The decision making strategy of prospective mathematics teachers in improving LOTS to be HOTS problem

Document Type : Research Paper


Departement of Mathematics Education, Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, Indonesia


 This study aimed to explore the decision making of a prospective mathematics teacher in the process of improving a Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) problem to be a Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) problem.~This study involves 51 prospective mathematics teachers taking part in improving HOTS  problems. Two students were chosen based on their uniqueness and quality of HOTS problems produced and their fluency in communication.~Semi-structured based task interviews were conducted to both participants in exploring the decision-making process-based. Furthermore, the data were analyzed qualitatively. The results showed that S1 was able to produce three-question related to one another, take two questions assess the reasonableness, finally decide one problem consisting of two items. S2 was able to generate three separate ideas, clarify the three ideas, and assess the three ideas and finally decide on one HOTS problem. S1 and S2 are still lack in involving Pedagogical Content Knowledge in assessing ideas especially. These results have an impact on the importance of developing a teaching model that improves the Decision making Strategy Furthermore, it is necessary to explore the decision-making process of pre-service and in-service mathematics teachers in developing the HOTS problems.


[1] A.H. Abdullah, M. Mokhtar, N.D.A. Halim, D.F. Ali, L.M. Tahir, and U.H.A. Kohar, Mathematics teachers’ level of knowledge and practice on the implementation of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS), Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., 13(1) (2017) 3–17.
[2] A. Abdillah, T. Nusantara, S. Subanji, H. Susanto, and A. Abadyo, The students decision making in solving discount problem, Int. Educ. Stud. 9(7) (2016) 57–63.
[3] A. Putra, Kemendikbud akan Tingkatkan Soal HOTS pada UN Tahun Depan,, 2018.
[4] N. Akben, Suitability of problem scenarios developed by pre-service teacher candidates to problem-based learning approach, Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 19(83) (2019) 1–22.
[5] L.W. Anderson and D. Krathwohl, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 2001.
[6] B. Bakry and M.N. Bakar, The process of thinking among junior high school students in solving HOTS question, Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ., 4(3) (2015) 138–145.
[7] B.S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain, New York, NY: McKay, 1956.
[8] H. Borko, S.A. Roberts and R. Shavelson, Teachers’ Decision Making: from Alan J. Bishop to Today, Critical Issues in Mathematics Education Major Contribution of Alan Bishop, New York: Springer, 2008, pp. 37–70.
[9] H. Borko, C. Livingston and R.J. Shavelson, Teachers thinking about instruction, Remedial Spes. Educ., 11(6) (1990).
[10] A. Budiman and J. Jailani, Pengembangan instrumen asesmen higher order thinking skill (Hots) Pada Mata Pelajaran Matematika Smp Kelas Viii semester 1, J. Ris. Pendidik. Mat. 1(2) (2014) 139–151.
[11] D. Clark, Bloom’s taxonomy of learning domains: The three types of learning, 2010.
[12] O. Colakkadioglu and D.B. Celik, The effect of decision-making skill training programs on self-esteem and decisionmaking styles, Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 16(65) (2016) 1–35.
[13] M. Forehand, Bloom’s taxonomy: Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, 2010.
[14] Y.M. Heong, J.M. Yunos, W. Othman, R. Hassan, T.T. Kiong and M.M. Mohamad, The needs analysis of learning higher order thinking skills for generating ideas, Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 59 (2012) 197–203.
[15] Kemendikbud, Panduan Penilaian HOTs, Jakarta: Diraktorat Guru dan Tenaga Kependidikan, 2017.
[16] K.W. Kosko, Preservice elementary mathematics teachers decision making: The questions they ask and the tasks they select, Proc. 38th Ann. Meet. North Amer. Chapter Int. Group for the Pysc. Math. Educ. (2016) pp. 1341–1344.
[17] M.J. Mcaninch, A Qualitative Study of Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Questioning, Responses, and Perceived Influences, University of Iowa, 2015.
[18] J. Mitana, Assessment of higher order thinking skills: A case of Uganda rrimary leaving examinations, African Educ. Res. J. 6(4) (2018) 240–249.
[19] W. Murtafiah, C. Sa’dijah, T. D. Chandra and S. Susiswo, Decision making of the Winner of the National Student Creativity Program in Designing ICT-based Learning Media, TEM J. 8(3) (2019) 1039–1045.
[20] D. Perkins, R. Swartz and A.L. Costa, The nine basics of teaching thinking, If Minds Matter. A foreword to Futur., pp. 53–69.
[21] L.E. Richland and K.N. Begolli, Analogy and Higher Order Thinking: Learning Mathematics as an Example, Policy Insights from Behav. Brain Sci. 3(2) (2016) 160–168.
[22] L. Shulman, Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations for the new reform, Harv. Educ. Rev. 57(1) (1987) 1–22.
[23] P. Sullivan, D. Clarke and B. Clarke, Teaching with Tasks for Effective Mathematics Learning, Springer, New York, 2013.
[24] R. J. Swartz, S. D. Fischer and S. Parks, Infusing the Teaching of Critical and Creative Thinking into Secondary Science: A Lesson Design Handbook, New Jersey: Critical Thinking Books & Software, 1998.
[25] B. Tanujaya, J. Mumu and G. Margono, The relationship between higher order thinking skills and academic performance of student in mathematics instruction, Int. Educ. Stud. 10(11) (2017) 78.
[26] Y. Wang, Y. Wang, S. Patel and D. Patel, A layered reference model of the brain (LRMB), IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 36(2) (2006) 124–133.
[27] Y. Wang and G. Ruhe, The cognitive process of decision making, J. Cogn. Informatics Nat. Intell. 1 (2007) 73–85.
[28] I.W. Widana, Penyusunan Soal Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS), Jakarta: Direktorat Jendral Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah, 2017.
[29] A.A. Yahya, Z. Toukal and A. Osman, Bloom’s Taxonomy-Based Classification for Item Bank Questions Using Support Vector Machines In Modern Advances in Intelligent Systems and Tools, Springer, Berlin, 2012.
Volume 13, Issue 1
March 2022
Pages 1613-1627
  • Receive Date: 10 September 2021
  • Revise Date: 14 October 2021
  • Accept Date: 20 November 2021