Connecting to 21st Century: Improve Students’ HOTS through

Integrated STEM Approach in Learning Physics

Iwan Permana Suwarna

and Rhodiatussholihah

Syarif Hidayatullah Islamic State University Jakarta Jl. Ir. H. Juanda 95, Ciputat, Banten, Indonesia

Keywords: Integrated STEM approach; HOTS; 21st century; learning physics; quasi experiment

Abstract: High order thinking skills (HOTS) of students has been a challenge in teaching and learning to prepare

students to live in the 21st Century. This study attempted to investigate the effectiveness of an integrated

STEM approach in enhancing students’ HOTS in learning physics. This study used a quasi-experiment

method with nonequivalent control group design. Total of the participants involved in this study were 66

students. The sample was taken by purposive sampling technique. The data were obtained from pre- and

posttest result from 23 question in multiple-choice test of HOTS instrument. The Mann-Whitney test

indicated that posttest of experimental and control group reported a significant difference in HOTS

(p<0,05). The N-gain average in the experimental group was 0,41 with an intermediate category. The results

of this study show that the students’ HOTS can be improved by integrated STEM approach. These findings

may be supporting the idea for a teacher in attempting to plan and provide appropriate strategies in teaching

and learning to enhance their students' HOTS, specifically in physics.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the 21

century, which is characterized by the

rapid development of science and technology,

human resources with high competence are needed.

These high competencies are creative thinking skills,

critical thinking skills, and problem solving skills.

These skills are categorized as High Order Thinking

Skills (HOTS). HOTS is a thinking process, which

consists of complicated procedures and needs to be

based on various skills. HOTS refer to three highest

domains of the revised Bloom Taxonomy (analyze,

evaluate, and create).

Based on Programme for International Students

Assessment (PISA), internationally comparable

evidence on student performance that assesses how

well students can extrapolate from what they have

learned and can apply that knowledge in unfamiliar

settings in the core school subjects of science,

reading, and mathematics which is reported by the

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and

Development (OECD), HOTS of Indonesian

students are still low. Indonesia in the 64

position

from 72 countries. Indonesian students’ score is 403

from 556, highest scores, in science.

Physics, a part of science, is tested in PISA.

Physics is a difficult subject to understand by

students. The students are unable to explain

phenomena scientifically, to evaluate or design

scientific investigations, and to interpret a data. One

of the subjects in physics that requires HOTS is

Newton's law concept. Newton's law is a basic

science about the dynamics of motion which

contains basic competencies that indicate activities

that require HOTS process.

The low of student's HOTS has a negative

impact on the students themselves if a solution is not

found immediately. The impact such as the students

are unable to apply the knowledge and skills they

develop during learning in a new context and the

students are unable to explain various natural

phenomena and solve problems qualitatively or

quantitatively. Moreover, if students do not have

HOTS on Newton’s law concept, the students will

be difficult to learn physics concepts that use

Newton's law as its basis, such as energy, impulse

momentum, and rigid body.

The low of student's HOTS is caused by a

learning process that does not encourage students to

develop their HOTS. HOTS can be developed

through a learning process that can stimulate

students to practice their thinking skills. The process

of learning that develops students’ HOTS is learning

process with student centered orientation, several

Permana Suwarna, I. and Rhodiatussholihah, .

Connecting to 21st Century: Improve Students’ HOTS through Integrated STEM Approach in Learning Physics.

DOI: 10.5220/0009914506750680

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Recent Innovations (ICRI 2018), pages 675-680

ISBN: 978-989-758-458-9

675

scientific disciplines integration, and collaboration.

The one of solution to develop students’ HOTS is to

use the integrated STEM (Science, Technology,

Engineering, and Mathematics) approach during the

learning process. Integrated STEM is a student

centered learning approach. Integrated STEM is

interdisciplinary approach to learning that removes

the traditional barrier separating the four disciplines

of science, technology, engineering, mathematics

and integrates them into real world, rigorous, and

relevant learning experiences for student.

Integrated STEM is an approach that provides

great problem-solving opportunities for students in

learning science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics. Integrated STEM involves conditions

that require the application of knowledge and

practices from multiple STEM disciplines to learn

about or solve problems. Problems that require an

integrated STEM approach are typically ill

structured, with multiple potential solutions, and

require the application of knowledge and practices

from multiple STEM disciplines.

In the class, the students are encouraged to make

new and productive connections across two or more

of the disciplines, which may be evidenced in

improved student learning and transfer as well as

interest and engagement. The students have

opportunity to deepen their conceptual

understanding while at the same time honing their

skills by applying what they have learned in new

contexts or in different settings. Previous studies

showed that the integrated STEM approach has the

potential to produce competitive human resources

with the 21

century skills and positive impacts

towards students' interest and achievement.

As mention above, there is a close association

between HOTS and integrated STEM approach. A

key point of this study is to attempt a strategy in

learning to encourage students’ HOTS. The purpose

of the present study is to investigate the

effectiveness of integrated STEM approach in

enhancing students’ HOTS in learning physics.

2 MATERIALS AND METHOD

2.1 Setting and Subjects

The study employed quasi-experiment method with

nonequivalent control group design. The population

consisted of 304 students at 10

grade in the SMAN

10 of South Tangerang. The sample size was

consisted of 66 students, 33 students as participants

in experimental class and 33 students as participants

in control class. Purposive sampling was employed

for selecting participants from among the students of

the 10

grade in the academic years 2017-2018. All

subjects were enrolled based on specific criteria.

In the experimental class, an integrated STEM

approach was applied which involved students in 4

processes: scientific inquiry, mathematical thinking,

technology literacy, and engineering design. In the

scientific inquiry, students constructed their own

knowledge through simple investigations. In the

mathematical thinking, students applied the

knowledge that gained during the scientific inquiry

process to different situations and conditions in the

form of problem solving or simple experimental

projects. In the technology literacy, students used

technology as a source of information and learning

resources in the process of designing in engineering

design. In the engineering design, students designed

solutions to problems or design simple experiments.

Meanwhile, in the control class applied a

conventional approach.

2.2 Data Collection

The data collection tool was derived from objective

test. The data were obtained from pre- and post-test

result from 23 questions in multiple-choice test of

HOTS instrument that consisted of C4 (analyze), C5

(evaluate), and C6 (create) cognitive domain in

Bloom’s Taxonomy. It was 9 questions of C4, 7

questions of C5, and 7 questions of C6. The

minimum score is 0 and the maximum score is 23.

The content validity of the test was authenticated by

14 experts from among the major members of Syarif

Hidayatullah Islamic State University (expert in

physics content, learning assessment, and Indonesian

language). It was processed using content validity

index (CVI) that interpret with content validity ratio

(CVR). The result was valid. Whereas, the

reliability was calculated using AnatesV4, which

was 0.89 for the tool as a whole with high reliable

criteria.

2.3 Data Analysis

After the data was collected through the research

instruments tested, the data was processed and

analyzed to answer the hypothesis. The data was

submitted to SPSS 22. The data was analyzed

descriptively and inferentially. Descriptively, the

data was analyzed its frequency, percentage, mean,

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

676

and standard deviation. Inferentially, the data was

analyzed by Lavene to find out the homogeneity of

the object, analyzed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov to find

out the normality of sample distribution, and

analyzed by Mann-Whitney U to test the hypothesis.

The Mann-Whitney U test was used for variables

with non-normal distribution and was used to

investigate the effectiveness of integrated STEM

approach to enhance students’ HOTS. The N-gain

test was used to see how the score, in each complex

cognitive taxonomies, of experimental and control

class increase.

3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The recapitulation of pretest, posttest, and N-gain

data in the experimental and control class is

presented in Table 1.

They are below half the ideal score (11.5 per

23). The pretest mean score of control class (7.39)

was slightly higher than the pretest mean score of

experimental class (6.67). There were a number of

things that caused the low pretest score. The factor is

the learning process did not encourage students to

develop their HOTS. The learning process used

teacher center oriented, monodisciplinary learning,

non-collaborative learning, and it did not train

students to solve a problem. It caused students'

HOTS not developing well.

Table 1: The data of pretest, posttest, and N-gain score of

students’ HOTS.

Descriptive

Control Experiment

Pretest

Posttes

Pretest

Posttes

Minimum

Score

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Maximum

Score

23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00

Mean 7.39 9.73 6.67 13.45

Median 7.00 10.00 7.00 13.00

Mode

7.00 11.00 7.00 13.00

Standard

Deviation

2.22 1.53 1.76 1.39

N-gain 0.13 0.41

N-gain

Criteria

Low Medium

The pretest score of both of classes were low.

The final score (posttest) of students' HOTS of both

of classes increased after different treatments was

given. However, the increasing score of

experimental class was higher than control class.

The posttest mean score of experimental class was

13.45 and the posttest mean score of control class

was 9.73. The improvement of students' HOTS

could be seen from the N-gain score. The N-gain

score for the experimental class was 0.41 (medium

category) and the N-gain score for the control class

was 0.13 (low category).

The higher posttest score of experimental class is

caused by an integrated STEM approach that

applied. These learning process involved real life

situational tasks to be solved and the students were

found to be able to address complex context in the

tasks. Thus, learning process with integrated STEM

provide experiences to identify the connections

between what they have learned and new different

things through high order thinking they used. It

trained students' HOTS during the learning process.

The description of pretest, posttest, and N-gains

score of students’ HOTS at each level of complex

cognitive (C4, C5, C6) in the experimental class and

control class are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Percentage of pretest, posttest, and N-gain score

of students’ HOTS in complex cognitive domain

Class Score C4 C5 C6

Control

Pretest 3.94 1.52 1.79

Posttest 4.58 2.33 2.67

N-gain -0.02 0.13 0.18

N-gain

Criteria

Low Low Low

Experim

ent

Pretest 3.36 1.39 1.91

Posttest 6.48 3.42 3.09

N-gain 0.54 0.36 0.29

N-gain

Criteria

Mediu

Medium Low

Maximum score of

pretest posstest

9.00 7.00 7.00

In the cognitive process, the pretest mean score

of control class in C4 & C5 (3.94 & 1.52) were

slightly higher than the pretest mean score of

experimental class (C4=3.36; C5= 1.39). While, the

pretest mean score of control class in C6 was 1.79,

slightly lower than the pretest mean score of

experimental class (1.91). Meanwhile, the posttest

mean score of experimental class in complex

cognitive process was higher than the posttest mean

score of control class. It shows that, in the

experimental class, there was a significant score

increasing after was treated with an integrated

STEM approach.

The comparison of students' HOTS

score in each complex cognitive domain (C4, C5,

and C6) is presented in Figure 1.

In the Table 2, the improvement of students'

HOTS based on cognitive processes in the

Connecting to 21st Century: Improve Students’ HOTS through Integrated STEM Approach in Learning Physics

677

experimental class which was treated with the

integrated STEM approach was higher than the

control class which was not treated with this

treatment. The integrated STEM approach

stimulated students to develop their HOTS during

the learning process. Students analyzed a

phenomenon related to Newton's law, evaluated a

phenomenon that occurred around students, or

planned a solution in solving a problem. Students

did not only receive information or knowledge that

was explained by the teacher.

The integrated STEM approach was

interdisciplinary studies. It was more able to

improve students' ability to identify problems and

draw conclusions based on evidence in order to

understand and make decisions. It trained students to

work collaboratively, to engage students in problem

solving, design, and assess an investigation, and to

make learning activities more inquiry and

contextual.

The comparison of the improvement based on

cognitive processes obtained from the mean of N-

gain score in each class. In the experimental class,

C4 and C5 cognitive processes were categorized as

medium category, while for C6 cognitive processes

was categorized as low category. However, in the

control class, each complex cognitive processes

were categorized as low category. The good

improvement of students’ HOTS in experimental

class indicated that integrated STEM approach was

effective.

In the analyze process (C4), the students had to

be able to separate information into several parts,

find or describe relationships between information,

and show the reasons or purpose behind the

information. The improvement in C4 cognitive

process was because the students concluded the

relationship between variables based on some

information obtained during the investigation on

science process in integrated STEM approach.

In the evaluate process (C5), the students had to

be able to judge a material or phenomenon based on

specific criteria. The criteria used form of standards

or criteria was made by students itself, but these

criteria might be evidence and logic. The

improvement in C5 cognitive process was because

the students examined the simple experiments of

each group that have been made taking into consider

the suitability of the simple experiment with the

concept of Newton’s law.

In the create process (C6), the students had to be

able to combine several ideas into a new one or

arrange something have ever existed to be a new

form by solving a problem with several solutions,

make procedures to solve them, or make a new

product. The improvement in C6 cognitive process

was because the students made a solution of a

problem that was presented then the students

planned a simple experiment based on information

or knowledge obtained in the scientific inquiry

process. The assumption test results could be seen in

Table 3.

Figure 1: The comparison of students' HOTS score in complex cognitive domain

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

678

Table 3: The result of assumption test

Class

∝

Assumption test Hypothesis

test

Normality Homogeneity

Sig. Shapiro Wilk Sig. Lavene Sig. (2-tailed) Mann-Whitney U

Pretest Control

0.05

0.000

0.21 0.140

Experiment 0.000

Posttest Control 0.000

0.75 0.000

Experiment 0.010

4 CONCLUSION

This study found that using integrated STEM

approach was effective to improve one capability

needed in the 21st century (HOTS). HOTS of

students who use this approach in learning increase

by 0.41 (represented by N-gain score) as a medium

category.

In each complex cognitive process, HOTS of

students also increase. The experimental and control

classes had the same N-gain category in C6 (create

process), they were in low category.

However, in C4 (analyze process) and C5

(evaluate process) had different category. The

experimental class was in the medium category and

the second class was in the low category. Therefore,

the results suggest that to improve HOTS of students

in learning physics, it would be effective using

integrated STEM approach.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

At the end, we express so much thank you to

administration office of State Islamic University,

supervisor, SMAN 10 South Tangerang, teacher, and

students who helped us in this study.

REFERENCES

A. F. Albab, S. Koes H, and S. Zulaikah, “Pengaruh E-

Scaffolding Dalam Think Pair Share Terhadap

Kemampuan Berpikir Tingkat Tinggi Dinamika

Partikel,” J. Pendidik. Sains, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–8,

2016.

A. Lewis and D. Smith, “Defining Higher Order,” Theory

into Pract. J., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 131–137, 1993.

A. M. Zaniewski and D. Reinholz, “Increasing STEM

Success: A Near-Peer Mentoring Program in The

Physical Sciences,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 3, no.

16, pp. 1–12, 2016.

A. Roberts and D. Cantu, “Applying STEM Instructional

Strategies to Design and Technology Curriculum,”

pp. 111–118, 2012.

A. T. Estapa and K. M. Tank, “Supporting Integrated

STEM in The Elementary Classroom: A

Professional Development Approach Centered on

An Engineering Design Challenge,” Int. J. STEM

Educ., vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 1–16, 2017.

C. C. Chinedu, Y. Kamin, and O. S. Olabiyi, “Strategies

for Improving Higher Order Thinking Skills in

Teaching and Learning of Design and Technology

Education,” J. Tech. Educ. Train., vol. 7, no. 2, pp.

35–43, 2015.

D. Fitriani, I. Kaniawati, and I. R. Suwarma, “Pengaruh

Pembelajaran Berbasis STEM (Science,

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) pada

Konsep Tekanan Hidrostatis terhadap Causal

Reasoning Siswa smp,” Pros. Semin. Nas. Fis., vol.

6, pp. 47–52, 2017.

E. Istiyono, D. Mardapi, and Suparno, “Pengembangan

Tes Kemampuan Tingkat Tinggi Fisika

(PhyTHOTS) Peserta Didik SMA,” J. Penelit. dan

Eval. Pendidik., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2014.

H. Firman, “Pendidikan STEM Sebagai Kerangka Inovasi

Pembelajaran Kimia untuk Meningkatkan Daya

Saing Bangsa Dalam Era Masyarakat Ekonomi

ASEAN,” in Prosiding Seminar Nasional Kimia dan

Pembelajarannya, 2016, p. 5.

H. N. Dinni, “HOTS (High Order Thinking Skills) dan

Kaitannya dengan Kemampuan Literasi

Matematika,” in Prisma (Prosiding Seminar

Nasional Matematika), 2018, p. 170.

I. Ferdiansyah, “Perbedaan Hasil Belajar Peserta Didik

Menggunakan Pendekatan STS, STES, dan STEM

pada Pembelajaran Konsep Virus,” UIN Syarif

Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2015.

I. P. Suwarna, “Laporan Penelitian Pengembangan Tata

Kelola Kelembagaan “Pengembangan Instrumen

Ujian Komprehensif Mahasiswa Melalui Computer

Based Test pada Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika",”

Jakarta, 2016.

I. S. Budiarti, A. Suparmi, Sarwanto, and Harjana,

“Analyzes of Students’ Higher-Order Thinking

Skills of Heat and Temperature Concept,” J. Phys.

Conf. Ser. Pap., p. 1, 2017.

J. A. Vasquez, C. Sneider, and M. Comer, STEM Lesson

Essentials. USA: Heinemann, 2013.

Kadir, Statistik Terapan Edisi Kedua. Jakarta: Rajawali,

2015.

L. D. English, “STEM education K-12 : Perspectives on

Connecting to 21st Century: Improve Students’ HOTS through Integrated STEM Approach in Learning Physics

679

Integration,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 3, no. 3, p. 7,

2016.

L. S. Nadelson and A. L. Seifert, “Integrated STEM

defined: Contexts, Challenges, and The Future,” J.

Educ. Res., vol. 110, no. 3, p. 221, 2017.

M. D. Kusuma, U. Rosidin, Abdurrahman, and A.

Suyatna, “The Development of Higher Order

Thinking Skill (Hots) Instrument Assessment In

Physics Study,” IOSR J. Res. Method Educ., vol. 7,

no. 1, p. 26, 2017.

M. Laforce et al., “The Eight Essential Elements of

Inclusive STEM High Schools,” Int. J. STEM Educ.,

vol. 2, no. 21, pp. 1–11, 2018.

M. Stohlmann, T. J. Moore, and G. H. Roehrig,

“Considerations for Teaching Integrated STEM

Education,” J. Pre-College Eng. Educ. Res., vol. 2,

no. 1, p. 30, 2012.

Mukiman, “Peningkatan Kualitas Pembelajaran

Pendayagunaan Teknologi Pendidikan,” Semin. Nas.

Teknol. Pendidikan. Surabaya, pp. 1–10, 2014.

N. Khaeroningtyas, A. Permanasari, and I. Hamidah,

“STEM Learning in Material of Temperature and Its

Change to Improve Scientific Literacy of Junior

High School Students,” J. Pendidik. IPA Indones.,

vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 94–100, 2016.

N. M. Tajudin and M. Chinnappan, “The Link between

Higher Order Thinking Skills , Representation and

Concepts in Enhancing TIMSS Tasks,” Int. J. Instr.,

vol. 9, no. 2, p. 200, 2016.

N. Martono, Statistik Sosial Teori dan Aplikasi Program

SPSS. Yogyakarta: Gava Media, 2010.

N. Mustafa, Z. Ismail, Z. Tasir, and M. N. H. M. Said, “A

Meta-Analysis on Effective Strategies for Integrated

STEM Education,” Am. Sci. Publ., vol. 12, p. 4228,

2016.

PISA 2015, “Assessment and Analytical Framework:

Science, Reading, Mathematics and Financial

Literacy,” 2016.

PISA 2015, “An Programme for International Students

Assessment Result from PISA 2015,” p. 8, 2016.

R. A. Serway and J. W. Jewett, Fisika untuk Sains dan

Teknik, Terj. dari PHYSICS for Scientists and

Engineers with Modern Physics oleh Chriswan

Sungkono. Jakarta: Salemba Teknika, 2014.

R. M. Magsino, “Enhancing Higher Order Thinking Skills

in a Marine Biology Class through Problem-Based

Learning,” Asia Pacific J. Multidiscip. Res., vol. 2,

no. 5, p. 5, 2014.

Rusman, Model-Model Pembelajaran Mengembangkan

Profesionalisme Guru. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo

Persada, 2010.

S. Ahmad, R. C. I. Prahmana, A. K. Kenedi, Y. Helsa, Y.

Arianil, and M. Zainil, “The Instruments of Higher

Order Thinking Skills,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., pp. 1–8,

2017.

S. Arikunto, Dasar Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta:

Bumi Aksara, 2015.

S. Damrongpanit and J. Chuensirimongkol, “Factors

Affecting Higher Order Thinking Skills of Students :

A Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Modeling

Study,” Acad. Journals, vol. 10, no. 19, pp. 2693–

2652, 2015.

S. M. Brookhart, Assess Higher Order Thinking Skills in

Your Classroom. USA: ASCD, 2010.

S. Moaveni and K. C. Chou, “Using the Five Whys

Method in the Classroom : How to Turn Students

into Problem Solvers,” J. STEM Educ., vol. 17, no.

4, pp. 35–41, 2016.

S. Sergis and P. Vlachopoulus, “Implementing Teaching

Model Templates for Supporting Flipped

Classroom-Enhanced STEM Education in Moodle,”

vol. 10, 2017.

S. Siswoyo, “High Order Thinking Skills: Analisis Soal

dan Implementasinya dalam Pembelajaran Fisika di

Sekolah Menengah Atas,” JPPPF - J. Penelit.

Pengemb. Pendidik. Fis., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 12, 2017.

Sucipto, “Pengembangan Keterampilan Berpikir Tingkat

Tinggi dengan Menggunakan Strategi Meta kognitif

Model Pembelajaran Problem Based Learning,” J.

Pendidik., vol. 2, no. 1, p. 63, 2017.

Sumarli, “Analisis Model Pembelajaran Tipe Think Pair

Share Berbasis Pemecahan Masalah terhadap

Keterampilan Berpikir Tingkat Tinggi Siswa,” J.

Ilmu Pendidik. Fis., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 8, 2018.

T. L. Larkin, “Topic Order in Introductory Physics and its

Impact on the STEM Curricular Ladder,” Int. J. Eng.

Pedagog., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 137, 2017.

T. P. P. BNSP, Paradigma Pendidikan Nasional Abad

XXI. Jakarta: Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan,

2010.

T. R. Kelley and J. G. Knowles, “A Conceptual

Framework for Integrated STEM Education,” Int. J.

STEM Educ., vol. 3, no. 11, p. 17, 2016.

X. Li and B. J. Van Wie, “Hands-on Tabletop Units for

Addressing Persistent Conceptual Difficulties in

Continuity and Frictional Loss in Fluid Mechanics,”

J. STEM Educ., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 47–54, 2016.

Y. Chen and C. Chang, “The Impact of an Integrated

Robotics STEM Course with a Sailboat Topic on

High School Students ’ Perceptions of Integrative

STEM, Interest, and Career Orientation,” EURASIA

J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 1–

19, 2018.

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

680