Inventory for Measuring Higher-Order Thinking Learning Environment

The research aims to obtain empirical evidence of the reliability, dimensionality, and validity of instruments of higher-order thinking learning environment inventory (HOTLEI). Data was collected using quantitative methods with the Rasch model analysis. The numbers sample is 1361 students from 15 junior high schools in DKI Jakarta, West Java, and Banten. The research concluded that the measurement reliability was at a good level and excellent in extensive trials. The HOTLEI fulfils unidimensionality adequacy based on raw variance explained of 31.6% and 42.3%, and eigenvalues less than 3.0. A mount of 32 valid items is categorised as productive for HOTLEI measurement.

REFERENCES:

• Andrich, D., & Marais, I. (2019). A Course in Rasch Measurement Theory. In Advances in Measurement in Educational Research and Assessment. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978–008043348–6/50005-x
• Bond, T. G., Yan, Z., & Heeme, M. (2021). Applying the Rasch Model Fundamental Measurement in the Human Science. In Routledge Taylor & Francis (Fourth). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410614575
• Bonem, E. M., Fedesco, H. N., & Zissimopoulos, A. N. (2020). What you do is less important than how you do it: the effects of learning environment on student outcomes. Learning Environments Research, 23(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984–019–09289–8
• Boone, W. J., & Staver, J. R. (2020). Advances in Rasch Analyses in the Human Sciences. In Advances in Rasch Analyses in the Human Sciences. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-030–43420–5_21
• Chan, M., & Subramaniam, R. (2020). Validation of Science Concept Inventory by Rasch Analysis. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Rasch Measurement: Applications in Quantitative Educational Research (pp. 159–178). Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
• Chun, T. C., & Yen, M. N. L. B. A. (2019). The Teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Malaysian Schools: Policy and Practices. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management (MOJEM), 7(3), 1–18.
• Creswell, W. J., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. In SAGE. Sage Publications, Inc.
• Fraser, B. J. (2023). The Evolution of the Field of Learning Environments Research. Education Sciences, 13(3), 257. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030257
• Galos, S., & Aldridge, J. M. (2021). Relationships between learning environments and self-efficacy in primary schools and differing perceptions of at-risk students. Learning Environments Research, 24(2), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984–020–09323–0
• Kwangmuang, P., Jarutkamolpong, S., Sangboonraung, W., & Daungtod, S. (2021). The development of learning innovation to enhance higher order thinking skills for students in Thailand junior high schools. Heliyon, 7(6), e07309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07309
• Lim, C. T. D., & Fraser, B. J. (2018). Learning environments research in English classrooms. Learning Environments Research, 21(3), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984–018–9260–6
• Linacre, J.  M. (2018). A  User’s Guide to Winsteps. winstep.com. http://homes.jcu.edu.au/~edtgb/%5Cnpapers3://publication/uuid/D56B724A-62FF-4D00–84E1-ECC888298B70
• López, V., Torres-Vallejos, J., Ascorra, P., Villalobos-Parada, B., Bilbao, M., & Valdés, R. (2018). Construction and validation of a classroom climate scale: a mixed methods approach. Learning Environments Research, 21(3), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984–018–9258–0
• Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192
• Sekwena, G.  L. (2023). Active Learning Pedagogy for Enriching Economics Students’ Higher Order Thinking Skills. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 22(3), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.3.15
• Taber, K. S. (2018). The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165–016–9602–2
• White, M. (2022). Sample size in quantitative instrument validation studies: A systematic review of articles published in Scopus, 2021. Heliyon, 8(12), e12223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12223