagel mane nak kenalken la kata kerja transitif?

S: la memerlukan objek.

T: Ya. Yang pertama tedl, ie mesti memerlukan objek. Ya. Ie perlukan objek. Tanpa
objek, ayat lni akan.

Ss: Tergentung.

T: Dan satu Iagi, ayat ini boleh diasingkan. Cube baca ..... ini.

Ss: Bole ditendang oleh Ahmad.

T: Bola ditendang oleh Ahmad.

T: Balk. Bola di tendang oleh Ahmad. Yang pertama lni ialah ayat, aktif. Ia ayat aktif.
Dan bile ditukarkan, jadi, ie ayat aktif. Perbezaan di antara ayat aktif den ayat pesif,
kalau aktif die

T: Dengar ye. Bile ...... huruf besar. la boleh masuk ‘mem'. Bole jadi, ‘meng'.

Boleh jadi, ‘membe'. Ape Iagi? Membekan.... Membekl, apa Iagi? ......
T: Jedi, bile ....mem ....... bergentung lmbuhan-lmbuhan yang ..... me.mem,meng,

Kalau lmbuhan ....huruf besar, jedi hurufnya membawa... Imbuhan pe... peng..
Macam mane kite baca pun, kalau jumpa lmbuhan-lmbuhan macam ni, kite sebut
lmbuhan-lmbuhan... huruf besar ye. Atapun huruf besar Iain-Iain. Jedi,
ayat lni, ayat pesif, bile la ade lmbuhan ‘men’ ni. Ade lmbuhan ‘men’. Menendang.
Kemudian bile dltukerken jedi ayat aktif, jadi..

Ss: Ditendang.

T: Jedi die berubah ayat menjadi, ayat aktif. Jedi, inllah cara untuk mengenal ayat lni
transitif ataupun tidak transitif. Iaitu bile la ayat transitif, bennaksud, ia boleh dl
paslfkan. Tepi kalau ie tidak transitif. cuba awak paslfkan ayat lni. " Lagu raya
berkumandang di udara'.

SS: Berkumendang Iagu raya di udara.

T2. .'Di udere Iagu raya berkumandang." Adakah itu ayat pesif?

Ss: Tidak"

T: Bukan.

S: Berkumendang Iagu raya di udere.

T: Berkumendang Iagu raya dludara.', awak maslh Iagi menggunakan subjek den ..
Mesih Iagi awak tidak ubah berkumandang di udara...

S: Kumbengkennya...

T: ‘Di udara, Iagu raya berkumandang.', ayat itu masih Iagi Tetap... subjek die
tetap berkumandang di udara... Jedi, untuk ayat yang mempunyai kata kerja
tidak transitif, begai mane sekalipun awak baca, ia tidak boleh dipasifken. Ia tidak
boleh dipasifken. Tepi, kalau awak cube ayat, selepas kata kerja di sini, selepas kata
kerja ni, juga dengan ayat-ayat seterusnya, make ie menjadi, ayat pemenerang. Ayat
pemenereng ni dia menerangkan Iagi. Melengkepken Iagi sebuah ayat. Tanpa adanye
ayat-ayat lni, ayat yang eda lni, masi Iagi lengkap. Boleh berdlri dengan sendiri.
Tanpa bentuan ayat yang seterus ini, ayat inl boleh berdirl dengan sendiri. Tetapi,

kalau awak bandingkan dengan ayat di sini, tenpa kehadiren perkataan ataupun
objek, selepas kata kerja, ayat ini tidak boleh berdiri dengan sendiri. Ayat lni akan
tergantung. Andeikete awak pestlkanpun. ‘Ahmad menendang.‘ Tiada objek. Jedi
macam mane awak nak paslfkan ayat tersebut?

: Ditendang...

Ditendang Ahmad apa?

: Ditendang oleh Ahmed.

Ditendang oleh Ahmad.

: Ahmed ditendang.

Ahmed ditendang. Sebab itu, bagi ayat. untuk penggunaan kata kerja

transitif, la mesti memerlukan objek. Tetepl kalau kata kerja tidak transitif, la tidak

memerlukan objek. Ataupun, pemenyambut. Ok. Jedi awak tidak perlukan objek.
ataupun penyambut, untuk melengkapkan ayat lni. Sebab ayat lni telah lengkap. Ayat
yang telah lengkap. 'Legu raya berkumandang.', lengkap.

T: Ok. ..... berikan contoh yang menggunakan kata kerja tidak transitif. Bukan daripada

:I‘DIW’SW’

343

bukan buku awak ambil tu. Contoh. Kata kerja tidak transitif.

S: Setiap harl Ali bemyanyi rumah itu.

T: Setiap harl All bemyanyi di tepi rumah itu. Ok. Jedi, 'Setiep han'.. Ali.. bemyanyi. di

nlmah itu. Begi ayat inl, kata kerja ialah?

T: Bemyanyi. Okl Jedi kata kerja lni ialah kata kerja tidak transitif. Karena, ‘di nlmah‘ itu
adalah bertugas untuk melengkapkan Iagi ayat. Stiep harl All bemyanyi. ‘Di rumah
itu.', apedia. dipenggil ape ayat lni?

S: Ayat penereng

S: Penyambut.

T: Ayat penereng. Untuk melengkapkan ayat yang yang eda ni. Ok. Ayat penereng

untuk melengkapkan ayat yang eda lni. Tanpa ayat inl. ayat lni dapet berdiri dengan

sendiri.

Setiap harl All bemyanyi di depur. Itu ayat yang saye ubah nllah daripada sini. Jedi,

rumah boleh diubah lain. Sebab ayat lni hanyalah penereng, boleh ubah. Setiap harl

Ali bemyanyi, di mane?

: Di tepi sungai.

Di tepi sungai.

: Di karaoke.

Setiap harl Ali bemyanyi di karaoke. Ok.

Okl Contoh lain Iagi. Kate kerja tidak transitif.

:1

..begl contoh Iain. Salah takpe, saye tak marah.

: Setiap harl Rabu Ali berjalan dl tepi taman.

Setiap han’ Rabu, All berjalan di..

: Tepi taman.

Di tepi taman. Tepi taman? Tepi-tepi aja dla jalen.

' Di taman.

Setiap harl Rabu, Ali berjalan di taman. Ok, di taman bunga.

Okl Cube ubah lain Iagi. Setiap harl kubeng. Cube tukar nama Ah Chang ke?

' Ah Kau.

Cuba

Kemu lkut aja, kewan-kawan ..... gagal...

Saya tidur. Adeke itu tidak transitif. Tidur! Tidur tu kata kerja. Ok, "Saye tidur eyem'.

Saya tidur bile terjatuh darl ketil. la menunjukkan saye tidur ayem. Saya

tidur berdengkur.

S: Ahmed sedang.

T: Ahmad sedang..., Ahmad sedang. belajar. Ahmad sedang belajar. Belajar ialah
kata kerja transitif atau tidak transitif?

Ss: Transitif.

T: Apa?

Ss: Tidak transitif.

T: Tidak transitif. Balk, boleh ke tak ayat tersebut diasingkan.

Ss: Boleh.

T: Boleh??

SS: Tak boleh.

T: Tidak boleh. Ahmed sedang belajar. Kalau awak buet begitu... .. ayat tidak boleh
diasingkan. Ok. Lain. Isaac?

Isaac: Saya maken di restoran Adrien.

T: Saya maken dl restoran Adnen. Saya maken boleh masuk dalam kata kerja tidak
transitif. Ok. Lain. Cuba berl contoh kata kerja transitif. ...kate kerja transitif boleh
diasingkan. Cube beri contoh kata kerja transitif.

S: Ahmed mencempekkan bukunya..

T: Ahmed mencempakken bukunya... ke ates ketil. Ahmad mencampakken bukunya Ire

atas ketil. Balk, cube pestlkan ayat kewen awak tedi.

saswsmamamsmsessmsm

 

 

344

Buku dicampekken di atas ketil oleh Ahmed.

Buku dicampekken oleh Ahmed ke ates ketil. Okl Yang lain?

Ahmed meniup seniling.

Ahmed meniup seruling. Tuen-puan. Ahmed meniup senillng. Pestikan ayat

Seruling ditiup oleh Ahmad.

Seruling itu ditiup oleh Ahmad. ..

Ah Chong menemper..

Ah Chong menampar Ali..

Ah Chong menempar Ali.

quMn

Ss: Ali ditamper oleh Ah Chong.

S: Arul menjaringken gol.

T: Arul menjaringken GOL.

Ss: Gol dijarlngken oleh Arul.

T: Gol dijarlngken oleh Arul ..... Siapa yang tak faham tentang kata kerja transitif
dengan tidak transitif?

T: Balk, cuba sekali Iagi. Kata kerja tidak transitif. la berkenean dengan kata kerja yang

am?

SS: Tidak perlukan objek.

T: Ok, jedi Ie tidak perlukan objek. ...Yeng kedua?

Ss: Tidak boleh diasingkan.

T: Tidak boleh diasingkan.

T: Okl Yang kedua, kata kerja transitif. ...kate kerja transitif. Awak....

S: la mempunyai objek.

T: Ie.. memerlukan objek. Ok, jadi la boleh diasingkan. Itu bagi kata kerja transitif. Okl

Padam papan hitam.

(D'IW'I‘D‘IW‘W’

...

 

APPENDIX F

(APPROVAL LETTERS)

gin-j.

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE
0 N l v E R SIT Y

September 24. 1996

n
S B Spartan illa e

TO: Rajendran Naga a
1
E Lanaing, MI 4882

RE: Ines: 96-537
TITLE: new DO TEACHERS TEACH HIGHER-ORDER THINKING
SKILLS?: THE CASE OF MALAY AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE
ARTS CLASSROOMS IN MALAYSIA
REVISION REQUESTED: N/A
CATEGORY: i-A.E,c
APPROVAL DATE: 09/24/96

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'lUCRIHSl
review of this prOJect is complete. I am pleased to adVIse that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
rotected and methods to obtain Informed consent are appropriate.

Egerefore, the UCRIHS approved this project and any reVisions listed
ove.

RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project beKond one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original agproval letter or when a
project is renewed) to seek u te certification. There is a
maXImum of four such expedit renewals OSSIble. Investigators

wishing to continue a project beyond the time need to submit it
again or complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in rocedures involving human
subjects. rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at
the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at eng 0 her time during the year(
send your written request to the. CRIHS Chair, requesting reVISed
approval and referenCIng the preject's IRE a and title. Include
in our request a decor ption of the_change and any revised
ins rumente, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

 

PlOBLlIS/
CHANGES: Should either of the followi arise during the course of the
or , invest ators must nozi I rompt y: 1 ro ems
w k ' ig ' OCR HS p l ( ) bl
r' (unexpected Side effects. comp aints. e c.) involving uman
o-mrm' subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new
RESEARCH information indicating greater risk to the human aub'ects than
AND existed when the protocol was preViously reViewed an approved.
GRADUAJE If we can be of any future help, lease do not hesitate to contact us
STUDIES at (517)355-2130 or FAX (517” 2- 171.
tinieersltyCeelellteeee
Research lavolvleg Sincerel

    
   

 
  

M'C‘IIOBN Stale Unmsuy , ,

, , CRIBS Chair
BN.3&Mlemmn
48824-1046 DEW : bed

5flflfidflw

: : '71 -II7I , -
«xs"y cc: Maria Teresa Tatto

345

 

346

    

   

BAHAGIAN PERANCANGAN DAN
PENYEIJDIKAN PENDIDIKAN

d v

 

we 4.,
{13‘3“}. KEMENTERlAN PENDIDIKAN. .
ry.-r ~ PARAS 2. 3 DAN s. BLOK 3: men»..- 25569,...
11 ', 3' > PUSAT BANDAR DAMANSARA. Kan-at: "nuowlen"
50604 KUALA LUMPUR Fm.- (ll-2554960
Ru]. Tuan:
KP(BPPP)13/1s
Ru}. Kami.

. _ Jld ubah
T .
an“ [6 0905 1996

En. Rajendran a/l Nagappan,
16358 Spartan Village,

East Lansing.

Michigan M1

u8823 USA.

Tuah.

Kebenaran Bagi Nenjalankan Kajian Ke Sekolah—Sekolah.
Jabatan-Jabatan Dan Institusi-Institusi Di Banah
Kementerian Pendidikan Halaysia

Adalah saya diarah untuk memaklumkan bahawa permohonan tuan untuk
menjalankan kajian mengenai

”How Do Teachers Teach Higher-Order Thinking Skills ? : The

Case Of Malay And English Language Arts Classrooms In
Malaysia“.

telah diluluskan.

2. Kelulusan ini adalah berdasarkan kepada hanya apa yang
terkandung d1 dalam cadangan penyelidikan yang tuan kemukakan ke
Bahagian ini. Weeds

       

u
=1-|:'.-.l '31

3. Tuah juga dikehendaki menghantar senaskhah hasil kajian tuan
ke Bahagian ini sebaik sahaja selesai kelak.

Sekian.

“BERKHIDMAT UNTUK NEGARA“
“CINTAILAH BAHASA KITA"

Saya yang menurut perintah.

(HJ. :EQET’T:SLDIN BIN HJ.ABD. RAHHAN)

b.p. Pengarah Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Pendidikan.
D.p. Pendaftar Besar Sekolah-Sekolah dan Guru-Guru.
Kementerian Pendidikan.

‘1

..,. “.'—

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

‘Tm.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Marilyn, J. (1989) Thinking skills curricula: Their promise and
progress. Educational Psychologists. 24(1), 25-77

Ahmad, Hussein, (1993), Pendidikan Dan Masyarakat, Kuala Lumpur:
Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka

Anderson, J. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skills. Psychological Review,
89, 369-406.

Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications, Second
edition. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Anderson, L. M. (1989). Learners and Ieaming. In M. C. Reylonds (Ed)
Knowledge base for the beginning teacher. (pp.85-99). Oxford:
Pergamon

Applebee, A N. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational
Research, 54, pp.577-596

Baird, J.R., & Northfield, J.R. (Eds.). (1992). Learning from the PEEL
experience. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University Printing

Ball, D. (1988). Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical pedagogy:
Examining what prospective teachers bring to teacher education.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI.

Ball, D. 8. McDiarmid, W. (1990). The subject matter preparation of
teachers. In W. Houston, et al., (Eds) Handbook of research on
teacher education. New York: Macmillan. pp. 437-449.

Barell, John, (1991). Teaching for thoughtfulness: Classroom strategies to
enhance intellectual development. New York: Longman.

Barnett, J. E., DNesta, F. J., & Rogozinski, J. Tl. (1981). What is Ieamed
in note-taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 181-191 .

Baron, J. (1985). Rationality and intelligence. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

347

 

348

Beck, I, (1989). Reading and reasoning. The Reading Teacher, 42 (9),
676-684

Becker, Joe, & Varelas, Maira. ((1995). Assisting Construction: The Role
of the Teacher in Assisting the Learner's Construction of
Preexisting Cultural Knowledge. In Leslie Steffe, and Jerry Gale,
Constructivism in Education, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Belleza, F. (1981). Mnemonic devices: Classification characteristics and
criteria, Review of Educational Research, 51, 247-275.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition
The role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser
(Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology Vol.2, (pp. 1 -64).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and
the problem of “inert knowledge.” In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, &
R. Glaser (Eds). Thinking and Ieaming skills: Vol. 2. Research and
open questions (pp. 65-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Bereiter, C., 8. Scardamalia, M. (1987). An attainable version of high
literacy: Approaches to teaching high-order skills in reading and
writing, Cun'iculum Inquiry, 17:1, 930

Beyer, B. K (1987). Practical strategies for the teaching of thinking.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Beyer, B. E. (1988). Developing a thinking skills program. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.

Block, C. C. (1993). Teaching the language arts: Expanding thinking
through student-centered instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Bloom, B. s.. Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H. & Krathwohl, D. R.
(Eds). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The
classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain.
New Yorlc David McKay.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In' D. C. Berliner, &
R. C. Calfee (Eds), Handbook of educational psychology. New
Yorlc Macmillan.

349

Bower, G. (1972). Analysis of a mnemonic device. In M. Coltheart (Ed),
Readings in cognitive psychology. (pp. 399-426) Toronto: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.

Bower, G. H., & Clark, M. C. (1969). Narrative stories as mediators for
serial Ieaming. Psychonomic Science, 14, 181-182.

Bransford, J. D. (1979). Human cognition: Learning, understanding and
remembering. Belmont, CA' Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Bransford, J. D., Arbitrnan-Smith, R., Stein, B. 8., & Vye, N. J. (1985).
Improving thinking and Ieaming skills: An analysis of three
approaches. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds),
Thinking and Ieaming skills: Vol.1. Relating instruction to research
(pp.133-206). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R., Rieser, J., & Vye, N. (1986). Teaching
thinking and problem solving: Research foundations. American
Psychologists, 41, 1078-1089

Bransford, J. D., Vye, N., Kinzer, C. & Risko, V. (1990). Teaching thinking
and content knowledge: Toward an integrated approach. In Beau
F. Jones and Lorna Idol (Eds). Dimensions of thinking and
cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Bridges, D. (1979). Education, democracy, and discussion. Windsor,
Berkshire, England: National Foundation for Educational Research
in England and Wales.

Britzman, Deborah, P. (1986). Cultural myths in the making of a teacher:
Biography and social structure in teacher education, Harvard
Educational Review, Vol.56, N.4.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1974). Teacher-student relationships. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Brown, A L. (1975). The development of memory: Knowing knowing
about knowing, and knowing how to know. In H. W. Reese (Ed)
Advances in child development and behavior. (Vol. 1 0.) New York:
Academic Press.

Brown, A L. (1978). Knowing when, where and how to remember. A
problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed), Advances in
instructional psychology (Vol.1, pp.77-165). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

350

Brown, A L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R., & Campione, J. (1986).
Learning, understanding and remembering. In J. H. F lavell & E.
Markman (Eds) Mussen handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1.
Cognitive development. (4th ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Brown, A L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. (1981). Learning to Ieam: On
training students to Ieam from texts. Educational Researcher, 10,
14-24

Brown, R. (1991). Schools of thought: How the politics of literacy shape
thinking in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible words Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Buchmann, Margret. (1993). Role over person: Morality and authenticity
in teaching. In Margret Buchmann & Robert F Ioden, Detachment
and concern, New York: Teachers College Press

Buchmann, Margret, & Schwille, John, (1983). Education: The
Overcoming of Experience, American Journal of Education, Vol.92,
No.1

Bugelski, B. R. (1968). Images as mediators in one-trial paired-associate
Ieaming. II: Self-timing in successive lists. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 77, 328-334

Caine, Renate, N. & Caine, Geoffrey. (1994). Making connections:
Teaching and the human brain. California: Addison-Wesley.

Cazden, C. B. (1979). Language in education: Variation in the teacher-
talk register. In J. Alatis & R. Rucker (Eds) Language in public life.
(pp.120—147) Washington, DC:Georgetown University Round Table
in Language and Linguistics.

Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp.432-463). New
York, NY: Macmillan Publishiing Co.

Chance, P. (1986). Thinking in the classroom, New York: Teacher's
College Press.

Chang-Wells, G. L. M., & Well, Gordon. (1993). Dynamics of discourse:
Literacy and the construction of knowledge. In E. A. Forrnan, et al.

 

 

351

(Eds) Contexts for Learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s
development, New York: Oxford University Press.

Chapman, D. W. & Mahlck, L. 0., (1996, March). Changing what happens
in schools: Central government initiatives to improve school level
practice. Paper presented at the 40"I Annual meeting of the
Comparative and International Education Society, Williamsburg,
Virginia.

Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A
practical guide, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271-
31 5

Chipman, SF. (1986). What is meant by “higher-order cognitive skills.”
Arlington, VA: Personnel and Training Research Programs, Office
of Naval Research.

Christenbury, L. J. & Kelly, PP. (1983). Questioning: A Path to critical
thinking. Urbana, IL: Clearinghouse on Reading and
Communication Skills, the National Council of Teachers of English.

Clanchy, M. T. (1983). Looking back from the invention of printing. In D.
P. Resnick (Ed), Literacy in historical perspective, (pp. 7-22).
Washington, DC: Library of Congress

Clark, H. H. & Haviland, S. E. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new
contract. R. O. Freedle (Ed) Discourse production and
comprehension. (Vol. 1) (pp. 1-40) Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Co.

Clements, P. (1979). The effects of staging on recall from prose. In R. O.
F reddle (Ed), New directions in discourse processing. (Vol.2) (pp.
287-330) Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.

Clifford, G. J., (1984). Bush and Iesen: Historical perspectives on literacy
and schooling. Review of Educational Research, 54, 472-500.

Cohen, D. K (1988a). Educational technology and school organization, In
R. S. Nickerson, 8. PP. Zodhiates, (Eds). Technology in
Education: Looking toward 2020, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, D. K (1988b). Teaching Practice: Plus Ca Change (Issue
Paper 88-3), East Lansing: Michigan State University, National
Center for Research on Teacher Education.

...-'...-‘.-""_L

 

 

352

Cohen, D. K, et al., (1990). Effects of State-Level Reform of Elementary
School Mathematics Curriculum on Classroom Practice. Final
Report, U. S. Department of Education, OERI Grant no.
R117P8004. Michigan State University, College of Education,
Center for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects and
National Center for Research on Teacher Education.

Cohen, D. K, et al., (1991). A revolution in one classroom: The case of
MrsOublier, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.Vol. 12.
No.3, pp.327-345.

Cohen, D. K & Spillane, J. P. (1993). Policy and practice: The relations
between governance and instruction. In Susan H. Fuhrman, (Ed),
Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the system. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Collins, C. (1991). Audiotaped transcript of Tracy Boyd’s Tutoring
Session, Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University

Collins, C. (1992). Thinking development through intervention. Middle
school students come of age. In C. Collins 8. J. Mangieri (Eds)
Thinking development: an agenda for the twenty-first century.
Hillsdale, NJzErlbaum

Collins, C. & Mangieri, J. N., (Eds) (1992) Teaching thinking:: An agenda
for the twenty-first century. Hillsdale, NJzLawrence Erlbaum

Cooper, M., & Holzman, M. (1983). Talking about protocols. College
composition and communication, 34, pp.284-293

Costa, A L. (1984). The enabling behaviors. Orangevale, CA: Search
Models Unlimited.

Costa, A L. (1985a) (Ed). Developing minds: A resource book for
teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA' Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Costa, A L. (1985b). Toward a model of human intellectual functioning. In
A L. Costa (Ed). Developing minds: A resource book for teaching
thinking (pp.62 - 65). Alexandria, VA' Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Costa, A. L. (1985c). Teacher behaviors that enable student thinking, In
A L. Costa (Ed). Developing minds: A resource book for teaching
thinking (pp.125 - 137). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

 

353

Crabbe, A. B. (1982). Creating a brighter future: An update on the Future
Problem Solving Program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
5, 2-11.

Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in
American classrooms; 1890-1980. New York: Longman.

Curriculum Development Center. (1989). Integrated curriculum for
secondary schools, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Ministry of
Education.

Curriculum Development Center. (1993). Kemahiran benikir: konsep,
model dan strategi pengajaran dan pembelajaran. Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia: Ministry of Education.

Curriculum Development Center. (1994). The 4MAT system: Teaching to
Ieaming styles with left/right brain techniques. Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia: Ministry of Education.

de Bono, E. (1969). The mechanism of mind. Middlesex, England: Pelican
Books.

de Bono, E. (1976). Teaching thinla'ng. London: Temple Smith.

de Bono, E. (1983). The cognitive research trust (CoRT) thinking
program. In Maxwell, W. (Ed), Thinking: The expanding frontier.
Philadelphia: The Franklin Institute Press.

de Bono, E. (1985). The CoRT thinking program. In J. W. Segal, S. F.
Chipman, 8 Glaser, R. (Eds), Thinking and Ieaming skills: Vol. 1.
Relating instruction to research (pp.363-388). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

de Bono, E. (1992). Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking
to create new ideas. New York: Harper Business.

Delin, P. S. (1969). The Ieaming to criterion of a serial list with and
without mnemonic instructions. Psychonomic Science, 16, 169-170.

DeTure, LR. & Miller, A P. (1985). The effects of a written protocol model
on teacher acquisifion of extended wait-time. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association,
Cincinnati, OH

 

 

354

Dewey, J. (1957). Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social
psychology. New York: Modern Library.

Dewey, J. (1983). How we think: A restatement of the relation of
subjective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D. C.
Heath

Dillon, J. T. (1982). The multi-disciplinary study of questioning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 2, pp.147-165.

Dillon, J. T. (1984). Research on questioning and discussion. Educational
Leadership, 42(3), 50-56.

Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and discussion: A multidisciplinary study,
Norwood, NJ: Ablex

DiVesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note-taking. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 63, 8-14.

Duckworth, E. (1987). The having of wonderful ideas and other essays on
teaching and Ieaming. New York, NY: Teachers College Press

Duffy, J. (1991). Business Partnerships For A Thinking Populist. In C.
Collins and J. Mangieri (Eds) Teaching Thinking. An Agenda for
the Twenty-first Century, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Educational Planning and Research Division . (1992). Educational
Statistics 1990, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Dewan Bahasa dan
Pustaka

Educational Planning and Research Division. (1994). Education in
Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Ministry of Education.

Edwards, J.,8 Baldauf, R. B. (1983). Teaching thinking in secondary
science. In W. Maxwell (Ed), Thinking: The expanding frontier.
Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin Institute Press

Edwards, A. D. 8 Westgate, D. P. G. (1994). Investigating classroom talk
(2" Ed). London: The Palmer Press.

Ehrenberg, S. D., Ehrenberg, L. M., 8 Durfee, D. (1979). BASICS:
Teaching/Ieaming strategies. Miami Beach, FL: Institute for
Curriculum and Instruction.

355

Einstein, G. C. Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985). Note-taking, individual
differences, and memory for lecture information. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77, 522-532.

Eisner, E. W. (1983). The kinds of schools we need. Educational
Leadership, 4 1, 48-55

Elmore, R. F. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional
improvement. In Susan H. Fuhrman, (Ed), Designing coherent
educational policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass

Ennis, R. H. (1981). Eight fallacies in Bloom’s taxonomy. In C.J.B.
Macmillan (Ed) Philosophy of education: 1980 proceedings of the
thirty-filth annual meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society.
(pp.3-30). Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.

Ennis, R. H. (1985). Goals for a critical thinking curriculum. In A. Costa,
(Ed), Developing Minds: A resource book for teaching thinking
(pp.54-57). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Fagan, E. R., Hassler, D. M., & Szabo, M. (1981). Evaluation of
questioning strategies in language arts instruction. Research in the
Teaching of English, 15, pp. 267-273.

Fairbrother, R. (1975). The reliability of teachers’ judgments of the
abilities being tested by multiple choice items. Educational
Researcher, 17, pp.202-210

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M. B., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental
enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability.
Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. Shulman and G.
Sykes (Eds). Handbook on teaching and policy, New Yorlc
Longman, pp. 1 50-1 70.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L.B.
Resnick (Ed), The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Flavell, J. H. (1977). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

356

Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M. Scandura 8 C.
J. Brainerd (Eds), Structural/process theories of complex human
behavior. (pp.213-245) The Netherlands: Sijthoff and Noordoff

FIorio-Ruane, Susan. 8 deTar, J. (1995). Conflict and consensus in
teacher candidates’ discussion of ethnic autobiography, English
Education, 27(1), pp. 11-39.

Flower, L. A 8 Hayes, J. R. (1980a). The cognition of discovery, defining
a rhetorical problem. College composition and communication, 13,
pp.21 -32

Flower, L. A 8 Hayes, J. R. (1980b). The dynamics of composing: Making
plans and judging constraints. In L. W. Gregg 8 E. R. Steinberg
(Eds), Cognitive processing in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum

Flower, L. A 8 Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing.
College composition and communication, 32, pp. 365-387.

Fodor, J. (1975). The language of thought. New York: Crowell.

Fowler, T. W. (1975). An investigation of the teacher behavior of wait-time
during an inquiry science lesson. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, Los Angeles. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 108 872).

Fox, R. B. (1962). Difficulties in developing skill in critical thinking. Journal
of Educational Research, 55, pp.335-357.

Frederiksen, C. H. (1977). Semantic processing units in understanding
text. In R. O. Freedle (Ed). Discourse production and
comprehension. (Vol.1, pp. 57-88). Nonrvood, NJ: Ablex.

Gallagher, J. J., et al., (1967) Productive thinking of gifted children in
classroom interaction. Washington, DC: Council for Exceptional
Children.

Gardner, Howard. (1991). The unschooled mind: how children think and
how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, Howard. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice.
New York: Basic Books.

357

Gardner, H. 8 Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school:
Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences,
Educational Researcher, 18 (8), pp.4-10

George, K D. (1967). A comparison of the critical thinking abilities of
science and non-science majors. Science Education, 51(1), pp.11-
18.

George, D. (1984). Creating contexts: Using the research paper to teach
critical thinking, English Journal, 73(5), 27-32

Gettys, C. F. (1983). Research and theory on predecision process.
Norman, OK Decision Processes Laboratory, University of
Oklahoma.

Gettys, C. F., 8 Englemann, P. D. (1983). Ability and expertise in act
generation. Norman, OK Decision Processes Laboratory,
University of Oklahoma.

Gick, M. L., 8 Holyoak, K J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive
Psychology, 12, 306-355.

Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge.
American Psychologist, 18(3), pp.93-105.

Goleman, Daniel. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam
Books.

Goodlad, J. (1983). A Place called school: Prospects for the future. New
York: McGraw Hill

Gourley, T. J. (1981). Adapting the varsity sports model of non-
psychomotor gifted students. Gifled Child Quarterly, 25, 164-166.

Granato, J. M. (1983). The effects of wait time on the verbal behavior of
kindergarten children. Paper presented at the Annual Conference
of the New England Educational Research Organization, Rockport,
ME.

Green, J. L. (1983). Research on teaching as a linguistic process. A state
of the art. In E. W. Gordon (Ed). Review of research in education.
Vol. 10, pp. 151-252) Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.

358

Greene, M. (1984). Philosophy, reason, and literacy. Review of
Educational Research, 54, (4), 547-559

Greeno, JG. (1989). A perspective on thinking, American Psychologist,
Vol.44, N.2, pp.134-141

Grimes, J. E. (1975). The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton.

Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher Teacher knowledge and
teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Halpem, Diane, F. (1987). Thinking across the disciplines: Methods and
strategies to promote higher-order thinking in every classroom, In
Marcia Heiman and Joshua Slomianko (Eds), Thinking skills
instruction: Concepts and techniques, Washington, DC.: National
Education Association.

Halpem, Diane, F. (1989). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to
critical thinking. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Hammersley, Martyn. 8 Atkinson, Paul. (1995). Ethnography: Principles of
practice. (2" Ed). London: Routledge.

Hayes, J. R., 8 Flower, L. S. (1980). Writing as problem solving. Visible
Language, 14, 383-399.

Hayes-Roth, B., 8 Hayes-Roth, F. (1979). A cognitive model of planning.
Cognitive Science, 3, 275-310.

Hiebert, E. 8 Raphael, T. (1996). Perspectives from educational
psychology on literacy and literacy Ieaming. In D. C. Berliner 8 R.
C. Calfee (Eds) Handbook of Educational Psychology, New York:
Macmillan

Hiebert, James, et al., (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in
curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational
Researcher. Vol.25, No.4, pp.12-21.

Hillocks, G. Jr. (1986). Research on written composition. Urbana, IL: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.

Hofer, Barbara, K, 8 Pintrich, Paul, R. (1997). The development of
epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing

 

359

and their relation to Ieaming, Review of Educational Research,
Vol.67. No.1. pp.88-140

Honea, M. J. (1982). Walt time as an instructional variable: An influence
on teacher and student. Clearinghouse, 56(4), 167-170.

Idol, L. 8 Jones, B. F., (1991). Educational values and cognitive
instruction: Implications for reform. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum

Idol, L., Jones, B. F. 8 Mayer, R. E. (1990). Classroom instruction: The
teaching of thinking. In Idol, L. 8 Jones, B. F. (Eds). Educational
values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

lndramalar, S. (1997a, July 6). Develop thinking skills, students urged.
The Star, p.3.

lndramalar, S. (1997b, September 3). Bangsa Malaysia “the only way.’
The Star, p.4.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. 8 Holubec, E. J. (1990). Circles of
Learning: Cooperation in the classroom (3rd. Ed. ), Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Co.

Johnson, P. E. (1967). Some psychological aspects of subject-matter
structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 75-83.

Johnson, P. E. (1969). On the communication of concepts of science.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 32-40.

Johnson, P. E., Cox, D. L., 8 Curran, T. E. (1970). Psychological reality of
physical concepts. Psychonomic Science, 19, 245-247.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1975). Models of deduction. In R. J. Falmagne
(Ed), Reasoning: Representation and process in children and
adults. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jones, B. F., Amiran, M., 8 Katims, M. (1985). Teaching cognitive
strategies and text structures within language arts programs. In J.
W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, 8 R. Glaser (Eds). Thinking and Ieaming
skills, Vol. 1:Relating instruction to research (pp.259-295). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

360

Jones, B. F., Palincsar, A. S., Ogle, D. S., 8 Carr, E. G. (1987). Strategic
teaching: Cognitive instruction in the content areas. Alexandria, VA'
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jones, Beau, F., Tinzmann, M. B., Friedman, L. B., 8 Walker, B. B.,
(1987). Teaching thinking skills: English Language Arts.
Washington, DC : National Education Association.

Kail, R. V., 8 Hagen, J. W. (1982). Memory in childhood. In B. Wolman
(Ed), Handbook of developmental psychology. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kindsvatter, R., Wilen, W. W., 8 lshler, M. (1992). Dynamics of efiective
teaching. (2“ Ed). New York: Longman.

Kinneavy, J. (1980). A theory of discourse. New York: Norton.

Knickerbocker, M. E. (1984). The effects of wait time on verbal behavior of
kindergarten children: A replication. (Unpublished master’s thesis,
University of New York at Oswego).

Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky: A biological perspective, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press

Langer, Judith, A (1991). Literacy and schooling: A sociocognitive
perspective, In Hiebert Elfrieda, (Ed), Literacy for a diverse
society: Perspectives, practices and policies, New York: Teachers
College Press.

Langer. Judith, A 8 Applebee, A. N. (1985). Learning to write: Learning to
think, Educational Horizons, Vol. , N. , pp.36-38.

Langer. Judith, A 8 Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking:
Studies of teaching and Ieaming. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English

Lipman, M. (1985). Philosophical practice and educational reform. Journal
of Thought, 20(4), pp.21-36

Lipman, M., Sharp, A M., 8 Oscanyan, F. S. (1980). Philosophy in the
classroom (2nd ed) Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

361

Mandler, G. (1983). The nature of emotions. In J. Miller (Ed), States of
mind (pp.136-153). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Marzano, R. J. (1990). Enhancing thinking and reasoning in the English
Language Arts. In Carolyn N. Hedley, et al., (Eds) Thinking and
literacy: The mind at work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Marzano, R. J. (1991). Language, the language arts, and thinking. In
James Flood et al. (Eds) Handbook of research on teaching the
English Language Arts. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Marzano, R. J. (1993). How classroom teachers approach the teaching of
thinking. Theory Into Practice. Vol.32. N.3. 154-160.

Matsuhashi, A (1982). Explorations in the real-time production of written
discourse. In M. Nystrand (Ed), What writers know: The language,
process, and structure of written discourse (pp. 269-290). New
Yorlc Academic Press.

 

Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychology,
19, 30-42.

McCloskey, M. (1983). Na'ive theories of motion. In D. Gentner 8 A. L.
Stevens (Ed), Mental models, (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

McNeil, L. M. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and
school knowledge. New York: Routledge 8 Kegan Paul.

McNeil, J., 8 Donant, L. (1982). Summarization strategy for improving
reading comprehension. In J. A. Niles, 8 L. A Harris (Eds), New
inquiries in reading research and instruction. (pp. 215-219) Thirty-
first yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Rochester, NY:
National Reading Conference.

McPeck, J. (1981). Critical Thinking and education. New York: St. Martin’s
Press.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Mervis, C. B. (1980). Category structure and the development of
categorization. In R. J. Spiro, B. C.Bruce 8 W. F. Brewer (Eds),
Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp.279-307).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

362

Metcalf, L. E., DeBoer, J. J., 8 Kauflfers, W. V. (Eds). (1966). Secondary
education: A textbook of readings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Moely, B. E. (1977). Organization factors in the development of memory.
In R. V. Kail 8 J. W. Hagen (Eds) Perspectives on-the
development of memory and cognition. (pp.314-352), Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Moffett, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin.

Moffett, J. 8 Wagner, 8. J. (1983). Student-centered language arts and
reading, K-13: A handbook for teachers. (3rd. ed). Boston, MA:
Houghton-Mifflin Co.

Mohamed, Mahathir. (1991). Malaysia: The way forward. Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia: Center for Economic Research 8 Services, Malaysian
Business Council.

Moore, C. A. (1977). Verbal teaching patterns under simulated teaching
conditions. In R. O. Freedle (Ed). Discourse production in
comprehension. (Vol.1) (pp.271-305) Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Co.

Moore, C. (1994). Group techniques for idea building. Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage

Murray, D. M. (1978). lntemational revision: A process of discovery. In C.
R. Cooper 8 L. Odell (Eds), Research on composing (pp.85-103).
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Nash, R.J., 8 Shiman, DA (1974). The English Teacher as questioner.
English Journal, 63, pp.42-45.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (1981). Reading,
thinking, and writing: Results from the 1979 - 1980 national
assessment of reading and literature. Report No. 1 1-L-01 . Denver,
CO.: Education Commission of the States.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (1983). The third
national mathematics assessment: Results, trends, and issues.
Report No. 13-MA-01. Denver, 00.: Education Commission of the
States.

 

363

Negin, G. (1987). Inferentlal reasoning for teachers. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.

Nickerson, R. S. (1984). Kinds of thinking taught in current programs.
Educational Leadership, 42. pp.26-37.

Nickerson, R. 8., (1987). Why teach thinking? In J.B.Baron 8 R.J.
Stemberg (Eds), Teaching thinking skills (pp.27-37). New York:
Freeman

Nickerson, R. S. (1988). On improving thinking through instruction. In E.
Z. Rothkopf (Ed) Review of Research in Education, 15, pp.3-57

Nickerson, R. S., Perkins, D. N. 8 Smith, E. E. (1985). The teaching of
thinking. Hillsdale, NJ; Erlbaum

Nisbett, R. F., 8 Ross, I. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and
shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall

O’Flahavan, J. F., 8 Tierney, R. J. (1991). Reading, writing, and critical
thinking, In Lorna Idol 8 Beau Fly Jones, (Eds). Educational
values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Olson, Carol, B. (1985). The thinking/writing connection, In Arthur Costa,
(Ed), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking,
Alexandria, VA' Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Onosko, J. J., 8 Newmann, F. M. (1994). Creating more thoughtful
Ieaming environments, In J.N.Mangieri 8 CC. Block (Eds).
Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: Diverse
perspectives. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Palincsar, A. S. 8 Brown, A L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of
comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities.
Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.

Paris, 8. G., Lipson, M. Y., 8 Wixson, K K (1983). Becoming a strategic
reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.

Paul, R. W. (1985). Critical thinking research: A response to Stephen
Norris. Educational Leadership, 44, 46.

 

364

Pearson, D. P. 8 Raphael, T. E. (1990). Reading comprehension as a
dimension of thinking. In Beau F. Jones and Lorna Idol (Eds).
Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum

Peper, R. J., 8 Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note-taking as generative activity.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 514-522.

Perkins, D. N. (1981). The mind’s best work. Cambridge, MA Harvard
University Press

Perkins, D. N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal
reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 562-570.

Perkins, D. N. (1987). Thinking frames: An integrative perspective on
teaching cognitive skills. In J. B. Baron 8 R. J. Stemberg (Eds),
Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp.41-61). New York:
Freeman.

Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart Schools: From training memories to
educating minds, New York: The Free Press.

Perkins, D. N. (1993). Teaching for understanding. American Educator,
Fall, pp.28 - 35

Perkins, D. M, Allen, R., 8 Hafner, J. (1983). Difficulties in everyday
reasoning. In W. Maxwell (Ed), Thinking: The expanding fiontier.
Philadelphia, PAThe Franklin Institute Press

Perry, W. (1988). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning.
In A Chickering (Ed), The modern American college. (pp. 76-116).
San Fancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Phillips, D. C. 8 Soltis, Jones, F. (1991) Perspectives on Ieaming. New
York: Teachers College Press.

Piaget, J. (1963). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: W. W.
Norton and Co., Inc..

Piaget, J. 8 Szeminska, A (1941). The child’s conception of number.
Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press

Posner, G. J., Strike, K A, Hewson, P. W., 8 Gertzog, W. A. (1982).
Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of
conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.

365

Powell, A, Farrar, E. 8 Cohen, D. (1985). The shopping mall high school:
Winners and losers in the educational marketplace. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Prawat, R. (1991). The value of ideas: The immersion approach to the
development of thinking. Educational Researcher, 20(2), pp.3-10.

Prawat, R. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and Ieaming: A
constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100,
pp.354-393.

Presseisen, B. Z. (1985). Thinking skills: Meanings, models, materials. In
Arthur Costa (Ed), Developing Minds: A resource book for teaching
thinking, Alexandria, VA Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Presseisen, B. Z. (1986). Critical thinking and thinking skills: State of the
art definitions and practice in public schools. Philadelphia:
Research for Better Schools.

Presseisen, B. Z. (1987). Thinking skills throughout the curriculum: A
conceptual design. Bloomington, Indiana: Pi Lambda Theta, Inc.

Putnam, R. 8 Borko, H. (In press). Teacher Ieaming: Implications of new
views of cognition, In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, 8 I. F. Goodson
(Eds) The international handbook of teachers and teaching.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Rajendran, Nagappan. (1996a) How are higher-order thinking skills
taught?: The case of an eighth grade English Language Arts
classroom, Unpublished Research Practicum Report, East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University

Rajendran, Nagappan. (1996b) What is the nature of teacher's questions
and students’ responses in context of discussion in an eighth grade
English Language Arts classroom? Unpublished Project Report,
East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University

Rajendran, Nagappan. (1996c) Higher-order talk for the purpose of
promoting higher-order thinking skills: The case of an eighth grade
English Language Arts classroom, Unpublished Project Report,
East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University

 

366

Raphael, T. E., 8 Kirschner, B. M. (1985). The effects of instruction in
compare/contrast text structure on sixth-grade students’ reading
comprehension and writing products (Research Series 161). East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on
Teaching.

Redfield, D. L. 8 Rousseau, E. W. (1981). A meta-analysis of
experimental research on teacher questioning behavior. Review of
Educational Research. 51, pp.237-245.

Reimers, Fernando. 8 McGinn, Noel. (1997). Informed dialogue: Using
research to shape education policy around the world. Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger

Resnick, L. B., (1987). Education and Ieaming to think. Washington,
DC:National Academy Press.

Resnick, L. B., 8 Ford, W. W. (1981). The psychology of mathematics for
instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Resnick, L. B., 8 Klopfer. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: current
cognitive research. Alexandria, VA ASCD.

Riley, J. P., II. (1986). The effects of teachers’ wait-time and knowledge
comprehension questioning on pupil science achievement. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 23(4), 335-342

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1968). Literature as exploration. Noble and Noble.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text and the poem. Carbondale,
IL: Southern Illinois University

Rosenthal, R., 8 Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Ross, J. 8 Lawrence, K A (1968). Some observations on memory
artifice. Psychonomic Science, 13, 107-108.

Rowe, H. (1985). Problem solving and intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rowe, M. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their

influence on language, logic and fate control. Part 1 wait-time.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11, 81 -94.

 

367

Scardamalia, M., 8 Bereiter, C. (1983). Child as co-investigator: Helping
children gain insight into their own mental processes. In S.Paris, G.
Olson, 8 H. Stevenson (Eds) Learning and motivation in the
classroom (pp.61-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Scardamalia, M. 8 Bereiter, C, (1985). Fostering the development of self-
regulation in children’s knowledge processing. 8. F. Chipman, J.W.
Segal, R. Glaser (Eds). Thinking and Ieaming skills: Vol.2.
Research and open questions (pp.563-578). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Scardamalia, M., 8 Bereiter, C., 8 Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of
reflective processes in written composition. Cognitive Science,
8(2), 1 73-1 90.

Schiever, Shirley, (1991). A comprehensive approach to teaching thinking.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1980). Teaching problem-solving skills. American
Mathematical Monthly, 87(10), 794-805.

Schoenfeld, A H. (1983a). Episodes and executive decisions in
mathematical problem solving. In R. Lesh 8 M. Landau (Eds),
Acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes. New Yorlc
Academic Press.

Schoenfeld, A H. (1983b). Theoretical and pragmatic issues in the design
of mathematical “problem solving” instruction. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal. ‘

Schwab, J., (1983). The Practical 4: Something for curriculum professors
to do. Cuniculum Inquiry, 13(30). pp.239-265.

Segal, J. W., Chipman, S. F., 8 Glaser, R. (1985). (Eds), Thinking and
Ieaming skills: Vol.1. Relating instruction to research. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shavelson, R. J., 8 Geeslin, W. E. (1973). A method for examining
subject matter structure in written material. Journal of Structural
Learning, 4, 101-11 1.

Shulman, Lee. (1986). Those understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, Vol.15, N.2.

368

Shulman, Lee. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new
reform, Harvard Educational Review, Vol.57, N.1.

Siegler, R. S. (1983). lnforrnation processing approaches to development.
In W. Kessen (Ed), Manual of child psychology: History, theories,
and methods. (pp.420-442) New York: Wiley.

Sigel, Irving, E. (1984). Aconstructivist perspective for teachIng thinking,
Educational Leadership, November, pp. 18-21.

Simon, H. A. (1980). Problem solving and education. In D. T. Tuma 8 F.
Reif (Eds), Problem solving and education: Issues in teaching and
research (pp. 81-96). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sinclair, J. McH., 8 Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of
discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London:
Oxford University Press.

Smagorinsky, Peter, (1995). Constructing meaning in the disciplines:
Reconceptualizing writing across the curriculum as composing
across the curriculum, American Journal of Education, Vol.103, N.2

Smith, D. G. (1977). College classroom interactions and critical thinking.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(2), 180-190.

Smith, F. (1978). Understanding reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
WInston

Smith, E. E., 8 Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge,
MAHarvard University Press.

Stemberg, R. 8 Martin, M. (1988). When teaching thinking does not work,
what goes wrong?, Teachers College Record, Vol.89, N.4.

Stemberg, R. 8 Spear-Swerling, L. (1996). Teaching for thinking.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Swartz, R. (1987). Teaching for thinking: A developmental model for the
infusion of thinking skills into mainstream instruction. In
J.B.Baron 8 R.J. Stemberg (Eds), Teaching Thinking Skills:
Theory and practice (pp. 1 06-1 26). New York: Freeman

Swartz, R., 8 Parks, S. (1994). Infusing critical and creative thinking into
content instruction, California: Critical Thinking Press

369

Swartz, R. 8 Perkins, D. (1989). Teaching thinking: Issues and
Approaches, Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.

Swift, J. N., 8 Gooding, C. T. (1983). Interaction of wait time feedback and
questioning instruction on middle school science teaching. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 721 -730.

Taba, H. (1966). Teaching strategies and cognitive functioning in
elementary school children. C00perative Research Project
No.2404. San Francisco: San Francisco State College.

Teacher Education Division. (1994). Kemahiran berfikir secara kritis dan
kreatif dan kemahiran belajar (Sukatan Pelajaran KPA Lima
Semester). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Ministry of Education.

Teacher Education Division. (1994). Model pengajaran dan pembelajaran
kemahiran berfikir. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Ministry of Education.
Division.

Teacher Education Division. (1995). Kajian keberkesanan kurikulum
Kursus Perguruan Lepas ljazah (KPLI) Institut/Maktab Perguruan
Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Ministry of Education.

Tobin, K (1986). Effects of teacher wait time on discourse characteristics
in mathematics and language arts classes. American Educational
Research Journal, 23, 191 -200.

Tobin, K (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level Ieaming.
Review of Educational Research, 57, 69-95.

Torrance, E. P. (1980). More than the ten rational processes. Creative
Child and Adult Quarterly, 5, 9-19.

Torrance, E. P. (1986). Teaching creative and gifted Ieamers. In M. C.
WIttrock (Ed), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.)
(pp.630-647) New York: Macmillan Publishing Company

Tversky, A, 8 Kahnemann, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty:
Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.

Ulmer, G. (1939). Teaching geometry to cultivate reflective thinking: An
experimental study with 1239 high school pupils. Journal of
Experimental Education, 8(1), pp. 1 8-25.

370

van Zee, E., 8 Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student
thinking, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), pp.227-269

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. New York: Wiley.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Wales, C. E. (1979). Does how you teach make a difference? Engineering
Education, 69, 394-398.

Wales, C. E., 8 Stager, R. A. (1977). Guided design. Morgantown, WV:
West Virginia University Center for Guided Design.

Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed) New horizons in
psychology l, Harrnondsworth: Penguin.

Weinstein, C. E. 8 Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of Ieaming
strategies. In. M. C. Wittrock (Ed), Handbook of research on
teaching (3rd.ed)(pp.315-327). New York: Macmillan Publishing
Co.

Wilson, S. M. (1988). Understanding historical understanding: Subject
matter knowledge and the teaching of history. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

WInocur, S.L. (1985). Project IMPACT. In AL. Costa (Ed) Developing
minds (pp.210-211) Alexandria, VA Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Wong, David, (1996). Students’ scientific explanations and the contexts in
which they occur, Elementary School Journal, Vol. 96, N5

Wood, R. (1977). Multiple choice: A state of the art report. Evaluation in
Education, 1 , pp.1 91 -280.

Yildrim, Ali, (1994). Teachers’ theoretical orientations toward teaching
thinking, Journal of Educational Research, Vol.88, Sept/Oct, N.88.,
pp.28-35

Yost, M., Avila, L., 8 Vexler, E. B. (1977). Effects of Ieaming of post-
instructional responses to questions of differing degrees of
complexity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, pp.398-401.