The objectives of this study are to know the students' opinion on the difficulty level of the topic of Nutrition in the form four Biology and to identify the students' level of thinking skills in the topic. This study uses a quantitative study design through a survey approach. A questionnaire and a formative test were administered to 196 pure Science stream students in four secondary schools in Perak. Respondents were selected through group sampling method. It was found that the mean of difficulty level of the topic of Nutrition is 1.94 which shows the students’ opinion on this topic as a difficult topic. The findings of the formative test show that the students' higher order thinking skills in the topic of Nutrition are low because over 60% of the respondents fail to solve questions of high cognitive level in 7 out of 10 subtopics. The findings of the formative test are compatible with the students' opinion on the difficulty level of the topic of Nutrition. The overall findings show that students understand but cannot apply basic concepts in the whole topic of Nutrition. Hence, teachers need to be creative by integrating technology in their teaching aids to help students visualize and integrate microscopic concepts in a complex system.
Barak, M., Ashkar, T., & Dori, Y. J. (2011). Teaching science via animated movies: Its effect on students’ learning outcomes and motivation. Proceedings of the Chais conference on instructional technologies research 2010: Learning in the technological era.
Campbell. (2015). Biology (10th edition). San Francisco: Pearson Education.
Cimer, A., Timucin, M., & Kokoc, M. (2006). Critical thinking level of Biology classroom survey: Ctlobics. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 3(1), 15-24.
Collins, R. (2014). Skills for the 21st Century: Teaching higher-order thinking. Curriculum & Leadership Journal, 2(14).
Education Performance and Delivery Unit. (2015). Buletin ANJAKAN: Buletin transformasi pendidikan Malaysia, Bil. 5/2015.
Friedler, Y., Amir, R., & Tamir, P. (1987). High school students’ difficulties in understanding osmosis. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 541-551.
Gan, W. Y., Manoharan, S., & Rajion, A. (2005). Integrated curriculum for secondary schools: Biology form 4. Petaling Jaya , Selangor: Bakaprep Sdn. Bhd.
Janssen, F., & Waarlo A. J. (2010). Learning Biology by designing. Journal of Biological Education, 44(2), 88-92.
Killiran, J. (1992). In defense of the multiple-choice question. Social Education, 56(2), 106-108.
Kim, C., & Baylor, A. L. (2008). A virtual change agent: Motivating pre-service teachers in their future classrooms. Educational Technology and Society, 11(2), 309-321.
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd edition). California: Corwin Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125-139.
Meir, E., Perry, J., Stal, D., Maruca, S., & Klopter, B. (2005). How effective are stimulated molecular-level experiments for teaching diffusion and osmosis? Cell Biology Education, 43, 235-248.
Ministry of Education of Malaysia. (2012). Huraian sukatan pelajaran Biologi tingkatan empat. Putra Jaya, Selangor: Bahagian Perkembangan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.
Ministry of Education of Malaysia. (2013). Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013-2015 (Pendidikan prasekolah hingga lepas menengah). Putrajaya. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.my/ cms/upload_files/articlefile/2013/articlefile_file_003107.pdf.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 508-510.
Odom, A. L., & Barrow, L. H. (1995). Development and application of two-tier diagnostic test measuring college biology students understanding of diffusion and osmosis after a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 45-61.
Performance Management & Delivery Unit. (2010). Program transformasi kerajaan (pelan hala tuju – ringkasan eksekutif). Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Putrajaya.
She, H. C. (2004). Facilitating changes in ninth grade students’ understanding of dissolution and diffusion through DSLM instruction. Research in Science Education, 34 (4), 503-525.
Swain, K. T. (2012). Meaningful use of animation and simulation in the science classroom. Education and Human Development Master’s Thesis, paper 143.
Westbrook, S. L., & Marek, E. A. (1991). A cross-age study of student understanding of the concept of diffusion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 649-660.
Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 325-344.
Zheng, A. Y., Lawhorn, J. K., Lumley, T., & Freeman, S. (2008). Application of Bloom’s Taxonomy Debunks the MCAT Myth. Science, 319.
Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145-181.
Zoller, U. (1993). Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe
In-Text Citation: (Sabu, 2018)
To Cite this Article: Sabu, N. (2018). The Need for Creativity in Teaching Higher Order Thinking Skills in Biology. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(1), 887–896.
Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
