Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Upcoming SlideShare
Scorpio ebrochure
Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.


Hots wkshop in melaka

Download to read offline


Hots wkshop in melaka

  2. 2. We have moved into a more demanding cognitive age, compelling people to become better at absorbing, processing and combining information. Can we learn to change with it? Who might our kindergarten children be working with on an on- the-job project in 2025?
  3. 3. 3
  4. 4. Because of globalization—the ongoing process of intensifying economic, social, and cultural exchanges across the planet— young people the world over need more innovative thinking skills, cultural awareness, higher-order cognitive skills, and sophisticated communication and collaboration skills than ever before.
  5. 5. Tony Wagner, co-director of the Change Leadership Group, examines the U.S. education system in the 21st century, considers why American students are falling behind their international peers, and proposes methods to begin to correct the downward slide. The global achievement gap is the gap between what we are teaching and testing in our schools, even in the ones that are most highly-regarded, versus the skills all students will need for careers, college, and citizenship in the 21st century. What qualities do you most want in a potential new employee?
  6. 6. Seven Survival Skills • critical thinking and problem solving; • collaboration across networks and leading by influence; • agility and adaptability; • initiative and entrepreneurship; • effective oral and written communication; • accessing and analyzing information; and • curiosity and imagination. Wagner hears that the single most important skill is the ability to ask the right questions.
  7. 7.  Greater Need for Education in Society and Economy  Higher Standards for Learning  More Diverse Students with Greater Educational Needs  Greater Expectations of Schools for Ensuring Success
  9. 9. 370 SOURCE: World Bank EdStats; IMF; UNESCO; PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS, Global Insight; McKinsey & Company 1 Universal scale created by McKinsey & Co., based on Hanushek & Woessmann methodology, to enable comparison across systems. 2 Public spend per student for basic education (pre-school, primary, and secondary school levels) for 2008 current prices Note: Malaysia 2008 public spend is US$3000, while in 2012, public spend is US$3500 (PPP adjusted) Public spend per student2, PPP units 7,000– 8,000 8,000– 9,000 Excellent 3000– 4,000 2,000– 3,000 1,000– 2,000 0–1,000 327 10,000+9,000– 10,000 4,000– 5,000 Kyrgyzstan 6,000– 7,000 Poor Fair Good Great 478 560 540 500 480 440 420 320 0 580 520 460 380 340 400 360 UAE 455 Kazakhstan Morocco Thailand Colombia Tunisia 397 441 Argentina Chile Mexico Romania Malaysia 20082 412 489 Bulgaria Slovak Republic Russia Serbia 422 578 Croatia Poland Chinese Taipei Shanghai 544 458 Australia Czech Republic Israel Korea, Rep. Singapore 458 547 Japan Hong Kong Portugal New Zealand Macao SAR, China 402 531 France Germany Spain 530 486 Canada Italy Ontario Slovenia 464 545 Finland Ireland UK 483 531 Netherlands USA Luxembourg Belg.Flanders 5,000– 6,000 Armenia El Savador Philippines Syria Panama Moldova Algeria Mauritius Turkey Iran Lithuania Botswana Oman Latvia Hungary Estonia Malta Cyprus Iceland Sweden Switzerland Denmark Norway Belg. CFB Austria Saudi Arabia Uruguay Azerbaijan Indonesia Ghana Georgia Jordan W. Cape Bahrain Greece Kuwait Universal scale score1 2009 (max, median, min) QUALITY: We are in the ‘poor’ performance band internationally, ~3 schooling years behind top performing Asian countries 13
  10. 10. 18 United Kingdom 494 19 Germany 497 OECD Average PISA 2009+ results: Malaysia ranks among the bottom third of 74 participating countries on all three dimensions Reading1 Math2 Science3 Regional peers Rank Country Mean score Rank Country Mean score Rank Country Mean score 1 Shanghai-China 556 2 Korea 539 3 Finland 536 4 Hong Kong 533 5 Singapore 526 55 MALAYSIA 414 62 Indonesia 402 1 Shanghai-China 575 2 Finland 554 3 Hong Kong 549 4 Singapore 542 5 Japan 539 1 2 3 4 5 Shanghai-China Singapore Hong Kong Korea Taiwan 600 562 555 546 543 52 Thailand 419 68 Indonesia 371 42 Russian Fed. 459 43 Chile 449 International Average 53 Thailand 421 57 MALAYSIA 404 41 Croatia 460 42 Israel 447 International Average 51 Thailand 425 66 Indonesia 383 52 MALAYSIA 422 40 Greece 470 41 Malta 461 International Average 3 SOURCE: PISA 2010 Slovak Republic 20 Austria 496 21 497 20 Ireland 508 21 Czech Republic 500 …………… …………… Note: Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of top performers (Level 5 or 6). OECD Average OECD Average
  11. 11. International skills: Malaysian students are poorer in knowledge application and complex problem-solving than their peers 1 Advanced benchmark: able to organize information, make generalisations, solve non-routine problems and draw and justify conclusions from data 2 Romania included for comparison due to similarities in population size and GDP per capita. Note: Countries arranged by proportion of students in advanced level in descending order SOURCE: TIMSS 2007 for 8th Grade % of students by performance level in TIMSS Maths 58 57 63 63 80 73 48 40 40 31 79 25 0 Int’l average Indonesia 52 2 Malaysia 18 2 Thailand 34 3 Romania2 17 4 HongKong 6 Singapore 3 Korea 2 Intermediate Below minimum Advanced1 80 77 77 75 75 65 32 17 10 61 82 22 Singapore 7 Int’l average 2 35 23 Romania2 3 20 0 8 Korea 3 Indonesia Malaysia 3 20 Thailand 3 HongKong % of students by performance level in TIMSS Science
  12. 12. Cognitive skills: Student performance is lagging across all dimensions in comparison with peers SOURCE: TIMSS 2007 for 8th Grade 596 397 581 574 477 398 595 593 569 478 579 579 557 468 405 300 400 500 600 South Korea Singapore Hong Kong Malaysia Indonesia Reasoning Applying Knowledge Scores in TIMSS Maths TIMSS 2007 score 543 532 554 458 425 426 567 547 522 473 558 438 564 533 487 400500600 Hong Kong Singapore South Korea Malaysia Indonesia Scores in TIMSS Science TIMSS 2007 score Malaysia performance across knowledge recall, application and reasoning all lag behind peers countries
  14. 14. Are our students globally aware? Are our students self-directed? Are our students good collaborators? Are our students critical thinkers and problem solvers?
  15. 15. Implementing higher order thinking skills (HOTS) in the curriculum, assessments and training TIMSS and PISA have demonstrated that our students struggle with higher-order thinking skills This has been enforced by surveys of Malaysian and multinational companies Need to embed HOTS into new KSSM and KSSR curriculum and assessments to raise quality of education to an international standard RATIONALE OUTCOME KPI AND 2015 TARGET IMPACT ON JPN AND PPD To equip every student with the required 21st century skills so as to maximise their employability in the today’s increasingly global workforce Training to deliver enhanced curriculum to students All Math and Science teachers to be trained in HOTs by 2014
  16. 16. LOW ORDER THINKING (LOT) is often characterized by the: - recall of information or - explanation of ideas and concepts (LOT)
  17. 17. Bloom's Taxonomy ….. a classification of the different learning objectives that educators set for students …divides educational objectives into 3 domains: Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor loosely described as knowing/head, feeling/heart and doing/hands respectively Within each domain, learning at the higher levels is dependent on having attained prerequisite knowledge and skills at lower levels.
  18. 18. 27 Revised taxonomy of the cognitive domain Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) ANDERSON, L W, & KRATHWOHL D R (eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman BLOOM’S TAXONOMY
  19. 19. HOTS LOTS
  20. 20. WHY HOTS ????? • If we want our students to develop the capacity to think, reason and problem solve, then we need to start with high-level, cognitively complex tasks. Stein and Lane, 1986
  21. 21. Self- directed Self- disciplined Self- corrective Self- monitored STUDENTS WHO ARE HIGHLY STIMULATED IN HOT…….
  22. 22. Projects/activities/ assignments in classroom must include Qs that challenge students’ thinking process Clarify their understanding Make knowledgeable assumptions Come up with reasons and evidence Define their viewpoints and perspectives Determine implications and consequences Evaluate the concept at hand in its entirety
  23. 23. Cognitive Domain Suggested Verbs Remember(Knowledge) -shallow processing: drawing out factual answers, testing recall and recogniiton Choose Describe Define Identify Label Match Memorize Name Omit Recite Recognize Select State List Understand (Comprehension) -translating, interpreting and extrapolating Classify Defend Demonstrate Distinguish Explain Represent Restate Translate Express Extend Give example Illustrate indicate Rewrite Select Show Interrelate Interpret Infer Judge Match Paraphrase Summarize Tell Bloom’s Taxonomy and Verbs: Examples of verbs to use for each cognitive level.
  24. 24. Cognitive Domain Suggested Verbs Apply -knowing when to apply, why to apply, and recognizing patterns of transfer to situations that are new, unfamiliar or have a new slant for students. Apply Choose Dramatize Explain Use Generalize Judge Organize Paint Prepare Produce Select Show Sketch Solve Analyze -breaking down into parts, forms. Analyze Categorize Classify Compare Differentiate Distinguish Identify Infer Point out Select Subdivide Survey Evaluate -according to some set of criteria and state why Appraise Judge Criticize Defend Compare Create (Synthesis) -combining elements into a pattern not clearly there before Choose Combine Compose Construct Create Design Develop Do Formulate Hypothesize Make Make up Originate Plan Produce
  26. 26. Descriptors and Evidence Extracted from Form 2 English Language DSP
  27. 27. GALLERY WALK
  28. 28. ARE THE RESPONSES REFLECTIVE OF THESE THINKING PROCESSES? Clarify their understanding Make knowledgeable assumptions Come up with reasons and evidence Define their viewpoints and perspectives Determine implications and consequences Evaluate the concept at hand in its entirety
  29. 29. Daughter: “Dad, I’m in love with a boy who’s far from me. I’m in Australia and he lives in the UK. We met on a dating website, became friends on Facebook, had long chats on Whatsapp, he proposed to me on Skype and now we’ve had 2 months of relationship through Viber. Dad, I need your blessings and good wishes.” ACTIVITY 3 – 5 mins.
  30. 30. PREDICT what her father would say………… DAD: ……………………. …………………………….
  31. 31. Father: “Wow! Really!! Then get married on Twitter, have fun on Tango, buy your kids on Amazon and send them through Paypal. And if you’re fed up with your husband…. Sell him on Ebay…….”
  • lee_ya

    May. 30, 2016



Total views


On Slideshare


From embeds


Number of embeds