HOTS: A TERM OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD (Oleh: Muchlas Samani)
I don’t remember when the term HOTS (high order thinking skills) started to become popular among teachers and educators in Indonesia. What is clear is that it has now become one of the important vocabulary in the world of education. Teachers are required to develop HOTS in their students. It is said that the questions in the AKM (minimum competency assessment), which will later replace the UN (national exam), are based on HOTS. Unfortunately, many teachers still do not fully understand the concept of HOTS. When participating in capacity sharing for prospective supervising lecturers and mentor teachers who will later accompany PPG-PGSD (Primary School Teacher Professional Education) students, organized by the Ministry of Education and Culture in collaboration with the Tanoto Foundation, several teachers honestly stated that they still did not understand the concept of HOTS, making it difficult for them to apply it to their students.
HOTS does not have a single definition, but it is generally understood as high-level thinking skills that include critical, creative, reflective thinking, and problem-solving. This seems to be what is referred to as the two Cs at the beginning of the 4-Cs, namely critical thinking and creativity. Some define it more succinctly as solving problems creatively.
These various definitions are actually interrelated. To solve problems creatively, critical and reflective thinking skills are needed to understand the problems to be solved. Meanwhile, to find creative solutions, high creativity is required. If linked to Bloom’s taxonomy (although not perfectly), critical and reflective thinking is equivalent to the levels of analysis-synthesis and evaluation. Some experts refer to it as part of metacognition. Meanwhile, creative thinking is equivalent to creating in Bloom’s taxonomy. That is why some people mention the first three levels in Bloom’s taxonomy (remembering, understanding, applying) as LOTS (low order thinking skills), while the top three levels (analysis-synthesis, evaluation, creating) are included in HOTS.
Confusion arises again when capacity sharing participants are asked to design learning for Grade 1 elementary school students to develop HOTS. An elementary school teacher who has long taught Grade 1 said it was impossible. The teacher argued that Grade 1 students are still at the concrete thinking stage. It seems the teacher was referring to Piaget’s cognitive development theory. Thus, children cannot yet think abstractly.
Another participant showed their learning design by grouping toothbrushes. One group consisted of 3 toothbrushes and another group consisted of 2 toothbrushes. Grade 1 students were asked to fill in a kind of equation in their worksheet. Seeing this, another participant said, “Grade 1 students can’t read and write well yet, how can they be asked to do such a worksheet?” Many participants, mostly teachers, agreed with this statement.
I tried to mediate by saying, “What if the question is given orally?” So, Grade 1 students are shown a picture or, if necessary, the teacher brings real toothbrushes and demonstrates as in the picture. Then the teacher asks orally, “Who has more toothbrushes?” Can the students answer? Almost all participants said yes. This means Grade 1 students can already compare. When I asked, “According to Bloom’s taxonomy, what does comparing like that fall under?” Participants answered, “Evaluation.” So, Grade 1 students can already evaluate, which means they can do HOTS. Only then did the participants realize. They said that Grade 1 students couldn’t answer was more influenced by the notion that Grade 1 students couldn’t read yet.
When participants were busy discussing, I showed a picture of a schoolyard and two children running from corner to corner of the field. Let’s say Budi runs along the edge of the field, while Tomi runs across the middle of the field. Can Grade 2 students guess who will arrive first? Participants unanimously said yes. I asked again, “Are you sure Grade 2 students can?” They answered yes. I asked again, “How do you think Grade 2 students can conclude that Tomi will arrive faster?” A participant who happened to be a Grade 2 teacher said, “Grade 2 students will see that Tomi’s path is shorter, so he will arrive faster.” Grade 2 students can compare because it can be seen clearly. Isn’t that comparing? Isn’t that essentially evaluation? So, Grade 2 students can already evaluate according to Bloom. So again, Grade 1 and Grade 2 students can already do HOTS because they can evaluate.
During the break, some participants discussed whether HOTS questions are related to difficult test questions. I asked them, “If Grade 3 students are asked to solve the following problem:
1/7 + 0, 42 X 2/6 = ………………………………
Can they easily solve it?” They unanimously answered, “It’s difficult, sir.” I asked again, “According to Bloom’s taxonomy, what category does solving that problem fall under?” They answered, “Application, because it only applies the principles of addition and multiplication.” I asked again, “So, is it HOTS or LOTS?” They answered, “LOTS.” So, there are difficult test questions that fall under LOTS. Meanwhile, there were easy questions earlier, which Grade 1 students could solve, but they fall under HOTS. The conclusion is that not all HOTS questions are difficult, and not all LOTS questions are easy. In other words, the level of thinking does not always align with the difficulty level of the questions.
So, how can we easily understand HOTS? HOTS usually involves linking two concepts or phenomena. In the example above, children compare two phenomena, namely the number of toothbrushes and the running track distance. To compare two concepts, for example, why doesn’t grass grow well under a shady tree? Grass needs sunlight to grow well, while under a shady tree, sunlight doesn’t penetrate. Another example, why is the water in a large river brown during heavy rain? The water in a large river usually comes from mountains or hills. During rain, the water carries soil, causing the water to turn brown.