fostering higher order thinking and problem solving ...

Man In India, 97 (12) : 1-10

© Serials Publications

FOSTERING HIGHER ORDER THINKING AND PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA Diyana Jamari1, Hasnah Mohamed2, Zaleha Abdullah3, Norasykin Mohd Zaid4 and Baharuddin Aris5 Problem-solving (PS) is an ability that contribute in realigning and monitoring the thinking process thus believed to be able to enhance the quality of learning by promoting higher order thinking skill (HOTS) in students. Problem-solving helps to equip an individual to become competent thus, able to manage the modern challenges of the 21st century. Deviating towards technologyrich and fast-paced societies, Facebook has the potential to be utilised as a good alternative mediator in engaging students with online learning. The integration of an engaging ill-defined ‘case’ to anchor students’ interest, complementing it with metacognitive scaffolding (MS) within students’ preferred social media platform, is expected to attain an optimist online PS discussion activities. In agreement with Social Constructivism theory, this combination offers active interaction and collaboration, which eventually aids in fostering PS and higher order thinking skill (HOTS). This proposed framework is not limited for use as a theoretical reference for research purposes, but can also be practiced by educators in fulfilling the aspiration of the Ministry of Education (MOE) to inculcate PS skill and generating HOTS among students. Keywords: Problem-solving, Inquiry learning, Case-based learning, Scaffolding and Facebook.

INTRODUCTION The 21st century learning framework that proposed the requirement of higher order thinking (HOTS) and problem-solving (PS) skills in individual to become competent in the modern working world (Greiff et al., 2014), has been taken seriously by the Malaysian education system with the launching of the new National Education Blueprint 2013-2025. In order to achieve students’ mastery on HOTS and PS skills, the document clearly highlights the transformation process which emphasised the urgency to implement teaching approaches, where the students are given the autonomy and ownership in learning. Due to strong attachment and appreciation towards modern gadgets, the accustomed pedagogy practice may be less effective in provoking the enthusiasm of the technology-rich students to learn, as knowledge can be easily Googled from the internet. Thus, the integration of appropriate learning strategy, usage of platforms that are relevant to the students and provision of engaging learning experience, were hoped to enhance and eventually inspire the 1 2 3 4 5

Univerisiti Teknologi Malaysia, E-mail: [email protected] Univerisiti Teknologi Malaysia, E-mail: [email protected] Univerisiti Teknologi Malaysia, E-mail: [email protected] Univerisiti Teknologi Malaysia, E-mail: [email protected] Univerisiti Teknologi Malaysia, E-mail: [email protected]

2

MAN IN INDIA

students’ interest and creativity (Greiff et al., 2014; Shatto and Erwin, 2016). In this paper, the discussions revolve on the applicability of Social Constructivist Theory to underpin the implementation of social media; namely Facebook, for HOTS and PS learning activity online. PS theory that focuses on the PS process, acts as an integral that will be complemented with (i) inquiry on the learning strategy particularly case based learning (CBL), (ii) the imposing of ill-defined problem criteria and (iii) metacognitive scaffolding (MS) that is representing instructor’s scaffolding in the form of questioning in order to highlight the aim of the whole learning process which is to generate and enhance HOTS and PS skills of the learners. FACEBOOK AND SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY Vygotskys’ Social Constructivist Theory clearly stresses that knowledge construction or mastering of skills occurs in an environment that is rich with interaction and collaboration components, guided by More Knowledgeable Others (MKO) in the specific Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Wang, 2015). To date, the term MKO is not only limited to a person, as any source of knowledge such as books and internet are considered as MKO. Vygotsky claimed that learning can be enhanced based on the individual potentials, with no limitations on their biological or sociological aspects of development (Verinikina, 2008). As sociocultural aspects such as languages, traditions and beliefs affect the individual’s psychological development, he believed that social interactions play a role in expanding the knowledge and intellectual maturity right from an early stage (Wang, 2015).PS skill requires an individual to communicate effectively and applies the knowledge within a certain context to fulfil the aim of the problem, which contribute to improving argumentative and decision-making skills that are closely related to HOTS (Kim and Tan 2013). Therefore, social interaction through discussion acts as a mechanism to increase the PS and HOTS skills, through the creation of cognitive conflicts that helps the students to analyse, reflect and justify their ideas, which then leads to new perspectives and understandings (Leng et al. 2011). Strong basic knowledge can be established through discussions, where the students deliver their opinions and listen to the other people’s ideas and feedbacks. In fact, disagreements, criticisms and queries will be positively accepted and considered as part of the learning process. Thus, it is important to create a learning environment that can encourage interactions, even if the learning process happens online. Social media such as Facebook offers multilateral interactions and able to fulfil the students’ preference to be in control with their own learning. The lack of social connectivity tools and personal profile spaces in the predominantly accepted Learning Management System (LMS), have created high chances of manipulating

FOSTERING HIGHER ORDER THINKING AND PROBLEM...

3

social media as an alternative learning platform (Greiff et al., 2014; Shatto and Erwin, 2016). Lenhart (2015) reported that Pew Research Centre conducted a survey and found Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat were the most frequently used social media by teenagers aged 13-17. Updating and sharing of lengthy information are less doable with Instagram, while the use of hashtags in Twitter seems inadequate, as compared to the flexible and hassle-free Facebook posts. Facebook discussion can be done in a separate group, so users who are not listed in the friend list will be able to join the same discussion group. This minimise personal conflicts and promote longer engagement span to users. Although other educational oriented social media exists, the impact is not comparable to Facebook as it is not confined to formal elements, which may disengaged students from participating. This gives an impression as learners tend to exhibit better learning performance in educational setting that holds a strong sense of social belonging and connectedness (Erjavec 2013).Growing literatures on the positive impact of Facebook learning, reported its positive possibility as a pedagogical tool (Petroviæ et al. 2012). Even those who declared that Facebook is only suitable for socialising, somehow admitted to using it for informal learning purposes (Madge et al. 2009). The aspect of comfortability in student’s own personal space brings less pressure hence, promote better learning which, the teachers should take into advantage by experimenting its usage with different pedagogical approaches. PROBLEM SOLVING THEORY This framework is going to focus on Newell and Simons’ information processing theory on PS as an initiator, instead of Gestalts’ PS theory. Gestalts’ theory involves an ‘insight’ where a problem solver formulates a way of conceptualising and representing a problem, to gain an idea on how to solve the problem (Mayer and Wittrock, 2009). It involves the building of a new schema, collecting and reorganising the information, whilst searching for similar situation that has been encountered and solved before as a source of idea for generating solution. This theory differs from Newell and Simon (1972) that focuses more on PS teaching strategy, whereby Gestalts’ theory lingers mainly on the problem representation. Newell and Simon (1972) PS theory explains the concept of ‘problem space’ and heuristic search that lead to teaching strategies for PS. Problem space refers to the issues that may be understood by identifying the aspect that explains the problem, identifying the initial state of the problem, and the goal state to be achieved including the intervening state or factors affecting the problem. Even though Newell and Simon (1972) claimed that the theory can be used for many types of problems due to its generality, some views were found to be against the statement, postulating that the theory is more suitable for problems which are routine or structured. Since PS skill is a complex skill involving HOTS, adaptations must be made to compliment the theory to ensure its consistency with the objective of ill-defined PS research.

4

MAN IN INDIA

The new Malaysian National Education Blueprint 2013-2025 precisely mentioned about the constructivist approach and inquiry teaching strategy as the current learning process, which accentuate on active learning, as well as learning by understanding approaches. Nonetheless, it is important to understand and consider the learner’s ability and thinking level before selecting any inquiry approach to be used. In order to be in line with the constructivist and active learning approaches, inquiry based learning specifically CBL should be applied in this framework. INQUIRY APPROACH THROUGH CASE BASED LEARNING (CBL) AND ILL-DEFINED PROBLEMS An inductive exploration to obtain information through asking questions or problems refers to an act of inquiry. Due to this definition, Wenning (2005) has divided inquiry learning approach into three levels based on the differences in PS orientation and intensity of student’s involvement in the learning activity (Figure 1).Selecting the inquiry approach to be implemented requires consideration in terms of students’ thinking level and ability. Wide practiced structured inquiry previously is seen to be less relevant, as a less challenging learning process will not be able to engage the students. Adding to that, a void in variation aspect will cause loss of students’ interest thus, renders the inability to prepare students HOTS ability which indirectly limits their intellectual progression and evolution (Gallet, 1998; Jonassen, 1997). Open inquiry is found to be appropriate for students in higher education, acknowledging their well-developed cognition and flexibility in terms of resources, such as time and learning material. In short, learning is controlled solely by students with minimal guidance. In the second level of inquiry, students still hold important roles in the learning process but with adequate guidance to incite questions and encourage them to explore the subject matter within certain allocation of time. CBL highlights problems in the form of narrated cases as a learning anchor. Presence of learning aid and time limitation well match with the criteria of students in the school level, who are still lacking in terms of intellectual maturity and experience, at the same time enclosed with the school curriculum. However, recent pattern on inquiry research shows more open inquiry studies were being conducted in the school level.

Figure 1: Three Levels with Examples in Learning by Inquiry (Wenning, 2005).


5

The teaching strategy should be able to go well with the criteria of ill-structured problems, as well-defined or routine problems commonly practiced are synonym with rote learning. Repeated drill practice cause familiarity and enhanced the memory schema hence, making well-defined problems much easier to be recalled and solved. Regardless of the answers, the solution steps still remain the same. As solution sequence can be memorised, the cognitive processes involved remain at a lower level and does not contribute much to the development of HOTS and PS skills (An, 2010). This is contrary with the much complicated ill-defined problems which involve multiple range of domains, concepts or principles and various cognitive operations (Jonassen, 1997). After revising the problem classification due to disparity on the term used to define it, Jonassen (1997) concluded that illstructured problems are (i) problems in the form of a scenario, (ii) have an unclear objective and sub-objective, (iii) students interpret problems to identify the needs and objectives of the problem, (iv) information needed to solve the problems is not stated or is stated as incomplete, (v) the operator or action that must be taken to achieve the objective is not stated and (vi) has a wide range of potential answers and solutions. Ill-defined problem is known to be abstractly difficult due to vague objective issue. However, this is mere a misconception as ill-defined problem may include a known aim that is entangle within a complex problem space. Unfortunately, the types of problems practiced in schools are similar to the criteria of well-structured problems, which help less in the development of HOTS and PS (An, 2010). After much consideration, CBL is an approach deemed to be suitable in the environment of science learning in the school level because, ‘cases’ designed through the combined criteria of ill-defined problems (Jonassen, 1997) and case rule may attract the interest of students, spark questions, and encourage them to continue exploring the case presented (Herreid, 1997). In CBL, teacher’s supervision is needed as the students are still not familiar with the new ‘case’. This ‘case’ should not be derived from textbook, but rather originated from the everyday problems, which applies similar concepts or principles learnt. CBL leans towards learning by understanding, as knowledge transfer and retention happened by showing the students how all these rules or principles learnt in the classroom were really being used in authentic real-world situations (Pawson et al., 2006). Context is thought to be more motivational to learners and it provides a concrete framework

6

MAN IN INDIA

from which, the complex concepts can be more easily understood. Herreid (1997) listed a few rules of thumb in developing cases in the CBL to engage students’ learning as in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Developing Cases in CBL (Herried, 1997).

This is in contrast with open inquiry, such as problem-based learning (PBL) or project-based learning (PjBL) that focuses more on the discovery of rules or principles that the teacher wants the learners to ‘discover’ by themselves. Prior learning experiences do not prepare the students well for PBL thus, these create some anxiety because the learning process is messier and the risk of less content knowledge being learned is present (Pawson et al., 2006). The students will be given maximum autonomy as they will decide what to learn, how or where to get the information with minimal teacher’s instruction. Despite the intensity of teacher’s involvement, suitable guidance may help to interpret and catalyse an active information transfer process by providing a learning environment that is believed able to develop HOTS and PS skills. In this context, the guidance or scaffolding mentioned refers to MS. METACOGNITIVE SCAFFOLDING(MS)–A TEACHER’S ROLE MS originated from the metacognitive concept defined by Flavell, which is combined with the ‘learning aid’ terminology by Vygotsky (Verinikina, 2008). Metacognitive refers to the ability to reflect own performance. The students will learn to monitor and direct their own progress and ask questions to themselves, which help to maximize the effective strategies and avoid unproductive approaches (Aurah et al., 2014). Past researches confirmed the importance of scaffolding in solving ill-structured problems, besides emphasising the need of other external support to help students in cognitive and metacognitive forms. Research findings found that students with strong metacognitive skills are more successful in solving problems (Ge and Land, 2003). However, since classroom learning focuses on


7

well-structured problems, the students are not able to use their metacognitive skills, as chances to meet with the ill-structured problems are rare (An, 20l0; Ge and Land, 2003). While teaching students about metacognition not easy as it seems, transferring the skills to be implemented and practice is an equally challenging task on its own. However, this process is not impossible as it is proven that metacognitive skills can be trained (Ge and Land, 2003). In terms of CBL, MS sparks questions and stimulates the students to continue exploring the ‘case’ given. Hence, supporting metacognitive activities help students to focus on HOTS in PS process in order to achieve meaningful learning, besides helping to disclose the rationale behind the usage of real life scenario and subsequently contributes to the retention of PS skills. Despite all the benefits of CBL, Wehrli and Nyquist (2003) has listed a few downsides of CBL and scaffolding activities are believed to be able to complement these weaknesses for implementation. How the interaction occurs is crucial as both teachers and students need to collaborate and share the knowledge and responsibility to achieve the learning objective, besides supporting active learning that is individual and autonomous (Verinikina, 2008). The MS suggested is referring to the instructor’s scaffolding, based on the seven MS mechanisms mentioned by Reingold et al. (2008) in their study (Table 1). Following this, the teachers play the role of asking questions, provoking and request for opinions, so that the students will begin to think and review the answers given. Students and teachers should discuss collaboratively, while other students are allowed to improve the answers given by their classmates, by giving opinions and providing criticisms. Teachers may use these mechanisms as a guideline to help students to explore the cases, as well as helping in the active information and skill transfer by providing a learning environment that is believed able to develop HOTS and PS skills. CONCLUSION Considering all three comprehensive links between Social Constructivism Theory, CBL strategy and ill-defined problems with MS in HOTS and PS studies as in Table 2, a theoretical framework as in Figure 3 was proposed. Students’ HOTS and PS skills are hoped to be fostered and enhanced through the theories, approaches and concepts presented. This theoretical framework can be used as a reference for teachers in their effort to respond to the National Education Blueprint aspiration, to enhance the students’ HOTS and PS skills. This will subsequently produce critical students as well as improving Malaysia’s position in the international assessment, such as Trends in Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS) and Programme International Student Assessment (PISA).

8

MAN IN INDIA TABLE 1: MS COMPLEMENTATION ON CBL DISADVANTAGES

CBL Weakness (Wehrli and Nyquist, 2003)

Overcome Strategy

MS (Reingold et al., 2008) to Complement CBL Weakness

Example

1. Deviating into social conversations

Use cases that are prototypical of content objectives

MS2: Presenting the relationship between learning material, objectives and tasks.

Based on the story, what are the inc iden ts that contribute to the problem?

MS4: Focusing on the process of learning

Ju stify mo re on t he solution that you have suggested. Yes! Good answer!

2. Disparity of knowle- Help the group dge levels and skill address conflict in may cause frustration constructive ways

MS5: Encouragement and giving compliments 3. Unpredictable outcomes

Arrangement that MS1: Presenting facilitates discussion rational for task and activities.

This brainstorming session aims in understanding of tonicity concepts.

4. Interpersonal conflicts among

Create safe environment participants for learners to participate, ask questions, and make mistakes without sanctions

MS3: Supporting reflective writing. MS4: Focusing on the process of learning. MS6: Discriminating between conclusion/ fact/opinion/hypothesis MS7: Supervising text comprehension.

You sure that what causes it? Have you clarify it? Try to fit it your answer to the context of our lesson. Please point and explain differences between those in picture 1 and 3. Any other examples?

5. Can be timeconsuming

Set meeting over a period of time

Role of facilitator establish ground rules

6. Handling larger group and to ensure participation can be challenging

Use trained student The use of learning tools facilitators to effecti- that is preferred by vely manage group students - social media dynamics medium and in this context it refers to Facebook Role of facilitator

TABLE 2: LINK OF FEATURES OF SCAFFOLDING IN LEARNING WITH THE FRAMEWORK ELEMENTS Features of scaffolding in learning

Framework element

(i) dialogical nature and quality of interaction that aid the development of knowledge (ii) type of activity proposed significant to building knowledge

MS (Reingold et al., 2008)

(iii) roles of teaching aids that become the medium for knowledge building and transfer process

CBL strategy (Herreid, 1997), ill-defined problems (Jonassen, 1997) Facebook representing Social Constructivism Theory (Vygotsky, 1978)


9

Figure 3: The Proposed Theoretical Framework

References An, Y. J. (2010). Scaffolding Wiki-Based, Ill-Structured Problem Solving in an Online Environment. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 723–734. Aurah, C. M., Cassady, J. C. and McConnell, T. J. (2014). Genetics problem solving in high school testing in Kenya: Effects of metacognitive prompting during testing. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 18(8). Erjavec, K. (2013). Informal learning through Facebook among Slovenian pupils. Comunicar, 21(41), 117-126. Gallet, C. (1998). Problem-solving teaching in the chemistry laboratory: Leaving the cooks. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(1), 72. Ge, X. and Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21-38. Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Csapó, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamäki, J., Graesser, A. C. and Martin, R. (2014). Domain-general problem solving skills and education in the 21 st century. Educational Research Review, 13, 74-83. Herreid, C. F. (1997). What’s Next for Case Study Teaching in Science? Journal of College Science Teaching, 27(2), 92-94. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problemsolving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65-94. Kim, M. and Tan H. T. (2013). A Collaborative Problem-Solving Process through Environmental Field Studies. International Journal of Science Education, 35(3), 357-387. Leng, G. S., Lada, S., Muhammad, M. Z., Ibrahim, A. A. H. A. and Amboala, T. (2011). An exploration of social networking sites (SNS) adoption in Malaysia using technology

10

MAN IN INDIA acceptance model (TAM), theory of planned behavior (TPB) and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 16(2), 1-27.

Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Perrin, A., Stepler, R., Rainie, L. and Parker, K. (2015). Teens, social media and technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center. Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J. and Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: ‘It is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work’. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 141–155. Mayer, R. and Wittrock, M. Problem Solving. (2009). Retrieved on Dec 6, 2015 from http:// www.education.com/reference/article/problem_solving1/ Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Pawson, E., Fournier, E., Haight, M., Muniz, O., Trafford, J. and Vajoczki, S. (2006). Problembased learning in geography: Towards a critical assessment of its purposes, benefits and risks. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30(1), 103–16. Petrovic, N., Petrovic, D., Jeremic, V., Milenkoviæ, N. and Cirovic, M. (2012). Possible educational use of Facebook in higher environmental education. In Proceedings of ICICTE 2012,p.p 355-362. Reingold, R., Rimor, R. and Kalay, A. (2008). Instructor’s scaffolding in support of student’s metacognition through a teacher education online course: A case study. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(2), 139–151. Shatto, B., and Erwin, K. (2016). Moving on From Millennials: Preparing for Generation Z. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 47(6), 253-254. Verenikina, I. (2008). Scaffolding and learning: Its role in nurturing new learners. Faculty of Education-Papers, 43. Retrieved on Mac 12, 2016 from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=edupapers Wang, R. (2015). LS Vygotsky and education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 63(1), 112-114. Wehrli, G. and Nyquist, J. G. (2003). Teaching strategies methodologies; advantages, disadvantages, cautions and keys to success. In Creating an educational curriculum for learners at any level, AABB Conference, San Diego, California. Wenning, C. J. (2005). Levels of inquiry: Hierarchies of pedagogical practices and inquiry processes. J. Phys. Teach. Educ. 2(3). Retrieved on June 1, 2015 from http :// www2.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/publications/levels_of_inquiry.pdf