problem solving hots

• Grades 6-12
• School Leaders

Win a $1,000 gift certificate of your choice! ✨

70 Higher-Order Thinking Questions To Challenge Your Students (Free Printable)

Plus 45 lower-order thinking questions too.

Want to help your students make strong connections with subject material? Ensure you’re using all six levels of cognitive thinking. This means asking lower-order thinking questions as well as higher-order thinking questions. Learn more about them here, and find plenty of examples for each.

Plus get a printable sheet featuring all the higher-order and lower-order thinking questions featured below.

Lower-Order Thinking Skills Questions

Higher-order thinking skills questions, what are lower-order and higher-order thinking questions.

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a way of classifying cognitive thinking skills. The six main categories—remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create—are broken into lower-order thinking skills (LOTS) and higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). LOTS includes remember, understand, and apply. HOTS covers analyze, evaluate, and create.

While both LOTS and HOTS have value, higher-order thinking questions urge students to develop deeper connections with information. They also encourage kids to think critically and develop problem-solving skills. That’s why teachers like to emphasize them in the classroom.

New to higher-order thinking? Learn all about it here. Then use these lower-order and higher-order thinking questions to inspire your students to examine subject material on a variety of levels.

Remember (LOTS)

• Who are the main characters?
• When did the event take place?
• What is the setting of the story?

• Where would you find _________?
• How do you __________?
• What is __________?
• How do you define _________?
• How do you spell ________?
• What are the characteristics of _______?
• List the _________ in proper order.
• Name all the ____________.
• Describe the __________.
• Who was involved in the event or situation?

• How many _________ are there?
• What happened first? Next? Last?

Understand (LOTS)

• Can you explain why ___________?
• What is the difference between _________ and __________?
• How would you rephrase __________?
• What is the main idea?
• Why did the character/person ____________?

• What’s happening in this illustration?
• Retell the story in your own words.
• Describe an event from start to finish.
• What is the climax of the story?
• Who are the protagonists and antagonists?

• What does ___________ mean?
• What is the relationship between __________ and ___________?
• Provide more information about ____________.
• Why does __________ equal ___________?
• Explain why _________ causes __________.

Apply (LOTS)

• How do you solve ___________?
• What method can you use to __________?
• What methods or approaches won’t work?

• Provide examples of _____________.
• How can you demonstrate your ability to __________.
• How would you use ___________?
• Use what you know to __________.
• How many ways are there to solve this problem?
• What can you learn from ___________?
• How can you use ________ in daily life?
• Provide facts to prove that __________.
• Organize the information to show __________.

• How would this person/character react if ________?
• Predict what would happen if __________.
• How would you find out _________?

Analyze (HOTS)

• What facts does the author offer to support their opinion?
• What are some problems with the author’s point of view?
• How does the author use symbolism in this text?
• What common features do these characters share?
• How does the setting affect the characters and plot?
• What was a character’s motivation for a specific action?

• Compare and contrast two main characters or points of view.
• Discuss the pros and cons of _________.
• How would you classify or sort ___________?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of _______?
• How is _______ connected to __________?
• What caused __________?
• What are the effects of ___________?
• How would you prioritize these facts or tasks?
• How do you explain _______?
• What patterns can you identify in the data, and what might they mean?
• Which method of solving this equation is most efficient?
• Using the information in a chart/graph, what conclusions can you draw?
• What does the data show or fail to show?
• What is the theme of _________?
• Why do you think _______?
• What is the purpose of _________?
• What was the turning point?

Evaluate (HOTS)

• Is _________ better or worse than _________?
• What are the best parts of __________?
• How will you know if __________ is successful?
• Are the stated facts proven by evidence?
• What are the potential drawbacks?
• Was ______________ justified in their actions and choices?
• How does historical context affect your view of the person’s actions?
• Is the source reliable?

• What makes a point of view valid?
• Are any perspectives or points of view missing?
• Did the character/person make a good decision? Why or why not?
• Which _______ is the best and why?
• What biases can you identify in this text?
• How effective are/were the laws or policies in achieving their goals?
• What are the biases or assumptions in an argument?
• What is the value of _________?
• Is _________ morally or ethically acceptable?
• Does __________ apply to all people equally?
• How can you disprove __________?
• Does __________ meet the specified criteria?

• What could be improved about _________?
• Do you agree with ___________?
• Does the conclusion include all pertinent data?
• Does ________ really mean ___________?

Create (HOTS)

• How can you verify ____________?
• Design an experiment to __________.
• Defend your opinion on ___________.
• How can you solve this problem?
• Create a new character for the story, then describe their background and impact.
• How would you turn this story into a movie? What changes would you make to the plot and why?
• Rewrite a story with a better ending.

• How can you persuade someone to __________?
• Make a plan to complete a task or project.
• How would you improve __________?
• What changes would you make to ___________ and why?
• How would you teach someone to _________?
• What would happen if _________?
• What alternative can you suggest for _________?
• Write a new policy to solve a societal problem.
• How would you handle an emergency situation like ____________?
• What solutions do you recommend?
• How would you do things differently?

• What are the next steps?
• How can you improve the efficiency of this process?
• What factors would need to change in order for __________?
• Invent a _________ to __________.
• What is your theory about __________?

Get your free printable with higher-order and lower-order thinking skills questions

Just enter your email address on the form on this landing page to grab a copy of our printable sheet featuring all of the higher-order and lower-order thinking questions featured above. It’s perfect to keep on hand for use during lesson planning and instruction.

What are your favorite higher-order thinking questions? Come share in the We Are Teachers HELPLINE group on Facebook.

Plus, 100+ critical thinking questions for students to ask about anything ., you might also like.

100+ Critical Thinking Questions for Students To Ask About Anything

Critical thinkers question everything. Continue Reading

Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. 5335 Gate Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32256

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

• Critical Thinking and other Higher-Order Thinking Skills

Critical thinking is a higher-order thinking skill. Higher-order thinking skills go beyond basic observation of facts and memorization. They are what we are talking about when we want our students to be evaluative, creative and innovative.

When most people think of critical thinking, they think that their words (or the words of others) are supposed to get “criticized” and torn apart in argument, when in fact all it means is that they are criteria-based. These criteria require that we distinguish fact from fiction; synthesize and evaluate information; and clearly communicate, solve problems and discover truths.

Why is Critical Thinking important in teaching?

According to Paul and Elder (2007), “Much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced.  Yet the quality of our life and that of which we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought.”  Critical thinking is therefore the foundation of a strong education.

Using Bloom’s Taxonomy of thinking skills, the goal is to move students from lower- to higher-order thinking:

• from knowledge (information gathering) to comprehension (confirming)
• from application (making use of knowledge) to analysis (taking information apart)
• from evaluation (judging the outcome) to synthesis (putting information together) and creative generation

This provides students with the skills and motivation to become innovative producers of goods, services, and ideas.  This does not have to be a linear process but can move back and forth, and skip steps.

How do I incorporate critical thinking into my course?

The place to begin, and most obvious space to embed critical thinking in a syllabus, is with student-learning objectives/outcomes.  A well-designed course aligns everything else—all the activities, assignments, and assessments—with those core learning outcomes.

Learning outcomes contain an action (verb) and an object (noun), and often start with, “Student’s will....” Bloom’s taxonomy can help you to choose appropriate verbs to clearly state what you want students to exit the course doing, and at what level.

• Students will define the principle components of the water cycle. (This is an example of a lower-order thinking skill.)
• Students will evaluate how increased/decreased global temperatures will affect the components of the water cycle. (This is an example of a higher-order thinking skill.)

Both of the above examples are about the water cycle and both require the foundational knowledge that form the “facts” of what makes up the water cycle, but the second objective goes beyond facts to an actual understanding, application and evaluation of the water cycle.

Using a tool such as Bloom’s Taxonomy to set learning outcomes helps to prevent vague, non-evaluative expectations. It forces us to think about what we mean when we say, “Students will learn…”  What is learning; how do we know they are learning?

The Best Resources For Helping Teachers Use Bloom’s Taxonomy In The Classroom by Larry Ferlazzo

Consider designing class activities, assignments, and assessments—as well as student-learning outcomes—using Bloom’s Taxonomy as a guide.

The Socratic style of questioning encourages critical thinking.  Socratic questioning  “is systematic method of disciplined questioning that can be used to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don’t know, and to follow out logical implications of thought” (Paul and Elder 2007).

Socratic questioning is most frequently employed in the form of scheduled discussions about assigned material, but it can be used on a daily basis by incorporating the questioning process into your daily interactions with students.

In teaching, Paul and Elder (2007) give at least two fundamental purposes to Socratic questioning:

• To deeply explore student thinking, helping students begin to distinguish what they do and do not know or understand, and to develop intellectual humility in the process
• To foster students’ abilities to ask probing questions, helping students acquire the powerful tools of dialog, so that they can use these tools in everyday life (in questioning themselves and others)

How do I assess the development of critical thinking in my students?

If the course is carefully designed around student-learning outcomes, and some of those outcomes have a strong critical-thinking component, then final assessment of your students’ success at achieving the outcomes will be evidence of their ability to think critically.  Thus, a multiple-choice exam might suffice to assess lower-order levels of “knowing,” while a project or demonstration might be required to evaluate synthesis of knowledge or creation of new understanding.

Critical thinking is not an “add on,” but an integral part of a course.

• Make critical thinking deliberate and intentional in your courses—have it in mind as you design or redesign all facets of the course
• Many students are unfamiliar with this approach and are more comfortable with a simple quest for correct answers, so take some class time to talk with students about the need to think critically and creatively in your course; identify what critical thinking entail, what it looks like, and how it will be assessed.

Additional Resources

• Barell, John. Teaching for Thoughtfulness: Classroom Strategies to Enhance Intellectual Development . Longman, 1991.
• Brookfield, Stephen D. Teaching for Critical Thinking: Tools and Techniques to Help Students Question Their Assumptions . Jossey-Bass, 2012.
• Elder, Linda and Richard Paul. 30 Days to Better Thinking and Better Living through Critical Thinking . FT Press, 2012.
• Fasko, Jr., Daniel, ed. Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Current Research, Theory, and Practice . Hampton Press, 2003.
• Fisher, Alec. Critical Thinking: An Introduction . Cambridge University Press, 2011.
• Paul, Richard and Linda Elder. Critical Thinking: Learn the Tools the Best Thinkers Use . Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.
• Faculty Focus article, A Syllabus Tip: Embed Big Questions
• The Critical Thinking Community
• The Critical Thinking Community’s The Thinker’s Guides Series and The Art of Socratic Questioning

Quick Links

• Developing Learning Objectives
• Creating Your Syllabus
• Active Learning
• Service Learning
• Case Based Learning
• Group and Team Based Learning
• Integrating Technology in the Classroom
• Effective PowerPoint Design
• Hybrid and Hybrid Limited Course Design
• Online Course Design

Consult with our CETL Professionals

Consultation services are available to all UConn faculty at all campuses at no charge.

Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Education

Teaching Students to Think Critically

• Applied Behavior Analysis
• Behavior Management
• Lesson Plans
• Math Strategies
• Reading & Writing
• Social Skills
• Inclusion Strategies
• Individual Education Plans
• Becoming A Teacher
• Assessments & Tests
• Elementary Education
• Secondary Education
• Homeschooling

Higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) is a concept popular in American education. It distinguishes critical thinking skills from low-order learning outcomes, such as those attained by rote memorization. HOTS include synthesizing, analyzing, reasoning, comprehending, application, and evaluation.

HOTS is based on various taxonomies of learning, particularly the one created by Benjamin Bloom in his 1956 book, "Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. " Higher-order thinking skills are reflected by the top three levels in Bloom’s Taxonomy: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

Bloom's Taxonomy and HOTS

Bloom's taxonomy is taught in a majority of teacher-education programs in the United States. As such, it may be among the most well-known educational theories among teachers nationally. As the Curriculum & Leadership Journal notes:

"While Bloom’s Taxonomy is not the only framework for teaching thinking, it is the most widely used, and subsequent frameworks tend to be closely linked to Bloom’s work.... Bloom’s aim was to promote higher forms of thinking in education, such as analyzing and evaluating, rather than just teaching students to remember facts (rote learning)."

Bloom’s taxonomy was designed with six levels to promote HOTS. The six levels were: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. (The taxonomy's levels were later revised as remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, revising, and creating.) The lower-order thinking skills (LOTS) involve memorization, while higher-order thinking requires understanding and applying that knowledge.

The top three levels of Bloom's taxonomy—which is often displayed as a pyramid, with ascending levels of thinking at the top of the structure—are analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. These levels of the taxonomy all involve critical or higher-order thinking. Students who can think are those who can apply the knowledge and skills they have learned to new contexts. Looking at each level demonstrates how HOTS is applied in education.

Analysis , the fourth level of Bloom's pyramid, involves students use their own judgment to begin analyzing the knowledge they have learned. At this point, they begin understanding the underlying structure of knowledge and also are able to distinguish between fact and opinion. Some examples of analysis would be:

• Analyze each statement to decide whether it is fact or opinion.
• Compare and contrast the beliefs of W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington.
• Apply the rule of 70 to determine how quickly your money will double at 6 percent interest.
• Illustrate the differences between the American alligator and the Nile crocodile.

Synthesis, the fifth level of Bloom’s taxonomy pyramid, requires students to infer relationships among sources , such as essays, articles, works of fiction, lectures by instructors, and even personal observations. For example, a student might infer a relationship between what she has read in a newspaper or article and what she has observed herself. The high-level thinking skill of synthesis is evident when students put the parts or information they have reviewed together to create new meaning or a new structure.

At the synthesis level, students move beyond relying on previously learned information or analyzing items that the teacher is giving to them. Some questions in the educational setting that would involve the synthesis level of HOTS might include:

• What alternative would you suggest for ___?
• What changes would you make to revise___? 
• What could you invent to solve___?

Evaluation , the top level of Bloom's taxonomy, involves students making judgments about the value of ideas, items, and materials. Evaluation is the top level of Bloom’s taxonomy pyramid because at this level, students are expected to mentally assemble all they have learned to make informed and sound evaluations of the material. Some questions involving evaluation might be:

• Evaluate the Bill of Rights and determine which is the least necessary for a free society.
• Attend a local play and write a critique of the actor’s performance.
• Visit an art museum and offer suggestions on ways to improve a specific exhibit.

HOTS in Special Education and Reform

Children with learning disabilities can benefit from educational programming that includes HOTS. Historically, their disabilities engendered lowered expectations from teachers and other professionals and led to more low-order thinking goals enforced by drill and repetition activities. However, children with learning disabilities can develop the HOTS that teach them how to be problem solvers.

Traditional education has favored the acquisition of knowledge, especially among elementary school-age children, over the application of knowledge and critical thinking. Advocates believe that without a basis in fundamental concepts, students cannot learn the HOTS they will need to survive in the work world.

Reform-minded educators, meanwhile, see the acquisition of problem-solving skills—higher-order thinking—to be essential to this very outcome. Reform-minded curricula, such as the Common Core , have been adopted by a number of states, often amid controversy from traditional education advocates. At heart, these curricula emphasize HOTS over strict rote memorization as the means to help students achieve their highest potential.

• The 44 Sounds in the English Language
• Diphthongs: The Sliding Vowels
• Asking Better Questions With Bloom's Taxonomy
• Functional Skills: Skills to Help Special Education Students Gain Independence
• Report Card Comments for English Classes at School
• Mathematics for Special Education: Skills for Primary Grades
• Project Based Learning for Special Education and Inclusion
• 10 Ways to Keep Your Class Interesting
• Multi-Sensory Instruction in Math for Special Education
• The Gold Standard for Special Education Teachers
• 20 Consonant Blends: Spelling and Sounds
• Practice Social Skills With Free Worksheets for Kids
• Text Mapping as a Strategy for Understanding Intent
• Social Skill Resources for Special Education
• How to Brainstorm in the Classroom
• 8 First Day of High School Activities to Get to Know Your Students

Higher Order Thinking Skills

• First Online: 12 September 2020

Cite this chapter

• Afsaneh Ghanizadeh 5 ,
• Ali H. Al-Hoorie 6 &
• Safoura Jahedizadeh 5  

Part of the book series: Second Language Learning and Teaching ((SLLT))

1843 Accesses

4 Citations

The focus of this book is on cultivating higher order thinking skills (HOTS) in language classes. It aims to serve as a guidebook for language teachers and students. Although the book is intended to be a practical toolkit for readers, some introductory discussion on HOTS from a theoretical standpoint is helpful in ushering the reader to the practical chapters that follow. Although it might be tempting to leap to HOTS-enhancing techniques and procedures without exploring theoretical standpoints, this may actually result in a superficial and cursory understanding of the following chapters. One of the tenets underlying the present book is that teachers and teacher educators need to realize the significance and rationale of HOTS and become familiar with the different dimensions of HOTS before they can effectively foster these skills in their students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The English Language Department, Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Iran

Afsaneh Ghanizadeh & Safoura Jahedizadeh

The English Language and Preparatory Year Institute, Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu, Jubail Industrial City, Saudi Arabia

Ali H. Al-Hoorie

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Afsaneh Ghanizadeh .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ghanizadeh, A., Al-Hoorie, A.H., Jahedizadeh, S. (2020). Higher Order Thinking Skills. In: Higher Order Thinking Skills in the Language Classroom: A Concise Guide. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56711-8_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56711-8_1

Published : 12 September 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-56710-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-56711-8

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Developing higher order thinking skills

Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) move students' thought processes beyond just memorising information. How can you go about building these skills into your everyday teaching and what are some of the simple activities you can use in the classroom?

These questions were explored in a recent sharing session with 100 primary educators in Bandung, hosted by the Indonesia office of the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) in collaboration with GagasCeria school. Presenter Stewart Monckton – a Research Fellow at ACER – says the simple message is that if we teach children to think, rather than just remember, all of their academic performance will improve.

‘Facts are still important, but these days we have different ways of getting them. A smartphone can bring facts to me at the speed of the internet connection. Facts are easier to get hold of – we should think about what we do with the facts, and this is HOTS. It's about moving beyond remembering to understanding, using, making things which are new, solving problems.'

What are Higher Order Thinking Skills?

Bloom's taxonomy revised. (From Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D.R., et al (2001).

‘All around the world, teachers have started to use this approach to thinking skills,' Monckton says. ‘Students can be at different points. It's important to remember these skills are not age related. It is not simply that the low level skills are for young children and the higher order ones are for older children – this is not how it works.'

He told the sharing session there are three areas where these skills really start to happen in the classroom:

• Transfer – remembering, understanding and being able to use what you're learning in a new situation;
• Critical thinking – exercising judgement or producing a reasoned critique of an argument; and,
• Problem solving – finding a solution to an (unfamiliar) problem that cannot be solved using memorised faces or procedures

Where to start

Monckton, who has 20 years' experience as a teacher across the year levels, says these skills are not something extra that needs to be done, they've been in our curriculum all along and this should be the starting point for teachers. To illustrate the point, he shared several examples of statements from the Australian Curriculum that use terminology such as ‘consider', ‘assess', ‘evaluate' and ‘construct'.

‘Go looking to the existing curriculum and find out where they already hide and reveal them. Chances are, it will just be a small change in the way you have to teach. It's not something enormous to start with.

‘My advice is to keep it at the forefront of your thinking when you're planning your lessons, talking to your students, and talking to your colleagues. And when you're thinking about classroom activities, don't even think about trying to include every single aspect of HOTS in one activity – it's too much and it won't work. Think about picking one.'

He says it's important for teachers to separate the difficulty caused by the question from the difficulty caused by the thinking. ‘They need to be difficult thinking questions, not difficult questions structurally.'

For example: student ability may make a question difficult or easy; as may the length of answer expected (a one word answer or an essay); and asking a student to correctly name a number between one and 1000, for example, is difficult, but it has nothing to do with HOTS – although, asking students to devise a strategy to identify the number in the least number of questions might be.

‘Setting our children problem-solving tasks where we don't know what the solution is, that's a higher order thinking skill. Complicated questions are important, but you need to get the level of complication correct – it needs to be complicated enough to allow different children to do different things that answer the question, in different ways.

‘If you're doing a thinking skills exercise in your classroom and everyone thinks the same thing, it's probably not working. If you have a thinking skills exercise in your classroom, different people need to think different things. The HOTS activity also needs to be open enough to allow for low level thinking and high level thinking, and for students of different abilities.'

Simple classroom activities

Monckton illustrated how two simple activities using the same set of common resources found in any school can help you to build HOTS into your classroom practice.

Take three (or more) balls – think about selecting different sizes, colours, patterns, materials and shapes.

• Ask children to sort them into two different groups, and to explain their thinking. This is an activity that can be accessed by all abilities where there is no right or wrong set of answers. Students will come up with lots of different answers and the same groupings will throw up different reasons and discussions. To encourage people to think about the thinking of others, you can ask students to identify the process that others have used to sort.
• Using the same resources, choose a surface to drop them onto. Drop them from different heights. Get the students to discuss and predict what's happening with each ball and why. What will happen if you switch the surface (to grass, for example)? What will happen if you roll them along the floor instead of dropping them, or roll them down a sloping surface?

‘With simple resources, you can immediately get your young children to start collecting information. Ball type one and ball type two. You drop them from the same height. Why does that one bounce higher? The key idea is not that they get the answer correct – the key idea is that they think about possible reasons why.

‘When the students have an explanation for one context, change the context (a different floor, for example). Does the explanation still make sense? What new thinking is needed? What “old” thinking can be retained? It's about thinking about the answer, rather than giving children the correct answer. If, at some points in your curriculum, there are sections about energy and energy transfer, then you can start to think about that, but you don't have to.'

Monckton says not everything you ask children to do has to be higher order thinking. ‘Scaffold the activity with some lower order thinking skills to start with, to help children unpack the task or the data and get them to think about it in simple ways, before you start asking them to think about it in a more complicated way.'

The sharing session focused mainly on science-based examples, but he adds there are lots of simple activities you can use across all subject areas.

Taking small steps

‘Higher Order Thinking Skills really are just a way of improving everyday teaching. My key takeaway message is to think about how we can just slowly, and surely build these skills into your classroom,' Monckton told the sharing session.

‘It's not something that has to occur all in one go, by tomorrow. It's an important step, but it can be achieved in small steps – teachers are flexible, intelligent and resourceful, a good question posed in the middle of the lesson can create more HOTS than you would imagine.'

Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., ... & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Addison Wesley Longman: New York.

Choose a section of the curriculum you’re currently working with. Make a list of the curriculum statements that mention higher order thinking skills.

Now, think about a lesson or topic unit you’re due to teach and choose one of the skills to focus on. Work with a colleague to plan a simple activity to introduce the skill into your classroom practice.

Related articles

Higher-Order Thinking Skills

Adele sewell.

February 27, 2023

How can we enhance the quality of thinking in our classrooms, and what strategies can we use to promote higher-order thinking?

Sewell, A (2023, February 27). Higher-Order Thinking Skills. Retrieved from https://www.structural-learning.com/post/higher-order-thinking-skills

Defining Higher order thinking skills

Higher-order thinking skills can be traced back to Socrates and Plato , when problem-solving was linked to critical thinking . Higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) are something that has been well-researched and is something we are led to aspire to in our classrooms.

Research suggests higher-order thinking skills promote student success and achievement , giving them a wealth of transferable skills. It is often documented and evaluated in observed sessions as the questioning techniques teachers use to support learning.

However, questions are only one way to promote higher-order skills, as there are many other ways, such as debate, problem-based learning and constructing meaning from materials presented.

Higher-order thinking skills can be used in educational settings as a way to support student learning. Instructors and teachers can design instructional activities that require students to use problem-solving, critical thinking, decision making and evaluation to learn a subject more effectively.

By doing so, they can promote higher-order thinking skills that enable students to think beyond the basics and apply their learning in more meaningful ways . This could help equip students with 21st-century skills they can carry throughout their lives.

Research on higher-order thinking skills is mainly conducted through cross-sectional studies, which compare a specific group of students at different points in time to track the development of their cognitive abilities . These studies have revealed that when given the right opportunity and resources to develop their thinking skills , students demonstrate tremendous growth over a short period of time.

In this article, we will explore how fluid reasoning skills can be used to promote the acquisition of knowledge needed to understand abstract concepts in our curriculum.

Why are higher-order thinking skills important?

Higher-order thinking skills, such as convergent thinking, creative thinking, and analytical thinking, are essential for students to develop in order to succeed in today's world. The learning process in classrooms should prioritize the nurturing of these skills , as they allow students to tackle complex problems, understand abstract concepts and synthesize knowledge from various sources.

Exploratory activities that promote creative thinking, especially in problem-solving, can be particularly valuable to students. They help students to think outside the box and to develop original ideas. It encourages them to take risks and experiment with various solutions, which are skills that they can use in everyday life, as well as real-life situations.

Analytical thinking skills are also important, as they enable students to break down complex problems and to understand the underlying process concepts. This makes it easier for students to manage information and make informed decisions. These skills can also help students to better understand and interpret abstract concepts, which can be particularly challenging for some students .

In order to promote higher-order thinking skills, educators can incorporate activities that foster analytical, creative and convergent thinking. Group activities, debates and problem-solving activities are particularly effective in promoting these skills. It is also important for students to have access to a diverse range of resources and to have the opportunity to collaborate with their peers. By nurturing these critical higher-order thinking skills, students will be better prepared to tackle challenges, solve problems, and succeed in the ever-evolving world.

Promoting higher-order thinking

We seek to promote higher-order thinking skills that will enable our students to justify their ideas to themselves and others. They are essentially those of evaluation, criticality and justification that students must develop through practice.

This involves the teacher providing opportunities for debate and critical reflection. Teachers, therefore, should look to providing materials before a lesson or sourcing materials before the session to facilitate rather than teach content directly.

Higher-order thinking skills are linked to stretch, challenge, differentiation, and active learning techniques . They are also associated with Bloom's taxonomy and can therefore be related to supporting children's early development of cognitive skills. Ennis (1987) states that Bloom's analysis , synthesis and evaluation skills should be considered Higher Order skills. This is a valuable idea but can confuse the teacher by applying such categorization.

Much of the research points to higher-order skills being more incidental in the classroom rather than a thought-out strategy that promotes thinking through a problem to sustain a line of reasoning or justify their ideas.

One way we can encourage questioning that is higher order is to think before our sessions about what questions we want to ask our students based on the pre-planned content. Using this simple strategy will then support teachers to not just think on their feet with questions but think in advance of how to help thinking, allowing them to utilize their pedagogical content knowledge.

Definitions encompass constructivism principles such as fluidity of thought, complex problem solving and interacting with the world around us to develop new concepts, as Dewey (1938) advocates.

Further, Vygotsky argued that higher mental abilities could only develop through interaction with others. He, therefore, proposed that children are born with elementary cognitive skills such as memory and perception and that higher mental functions develop from these through the influence of social interactions.

Benefits of nurturing Higher Order Thinking Skills

Having a rich repertoire of thinking skills can help students express themselves more clearly. Possessing a range of thinking skills enables learners to construct deeper meaning and comprehension.

Using such tools as the Frayer model or CREATE can help to support understanding. By engaging in metacognition strategies , students will retain information and be better able to use and apply it to new situations. Developing levels of thinking beyond lower-order thinking skills is something that requires practice. Practitioners should therefore seek to find situations to support collaborative learning as, like everything, requires practice.

Suppose the course is carefully designed around student-learning outcomes , and some of those outcomes have a robust critical-thinking component. In that case, the final assessment of your student's success at achieving the outcomes will be evidence of their critical thinking ability.

Multiple-choice exams are good at detecting the key facts, but they don't go any deeper than that. Students need to use the new knowledge in productive ways to showcase their full breadth of understanding.

As Schulz ( 2016) and Resnick (2001) point out, this may have a detriment on learning as students who have not been taught a demanding, challenging, thinking curriculum do poorly on tests of reasoning or problem. Heong (2012) cautions us that students with weak thinking skills cannot effectively perform cognitive and metacognitive-based tasks. They are therefore placed at a disadvantage in the education system.

Higher-order thinking skills are an approach in education that separates critical thinking techniques from low-order learning approaches, such as rote and memorisation. By promoting higher-order thinking, students are supported to understand, categorise, manipulate, infer, connect and apply information.

How can higher-order thinking skills be promoted?

Teachers who plan to teach and extend students' higher-order thinking skills promote growth for their students . Higher-order thinking is promoted through a range of skills :

Transfer of knowledge - the student's ability to apply knowledge and skills to new contexts (for example, a student in learning about fractions applied his/her knowledge to a real-world scenario)

Critical thinking - the ability to reason, reflect, and decide what to believe or do next through analysis of text, reports and debate. Instead of taking things at face value, a critical thinker uses logic and reason to evaluate the information.

Problem-solving - meeting a goal that cannot be met with a memorised solution (Brookhart, 2010, 2011). This will involve planning through cooperative learning techniques. This technique requires a leap of faith in that students should control the planning, direction and organization of a task or problem.

Create something new - we are going beyond receiving and evaluating knowledge. We move up to generate new knowledge based on our experiences and intellect.

Lateral thinking – Lateral thinkers take alternative routes to develop under-utilized or creative solutions to problems. ‘Lateral’ means to approach from the side rather than head-on.

Divergent thinking – Divergent thinking refers to the process of generating multiple possible ideas from one question. It is common when we engage in brainstorming, and it allows people to find creative solutions to problems.

Convergent thinking – Convergent thinking is about gathering facts to come up with an answer or solution.

Counterfactual thinking – Counterfactual thinking involves asking “what if?” questions in order to think of alternatives that may have happened if there were small changes made here and there. It is useful for reflective thinking and self-improvement.

Synthesizing – When we synthesize information, we gather information from multiple sources, identifying trends and themes and bringing it together into one review or evaluation of the knowledge base.

Invention – Invention occurs when something entirely new is created for the first time. For this to occur, a person must have a thorough understanding of existing knowledge and the critical and creative thinking skills to build upon it.

Metacognition – Metacognition refers to “thinking about thinking”. It’s a thinking skill that involves reflecting on your thinking processes and how you engaged with a task to seek improvements in your own thinking processes.

Evaluation – Evaluation goes beyond reading for understanding. It moves up to the level of assessing the correctness, quality, or merits of information presented to you.

Abstract thinking – Abstraction refers to engaging with ideas in theoretical rather than practical ways. The step up from learning about practical issues to applying practical knowledge to abstract, theoretical, and hypothetical contexts is considered higher-order.

Identifying logical fallacies – students are asked to look at arguments and critique their use of logic.

Open-ended questioning : Instead of asking yes/no questions, teachers try to ask questions requiring full-sentence responses. This can lead students to think through and articulate responses based on critique and analysis rather than simple memorization.

Active learning : By contrast, when students actually complete tasks themselves, they are engaging in active learning.

High expectations : This involves the teacher insisting students try their hardest in all situations. Often, low expectations allow students to ‘coast along’ with simple memorization and understanding and don’t ask them to extend their knowledge.

Scaffolding and modelled instruction : Often, students don’t fully understand how to engage in higher-order thinking. To address this, teachers demonstrate how to think at a high level, then put in place scaffolds like question cards and instruction sheets that direct students toward higher levels of thinking.

Critiques of Higher order thinking

There are two central critiques of the concept of higher-order thinking and its applications in education:

It is not linear: Sometimes, lower-order thinking is challenging and requires great skill, while other higher-order tasks can be objectively much easier. For example, the ability to simply follow a piece of logic in a graduate-level physics class (supposedly lower-order) requires much greater cognitive skill than the ability to create something in a grade 7 math class (creativity being higher-order). Thus, simply engaging in higher-order thinking doesn’t tell us everything we should know about someone’s cognitive and intellectual capacity.

Focus on thinking rather than outcomes: John Biggs argues that the use of Bloom’s taxonomy is insufficient for curriculum design because it focuses on often unassessable internal cognitive processes rather than the outcomes of those processes.

The Impact of Technology on Higher-Order Thinking in the Classroom

The digital revolution has had a profound impact on the development of higher-order thinking skills in the classroom, transforming traditional teaching methods and expanding the horizons of both educators and students.

The introduction of innovative platforms such as White Rose Maths , Hegarty Maths, and TTRS has fostered a synthesis of knowledge, seamlessly merging cognitive processing with student-learning outcomes. These platforms, akin to the interconnected neurons in the brain, enable students to connect the dots between previously unrelated concepts, promoting deeper understanding and critical thinking.

The application of c ooperative learning techniques , facilitated by technology, has redefined the way students engage with concrete concepts and navigate the various levels of the solo taxonomy. By encouraging collaboration and the sharing of diverse perspectives, technology empowers learners to explore complex ideas in a multidimensional manner.

This process mirrors the construction of a vibrant mosaic, where each individual contributes a unique piece to form a coherent and comprehensive image.

In this new era of digital learning, educators must embrace technology as a powerful tool to enhance higher-order thinking skills. Research by Kozma (1991) , Jonassen and Reeves (1996) , and Wenglinsky (1998) highlights the potential of technology to improve critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication abilities in students.

By incorporating these dynamic resources into the classroom, teachers can create an enriching environment that fosters the growth of cognitive abilities and ensures students are well-equipped to navigate the challenges of the 21st century.

Promoting deeper human cognition across your school

Strategies that teachers may use in their classes to encourage higher-order and critical thinking skills include:

Posing provocative questions, statements or scenarios to generate discussion (for example, the use of 'what if' questions). The questioning matrix is a very useful tool.

Requiring students to explain concepts using analogies, similes and metaphors. This requires the teacher to unpick words, find alternatives and allow students to construct their own meaning from the content presented.

Posing problems with no single solution or multiple pathways to a solution. This approach involves learners being given the time and space to complete a task and be supported to 'fail' at finding a solution. Developing problem-solving skills requires developing resilience in students to enable them to fail at a task.

Modelling a range of problem-solving strategies using concept mapping to assist students in making connections between and within ideas.

Posing paradoxes for students to consider (for example: In a study of World War 1, students can be presented with the statement: 'War nurses saved lives, but they also contributed to deaths') creating an 'I wonder' wall in your classroom: depth of knowledge table (informed by Webb 2002)

Developing higher-order thinking skills with our students enables them to assess, evaluate, apply and synthesise information. These skills enhance comprehension, which makes communication more effective. Which, in turn, will support students to achieve in the education system .

Furth reading on developing lifelong learning

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. D., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom ‘s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay , 20, 24.

Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain . New York: David McKay.

Byrne, R. M. J. (2005). The rational imagination: How people create alternatives to reality . MA: MIT Press.

Cannella, G. S., & Reiff, J. C. (1994). Individual constructivist teacher education: Teachers as empowered learners. Teacher education quarterly , 27-38.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Eber, P. A., & Parker, T. S. (2007). Assessing Student Learning: Applying Bloom’s Taxonomy. Human Service Education , 27 (1).

Flinders, D., & Thornton, S. (2013). The curriculum studies reader. (4th Ed.). New York: Routledge.

Golsby-Smith, Tony (1996). Fourth order design: A practical perspective. Design Issues, 12(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511742

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 212-218.

Additionally, here are five key studies exploring higher order thinking skills (HOTS) and their implications in the classroom, providing diverse perspectives on how researchers have explored this notion and promoted it in educational settings:

• Singh and Marappan (2020) discuss the importance of HOTS in English Language Teaching (ELT), highlighting challenges like teachers' lack of expertise and motivation , and recommending further training and resources to enhance HOTS in students.
• Yurniwati and Utomo (2020) examine the effectiveness of a problem-based learning flipped classroom design in developing HOTS during the COVID-19 pandemic, finding it beneficial for self-directed learning and collaboration among students.
• Diena, Wilujeng, and Perdana (2023) emphasize the necessity of integrating HOTS in science learning and outline supporting components such as teacher competence, technology, strategy, and student motivation for successful HOTS-based learning.
• Richland and Simms (2015) propose that analogical reasoning is a key component of higher order thinking in education, arguing that it can enhance understanding across various subjects by fostering the ability to compare and map structured relationships .
• Ghifari (2021) explores instructional design processes for developing students' HOTS in mathematics, focusing on non-routine problem-solving, critical and creative thinking, and knowledge construction for meaningful learning .

These studies collectively underscore the critical role of HOTS in contemporary education, illustrating various strategies for enhancing these skills among students across different subjects and educational levels.

Enhance Learner Outcomes Across Your School

Download an Overview of our Support and Resources

We'll send it over now.

Please fill in the details so we can send over the resources.

What type of school are you?

We'll get you the right resource

Is your school involved in any staff development projects?

Are your colleagues running any research projects or courses?

Do you have any immediate school priorities?

Please check the ones that apply.

Download your resource

Thanks for taking the time to complete this form, submit the form to get the tool.

Classroom Practice

K-12 Resources By Teachers, For Teachers Provided by the K-12 Teachers Alliance

• Teaching Strategies
• Classroom Activities
• Classroom Management
• Technology in the Classroom
• Professional Development
• Lesson Plans
• Writing Prompts
• Graduate Programs

Teaching Strategies that Enhance Higher-Order Thinking

Janelle cox.

• October 16, 2019

One of the main 21st century components that teachers want their students to use is higher-order thinking. This is when students use complex ways to think about what they are learning.

Higher-order thinking takes thinking to a whole new level. Students using it are understanding higher levels rather than just memorizing facts. They would have to understand the facts, infer them, and connect them to other concepts.

Here are 10 teaching strategies to enhance higher-order thinking skills in your students.

1. Help Determine What Higher-Order Thinking Is

Help students understand what higher-order thinking is. Explain to them what it is and why they need it. Help them understand their own strengths and challenges. You can do this by showing them how they can ask themselves good questions. That leads us to the next strategy.

2. Connect Concepts

Lead students through the process of how to connect one concept to another. By doing this you are teaching them to connect what they already know with what they are learning. This level of thinking will help students learn to make connections whenever it is possible, which will help them gain even more understanding. For example, let’s say that the concept they are learning is “Chinese New Year.” An even broader concept would be “Holidays.”

3. Teach Students to Infer

Teach students to make inferences by giving them “real-world” examples. You can start by giving students a picture of a people standing in line at a soup kitchen. Ask them to look at the picture and focus on the details. Then, ask them to make inferences based on what they see in the picture. Another way to teach young students about how to infer is to teach an easy concept like weather. Ask students to put on their raincoat and boots, then ask them to infer what they think the weather looks like outside.

4. Encourage Questioning

A classroom where students feel free to ask questions without any negative reactions from their peers or their teachers is a classroom where students feel free to be creative. Encourage students to ask questions, and if for some reason you can’t get to their question during class time, show them how they can answer it themselves or have them save the question until the following day.

5. Use Graphic Organizers

Graphic organizers provide students with a nice way to frame their thoughts in an organized manner. By drawing diagrams or mind maps, students are able to better connect concepts and see their relationships. This will help students develop a habit of connecting concepts.

6. Teach Problem-Solving Strategies

Teach students to use a step-by-step method for solving problems. This way of higher-order thinking will help them solve problems faster and more easily. Encourage students to use alternative methods to solve problems as well as offer them different problem-solving methods.

7. Encourage Creative Thinking

Creative thinking is when students invent, imagine, and design what they are thinking. Using creative senses helps students process and understand information better. Research shows that when students utilize creative higher-order thinking skills , it indeed increases their understanding. Encourage students to think “outside of the box.”

8. Use Mind Movies

When concepts that are being learned are difficult, encourage students to create a movie in their mind. Teach them to close their eyes and picture it like a movie playing. This way of higher-order thinking will truly help them understand in a powerful, unique way.

9. Teach Students to Elaborate Their Answers

Higher-order thinking requires students to really understand a concept, not repeat it or memorize it. Encourage students to elaborate their answers by asking the right questions that make students explain their thoughts in more detail.

10. Teach QARs

Question-Answer-Relationships, or QARs, teach students to label the type of question that is being asked and then use that information to help them formulate an answer. Students must decipher if the answer can be found in a text or online or if they must rely on their own prior knowledge to answer it. This strategy has been found to be effective for higher-order thinking because students become more aware of the relationship between the information in a text and their prior knowledge, which helps them decipher which strategy to use when they need to seek an answer.

• #CreativeThinking , #HigherOrderThinking , #TeachingStrategies

More in Teaching Strategies

How to Build Resilience in Students

As a child, having the ability to bounce back after something goes wrong…

Teacher Hacks You Need to Try This School Year

As you gear up for another exciting year of learning and fun it’s…

Empowering Students to Become Problem-Solving Champions

Have you ever stood in front of the classroom and thought about all…

How Podcasts in the Classroom Can Power Up Learning

If you’re looking for a new and exciting way to engage learners while…

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 08 January 2021

Examining the key influencing factors on college students’ higher-order thinking skills in the smart classroom environment

• Kaili Lu 1 ,
• Harrison H. Yang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4836-835X 1 , 2 ,
• Yinghui Shi 1 &
• Xuan Wang 1  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  18 , Article number:  1 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

19k Accesses

115 Citations

9 Altmetric

Metrics details

To understand the development of students’ higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) in the smart classroom environment, a structural equation modeling analysis was used to examine the relationships between key factors that influence students’ learning and their HOTS within a smart classroom environment. A sample of 217 first-year Chinese college students, who studied in a smart classroom environment for one semester, completed a survey that measures their smart classroom preferences, learning motivation, learning strategy, peer interaction, and HOTS. The results indicated that peer interaction and learning motivation had a direct impact on students’ HOTS. Furthermore, indirect effects were found between students’ learning strategy and HOTS through the mediator peer interaction, and between smart classroom preferences and HOTS through the following: learning motivation, the combination of learning strategy and peer interaction, and the combination of learning motivation, learning strategy and peer interaction. Based on these findings, this study recommends that instructors teaching in a smart learning environment should focus on improving peer interaction and learning motivation, as well as smart classroom preferences and learning strategy, to hone students’ HOTS.

Introduction

Smart classrooms have gained the attention of scholars and educators worldwide. In 2017, the EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research identified technology-enabled learning environments as a strategic investment for colleges and universities (Brooks 2017 ; Lee et al. 2019 ). It also predicted that the smart classroom would become widely utilized by 2022.

The term ‘smart classroom’ refers to a physical classroom that integrates advanced forms of educational technology. Such an environment provides opportunities for student learning and participation in formal educational learning experiences that exceed what traditional classrooms can offer (Macleod et al. 2018 ). Li et al. ( 2015 ) identify four features of the smart classroom. First, the smart classroom is a technology-rich learning environment that combines physical and virtual spaces. Second, the smart classroom provides information and communication technology tools, learning resources, and interaction support for various teaching and learning activities, including personalized learning, group learning, inquiry-based learning, collaborative learning, mobile learning, and virtual learning. Third, the smart classroom is capable of storing, collecting, computing, and analyzing learners’ data in order to make optimized pedagogical decisions. Fourth, the smart classroom is an open environment that brings the learners to an authentic learning context. Previous studies have also indicated that the smart classroom environment can stimulate students’ learning motivation, promote active learning, and improve academic performance (Jena 2013 ; Liu et al. 2011 ). However, the impact of the smart classroom environment on students’ higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) is less clear.

The importance of HOTS has been emphasized by policymakers, educators, researchers, and the general public (Abosalem 2016 ; Elfeky 2019 ; Lu et al. in press). Upon conducting an analysis of previous studies, Hwang et al. ( 2017 ) identified three HOTS: problem-solving, critical thinking, and creativity. Problem-solving refers to the ability to identify a problem, collect and analyze relevant information, select and implement a relevant solution. Critical thinking refers to the ability to analyze information objectively, think clearly and rationally, and make a reasoned judgment. Creativity refers to being able to create new objects and develop innovative ideas and methods by elaborating upon, refining, analyzing, and evaluating existing ones.

Researchers argue that HOTS fall under the umbrella of twenty-first-century skills, which comprise the essential skills that youth need to prepare for the future (Ananiadou and Claro 2009 ; Collins 2014 ). Therefore, it is important for educators to identify and use learning environments that stimulate the development of students’ HOTS.

Purpose of this research

To date, few studies have been done from the students’ perspective on the relationships between the key factors influencing students’ learning and students’ HOTS, when they are instructed in a smart classroom context. Only one recent study by Wu et al. ( 2019 ) has attempted to investigate the effects of students’ learning motivation, learning style, and internet attitude on their HOTS in the smart classroom. Their study examined data from 784 students in primary schools and found that students’ learning style and internet attitude had a direct impact on the students’ HOTS, but learning motivation did not have a significant impact on their HOTS. Furthermore, the influence of other key learning factors on HOTS in the smart classroom has remained unclear. Particularly, very few studies have explored the relationship between the key factors influencing college students’ learning and their HOTS within the smart classroom environment. Understanding the factors that influence HOTS can help educators and curriculum designers develop more rigorous learning opportunities and assessment tools.

Thus, this study aims to fill the existing research gap by investigating the following research question:

What are the relationships of the key factors influencing student learning and college students’ HOTS in a smart classroom environment?

Research framework

Previous studies have explored the various factors that are associated with student achievements in terms of skills and knowledge in other learning environments. In general, the key factors that influence student learning include classroom preference (Moore 1989 ; Tsai 2008 ), learning motivation (Pintrich 1999 ), learning strategy (Garcia and Pintrich 1992 ), and peer interaction (Hwang et al. 2017 ; Osman et al. 2011 ).

Learning environment preferences

Learning environment preferences refer to students’ perceptions of a specific learning environment (Fraser 1998 ). Accordingly, students’ smart classroom preferences (SCP) are about their perceptions of the smart classroom (MacLeod et al. 2018 ). Students’ preferences toward a certain learning environment have increasingly drawn attention from educators; it is believed that if educators know about their students’ perspectives of their learning environment, they can make the necessary adjustments (Chuang and Tsai 2005 ).

Previous studies indicate that classroom preferences affect students’ learning in different educational environments. For example, Chang et al. ( 2010 ) found that students’ learning outcomes were in alignment with their environment preferences in a classroom setting where student-centered and teacher-centered instructional approaches coexisted. Furthermore, Hwang et al. ( 2017 ) found that student preferences toward the mobile learning environment were related to HOTS.

• Learning motivation

Learning motivation (LM) prompts individuals to take actions that will help them achieve a goal, or fulfill a need or expectation in the learning process (Gopalan et al. 2017 ). Although there is no consensus on the matter, a prominent study conducted by Pintrich et al. ( 1991 ), which identifies the three general motivational constructs: value, expectancy, and affect.

Previous studies demonstrated that students’ LM is a fundamental link between student performance and achievement in various learning environments. For example, Roberts and Dyer ( 2005 ) found that students’ learning motivation could be associated with their critical thinking, an aspect of HOTS, in an online learning environment. Similarly, Gong et al. ( 2020 ) stated that students’ learning motivation had a direct impact on their computational thinking skills, which includes creativity, algorithmic thinking, cooperation, critical thinking, and problem-solving in a flipped classroom setting. Conversely, Wu et al. ( 2019 ) reported that students’ learning motivation did not affect HOTS in the smart classroom environment.

• Learning strategy

Learning strategy (LS) refers to “a set of processes or steps that can facilitate the acquisition, storage, and/or utilization of information” (Dansereau 1985 ). A key study of LS by Pintrich et al. ( 1991 ) identifies cognitive, metacognitive, and resource management strategies as the main components of LS.

Researchers have determined that LS positively influences student skills and knowledge development in learning environments. Mayer ( 1998 ) argued that the cognitive and metacognitive components of LS had an important influence on successful problem-solving in traditional academic settings. This view has been supported by Gong et al. ( 2020 ) who reported that students’ learning strategy had a direct impact on certain HOTS such as creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving in a flipped classroom environment. Moreover, Wilgis and Mcconnell ( 2008 ) and Soltis et al. ( 2015 ) found that specific learning strategies such as process-oriented, guided inquiry and concept mapping could significantly improve students’ HOTS in a blended learning environment.

• Peer interaction

Peer interaction (PI) is “a form of cooperative learning that enhances the value of student-to-student interaction and results in different advantages of learning outcomes” (Christudason n. d.). Hwang et al. ( 2017 ) have indicated that PI includes collaboration and communication skills. Specifically, collaboration is the ability of two or more people to work together and share their perspectives and ideas with respect to achieving learning goals or completing learning tasks. Communication refers to the ability to ‘‘articulate thoughts and ideas effectively by using oral, written and nonverbal communication skills in a variety of forms and contexts’’ (Frazier and Reynolds 2012 ).

Previous studies point out that PI is an important factor influencing students’ learning outcomes. For example, Tsai et al. ( 2011 ) found that students’ PI could be a predictor of HOTS in a constructivist context-aware ubiquitous learning environment. Hwang et al. ( 2017 ) also verified that collaboration and communication were positively related to HOTS in a mobile learning environment.

The relationships between learning environment preferences, LM, LS, and PI

Previous studies have explored the relationship between learning environment preferences, LM, LS, and PI in various educational contexts (Al-Khaldi and Al-Jabri 1998 ; Houle 1996 ; Hwang et al. 2017 ; Tsai 2008 ). For example, Houle ( 1996 ), as well as Al-Khaldi and Al-Jabri ( 1998 ), argued that students’ classroom preferences could affect students’ learning motivation in the technology-supported classroom. Moreover, Tsai ( 2008 ) found that students’ preferences toward the constructivist Internet-based learning environment were related to their learning strategies and outcomes.

In addition, existing research shows that both learning motivation and learning strategy have positive influences on peer interaction (King 1991 ; Yang and Chang 2011 ). For instance, Yang and Chang ( 2011 ) found that learning motivation was positively related to students’ peer interactions in an interactive blogging learning environment. Besides, Tsuei ( 2011 ) found that a peer-assisted learning strategy was positively related to peer interaction in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Furthermore, existing research has shown that motivation has a critical effect on strategy choices (Ellis 1994 ; Gong et al. 2020 ). For example, Gong et al. ( 2020 ) reported that there was a positive relationship between LM and LS in the flipped classroom instruction environment.

The relational model and hypotheses

Based on our review of related studies, we believe that students’ learning environment preferences, LM, LS, and PI can influence student achievements related to skills and knowledge in various learning environments (Ananiadou and Claro 2009 ; Pintrich et al. 1991 ; Tsai et al. 2011 ). Therefore, as shown in Fig.  1 , we assume that SCP, LM, LS, and PI may influence students’ HOTS when they are taught in a smart classroom. Our hypotheses are as follows:

Proposed research model and hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 (H1):

The level of SCP will be positively related to the degree of college students’ HOTS within a smart classroom environment.

Hypothesis 2 (H2):

The level of LM will be positively related to the degree of college students’ HOTS within a smart classroom environment.

Hypothesis 3 (H3):

The level of LS will be positively related to the degree of college students’ HOTS within a smart classroom environment.

Hypothesis 4 (H4):

The level of PI will be positively related to the degree of college students’ HOTS within a smart classroom environment.

Hypothesis 5 (H5):

The level of SCP will be positively related to the degree of college students’ LM within a smart classroom environment.

Hypothesis 6 (H6):

The level of SCP will be positively related to the degree of college students’ LS within a smart classroom environment.

Hypothesis 7 (H7):

The level of LM will be positively related to the degree of college students’ LS within a smart classroom environment.

Hypothesis 8 (H8):

The level of SCP will be positively related to the degree of college students’ PI within a smart classroom environment.

Hypothesis 9 (H9):

The level of LM will be positively related to the degree of college students’ PI within a smart classroom environment.

Hypothesis 10 (H10):

The level of LS will be positively related to the degree of college students’ PI within a smart classroom environment.

Participants

To investigate the research question, this study used a total number of 217 students enrolled in the Ideological and Moral Cultivation and Legal Basis (IMCLB) course at a university in central China. Both the course and the university were purposely selected for two reasons. Firstly, the course is a compulsory general course for all first-year students at the university. As such, the number of students taking the course allowed us to collect a sufficient number of participants from different disciplines. Secondly, the university attaches great importance to information technology and has built several smart classrooms. All university instructors are provided with training opportunities to learn how to use smart classroom technologies, and were encouraged to conduct their instructional practices in the smart classroom. Particularly, most instructors of the IMCLB course at this university have taught its content in the smart classroom for 3 years.

At this university, the IMCLM course is a semester (12 weeks) long. Instructors and students meet one or two times per week. All classes refer to the same learning materials and facilities in the smart classrooms. Participating students were organized into groups for learning activities. Each group had 4–5 students, organized in a cluster seating arrangement, allowing them to interact with one another and easily work together.

Instruments

The survey adopted elements of the Collaboration, Communication, Critical Thinking, Problem-solving and Creativity Awareness questionnaire (4C1PA), the Preference Instrument of Smart Classroom Learning Environments (PI-SCLE), and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) to measure students’ HOTS, PI, SCP, LM, and LS.

The 4C1PA was developed by Hwang et al. ( 2017 ), and consists of five dimensions capturing students’ HOTS and their tendency to engage in PI. The HOTS tendency subscale (alpha = 0.888) consists of a three-dimensional construct: problem-solving, critical thinking, and creativity. Each dimension has three items. One representative item of this scale is: “I like to observe something I haven’t seen before and understand it in detail.” The Peer Interaction subscale (alpha = 0.858) consists of a two-dimensional construct: collaboration and communication. Each dimension has three items. One representative item of this scale is: “I try to provide useful and sufficient information when I conduct collaborative learning.” All items of 4C1PA were evaluated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The PI-SCLE was developed by MacLeod et al. ( 2018 ), and includes eight distinct dimensions: student negotiation, inquiry-based learning, reflective thinking, functional design, connectedness, ease of use, perceived usefulness, and multiple sources (alpha = 0.951). Each dimension has three items. All items were evaluated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). ‘‘In the smart classroom learning environment, I prefer that I can get the chance to talk to other students’’ is one representative item of the student negotiation dimension.

The MSLQ was developed by Pintrich et al. ( 1991 ), and includes LM (alpha = 0.833) and LS (alpha = 0.863). LM has three dimensions: value component (8 items), expectancy component (5 items), and affective component (3 items). LS has two dimensions: cognitive and metacognitive strategy (14 items) and resource management strategy (11 items). All items were evaluated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). One representative item of LM is “In a class like this, I prefer course material that really challenges me so I can learn new things.”

Data collection and analysis

Data were collected at the end of the semester. Before the survey was administered, permission was granted by the university to conduct the research. All 217 participants were introduced to the purpose of the research by a researcher of this study during their instructor’s absence. Participants were informed that their information would only be used for educational research and that their survey results would not affect their grades in the course. All responses were both anonymous and given voluntarily. The survey was issued during a mid-class break, then imported into SPSS 22.0 and SmartPLS 3.2.8 for data analysis. A structural equation modeling analysis was conducted to analyze the relationships between the key influencing factors and students’ HOTS.

Results and discussion

The partial least square (PLS) method was used to verify the proposed research model. PLS was appropriate for the sample size of this study (Chin 1998 ; Gefen et al. 2000 ) and well-suited for testing theories in the early stages of development (Fornell and Bookstein 1982 ). Hair et al. ( 2014 ) introduced the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) as a goodness of fit measure for PLS-SEM that can be used to avoid model misspecification. In general, a value less than 0.08 is considered a good fit (Hu and Bentler 1998 ). The value of SRMR of the model in this study was 0.06, thus, the goodness of fit for the proposed model was verified as acceptable.

Confirming the measurement model

The measurement model was assessed by the reliability of measures, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. As shown in Table 1 , the average variance extracted (AVE) values for all factors were over 0.6, which suggested adequate convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981 ). The reliability of the measurement model was examined using the composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha.

Findings indicated that the composite reliability (CR) coefficients were over 0.8, which demonstrated satisfactory reliability (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994 ). Cronbach’s alpha was over 0.8 and within acceptable limits (Helmstadter 1964 ). Furthermore, to evaluate the discriminant validity, the square roots of AVE were compared to correlations among latent variables (Fornell and Larcker 1981 ), in which all latent correlations were less than the corresponding AVE square roots. Table 1 shows the results of the measurement model. In sum, the adequacy of the measurement model indicates that all the items were reliable indicators of the hypotheses they were purposed to measure.

Structural equation modeling analysis

A structural model was used to test the hypotheses using path coefficients (β value), R 2 value, and t-value bootstrapping (500 resamples) (Cohen 1988 ). The PLS path modeling estimation for this study is shown in Fig.  2 . Path coefficients along with the associated t-values are provided and the variance given is explained.

The structural model for HOTS

Findings reflect that H2, H4, H5, H6, H7 and H10 are supported, while H1, H3, H8, and H9 are rejected. LM (β = 0.244, p < 0.001) and PI (β = 0.665, p < 0.001) were positively related to HOTS, collectively accounting for 58.3% of R 2 . In addition, SCP (β = 0.286, p < 0.001) and LM (β = 0.505, p < 0.001) positively impacted LS, accounting for 48.4% of R 2 . SCP (β = 0.510, p < 0.001) had a significant positive effect on LM as well, accounting for 26% of R 2 . Furthermore, LS (β = 0.298, p < 0.01) had a significantly positive effect on peer interaction, accounting for 16.9% of R 2 .

Analysis of indirect and total effects among key factors

Further, the direct and indirect effects of factors in each hypothesis were examined (Ullman and Bentler 2003 ). As shown in Fig.  2 and Table 2 , SCP had both direct and indirect influences on LS, and LM mediated the indirect influence. Furthermore, although SCP had no direct influence on HOTS, there were three indirect paths leading from SCP towards HOTS, where LM, LS, and PI acted as partial mediators. In addition, LM had both direct and indirect influence on HOTS. An indirect effect is reflected in the path from LM to HOTS through LS and PI, which suggests that the combination of LS and PI can also mediate the relationships between LM and HOTS.

Discussion of results

This study revealed that PI and LM were directly related to students’ HOTS in the smart classroom environment. This result may be explained by the fact that the smart classroom is a student-centered learning environment. Unlike the traditional teacher-centered classroom, a student-centered classroom is a place where the students are actively involved in the learning process (Utecht 2003 ). In a student-centered class, students no longer only rely on their instructor to give them instructions. Instead, students actively communicate, collaborate, and learn from each other, as well as apply and improve their critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity skills (Jones 2007 ). It can thus be confirmed that PI and LM are two primary factors to students’ HOTS in a smart classroom. This finding suggests that instructors should endeavor to enhance students’ PI and LM, in order to promote students’ HOTS in the smart classroom environment. For instance, instructors should provide the opportunity for students to engage in self-directed learning, explore high-interest topics and ideas, work collaboratively on projects, and share in decision-making during the learning process (Jones 2007 ; Yang 2001 ; Yang et al. 2000 ).

It is interesting to note that although students’ SCP and LS had no direct effect on HOTS, both did have a significant and positive indirect effect on HOTS. First, the finding that SCP had no direct effect on HOTS was consistent with the previous study (Hwang et al. 2017 ), which found that students’ preferences toward the mobile learning environment had an indirect effect on HOTS via students’ interaction. This finding may be explained by the fact that HOTS were used to describe students’ learning outcomes, which are directly related to cognitive activities. Additionally, learning environment preferences were used to describe students’ perceptions of their learning environment. Second, different from a previous study (Gong et al. 2020 ), this study found that LS had no direct effect on HOTS. This result could be explained by the fact that this study was conducted in the smart classroom environment, which is different from previously used learning environments. In the smart classroom, students were more engaged in the self-directed learning activities. Students’ LS may directly reflect on PI, thus, LS had indirect effect on HOTS via PI.

This study found that SCP positively impacted LM and LS, and LS had a significantly positive effect on PI. Furthermore, the association between SCP and HOTS was mediated by learning motivation, the combination of learning motivation, learning strategy and peer interaction, and also by the combination of learning strategy and peer interaction. Meanwhile, LS had a significant and positive indirect effect on HOTS via the mediating factor peer interaction. This finding suggests that, in order to develop students’ HOTS in the smart classroom environment, instructors and instructional designers should also take SCP and LS into account. For instance, to best meet students’ learning needs, interests, strategies, and abilities, instructors and instructional designers should better incorporate the constructs of the smart classroom environment and technology into the learning process. These constructs include student negotiation, inquiry learning, reflective thinking, ease of use, perceived usefulness, multiple sources, connectedness, and functional design (MacLeod et al. 2018 ).

Conclusions and future research

Given the importance of HOTS and the prevalence of smart classrooms in higher education, it is critical to understand the relationships between students’ HOTS and the key influencing factors, when learning in a smart classroom environment. This study proposed a research model and used a survey to collect data from 217 college students who had learning experience within a smart classroom environment. A structural equation modeling analysis method was used to explore the relationships between the four key factors influencing student learning (SCP, LM, LS, and PI) and students’ HOTS. The results of this study expand our knowledge of these key factors affecting students’ problem-solving, critical thinking, and creativity skills. These results can be used to inform educational processes and pedagogy, which will improve students’ HOTS in the smart classroom environment. The most significant findings of this study indicate that students’ PI and LM directly impact students’ HOTS in the smart classroom. In contrast, SCP and LS do not directly impact HOTS. This study supports the work of other studies, suggesting that peer interaction and learning motivation positively affects students’ ability to learn knowledge and skills in their learning environments (Gong et al. 2020 ; Hwang et al. 2017 ; Roberts and Dyer 2005 ; Tsai et al. 2011 ). In summary, the results of this study indicate that, in order to develop students’ HOTS, instructors should consider students’ learning motivation, peer interaction, learning strategy, and preferences toward the smart classroom when analyzing, designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating learning activities in a smart classroom environment.

While the present research has important implications, it still has limitations. It should be noted that we have only examined four important factors that influence student learning via a structural equation modeling analysis method. Moreover, the context was limited to one subject area conducted in the smart classroom environment. Future research is encouraged to involve more subject areas and more related factors, such as students’ learning styles and approaches to studying, and teaching methods and strategies. Particularly, future studies should extend to different subject areas with other related factors and employ a mixed-methods approach, like adding follow-up interviews or qualitative answers to capture the opinion of the students, to support the triangulation of quantitative results.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

• Higher-order thinking skills
• Smart classroom preferences

Partial least square

Composite reliability

Average variance extracted

Abosalem, Y. (2016). Assessment techniques and students’ higher-order thinking skills. International Journal of Secondary Education, 4 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsedu.20160401.11 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Al-Khaldi, M. A., & Al-Jabri, I. M. (1998). The relationship of attitudes to computer utilization: New evidence from a developing nation. Computers in Human Behavior, 14 (1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0747-5632(97)00030-7 .

Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers . https://doi.org/10.1787/218525261154 .

Brooks, D. C. (2017, March). Active learning classrooms: The top strategic technology for 2017. EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research report. Retrieved May 7, 2020, from https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2017/3/active-learning-classrooms-the-top-strategic-technology-for-2017 .

Chang, C., Hsiao, C., & Chang, Y. (2010). Science learning outcomes in alignment with learning environment preferences. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20 (2), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9240-9 .

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Google Scholar  

Christudason, A. (n. d.). What is peer interaction/learning. Retrieved June 11, 2020, from https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/peer-interaction-learning/22184 .

Chuang, S., & Tsai, C. (2005). Preferences toward the constructivist Internet-based learning environments among high school students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 21 (2), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.015 .

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences . Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

MATH   Google Scholar  

Collins, R. (2014). Skills for the 21st century: Teaching higher-order thinking. Curriculum & Leadership Journal, 12 (14). Retrieved July 6, 2020, from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/teaching_higher_order_thinking,37431.html .

Dansereau, D. F. (1985). Learning strategy research. Thinking and Learning Skills, 1, 209–239.

Elfeky, A. I. M. (2019). The effect of personal learning environments on participants’ higher order thinking skills and satisfaction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56 (4), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1534601 .

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (4), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151718 .

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 .

Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527–561). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Frazier, K., & Reynolds, E. (2012). Power up your creative mind . Illinois: Pieces of Learning.

Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1992). Critical thinking and its relationship to motivation, learning strategies and classroom experience. In The 100th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4 (1), 7.

Gong, D., Yang, H. H., & Cai, J. (2020). Exploring the key influencing factors on college students’ computational thinking skills through flipped-classroom instruction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00196-0 .

Gopalan, V., Bakar, J. A. A., Zulkifli, A. N., Alwi, A., & Mat, R. C. (2017, October). A review of the motivation theories in learning. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1891 (1), 020043. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005376 .

Hair, J. F., Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about partial least squares: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann.  Faculty Publications. 3666 . https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/facpubs/3666 .

Helmstadter, G. C. (1964). Principles of psychological measurement . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Houle, P. A. (1996). Toward understanding student differences in a computer skills course. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14 (1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.2190/c06x-g9uq-6bub-ypty .

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological methods, 3 (4), 424–453.

Hwang, G., Lai, C., Liang, J., Chu, H., & Tsai, C. (2017). A long-term experiment to investigate the relationships between high school students’ perceptions of mobile learning and peer interaction and higher-order thinking tendencies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66 (1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9540-3 .

Jena, P. C. (2013). Effect of smart classroom learning environment on academic achievement of rural high achievers and low achievers in science. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 3 , 1–9. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ilshs.3.1 .

Jones, L. (2007). The student-centered classroom . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

King, A. (1991). A strategy for enhancing peer interaction and learning during teacher training sessions. Teacher Education Quarterly, 18 (1), 15–28.

Lee, Y., Yang, H. H., Macleod, J., & Dai, J. (2019). Developing the rotational synchronous teaching (RST) model: Examination of the connected classroom climate. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology . https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4010 .

Li, B., Kong, S. C., & Chen, G. (2015). Development and validation of the smart classroom inventory. Smart Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-015-0012-0 .

Liu, M., Horton, L., Olmanson, J., & Toprac, P. (2011). A study of learning and motivation in a new media enriched environment for middle school science. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59 (2), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9192-7 .

Lu, K., Yang, H. H., & Xue, H. (in press). Investigating the four-level inquiry continuum on college students’ higher order thinking and peer interaction tendencies. International Journal of Innovation and Learning .

Macleod, J., Yang, H. H., Zhu, S., & Li, Y. (2018). Understanding students’ preferences toward the smart classroom learning environment: Development and validation of an instrument. Computers & Education, 122, 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.015 .

Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003088013286 .

Moore, W. S. (1989). The learning environment preferences: Exploring the construct validity of an objective measure of the Perry scheme of intellectual development. Journal of College Student Development, 30 (6), 504–514.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Osman, G., Duffy, T. M., Chang, J., & Lee, J. (2011). Learning through collaboration: Student perspectives. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12 (4), 547–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9156-y .

Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31 (6), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-0355(99)00015-4 .

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) . Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.

Roberts, T. G., & Dyer, J. E. (2005). The relationship of self-efficacy, motivation, and critical thinking disposition to achievement and attitudes when an illustrated web lecture is used in an online learning environment. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46 (2), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2005.02012 .

Soltis, R., Verlinden, N., Kruger, N., Carroll, A., & Trumbo, T. (2015). Process-oriented guided inquiry learning strategy enhances students’ higher level thinking skills in a pharmaceutical sciences course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education . https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe79111 .

Tsai, C. (2008). The preferences toward constructivist Internet-based learning environments among university students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.12.002 .

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Tsai, P., Tsai, C., & Hwang, G. (2011). Developing a survey for assessing preferences in constructivist context-aware ubiquitous learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28 (3), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00436.x .

Tsuei, M. (2011). Development of a peer-assisted learning strategy in computer-supported collaborative learning environments for elementary school students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42 (2), 214–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01006.x .

Ullman, J. B., & Bentler, P. M. (2003). Structural equation modeling. Handbook of psychology , 607–634. Retrieved March 22, 2020, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118133880.hop202023 .

Utecht, J. R. (2003). Problem-based learning in the student centered classroom. Digital Media. Retrieved May 13, 2020, from http://jeffutecht.com/docs/PBL.pdf .

Wilgis, M., & Mcconnell, J. (2008). Concept mapping: An educational strategy to improve graduate nurses’ critical thinking skills during a hospital orientation program. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 39 (3), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20080301-12 .

Wu, D., Xing, D., & Lu, C. (2019). The effects of learner factors on higher-order thinking in the smart classroom environment. Journal of Computers in Education, 6 (4), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00146-4 .

Yang, C., & Chang, Y. (2011). Assessing the effects of interactive blogging on student attitudes towards peer interaction, learning motivation, and academic achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28 (2), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00423.x .

Yang, H. H. (2001). Mission possible: Project-based learning preparing graduate students for technology. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2855–2857). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Yang, H., Shindler, J., & Keen, A. (2000). Minds on, hands on: The linear-nonlinear problem-solving approach to a multimedia and Internet course. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 738–743). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Ping Mei, Dr. Hui Xue, Dr. Bingguo Xu, and all the participating students for their support in this study.

This work is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61907019).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Engineering Research Center for E-Learning, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

Kaili Lu, Harrison H. Yang, Yinghui Shi & Xuan Wang

School of Education, State University of New York at Oswego, 232 Wilber Hall, Oswego, NY, 13126, USA

Harrison H. Yang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

KL undertook the research, collected the data, and prepared the initial manuscript. HY provided the intellectual input, revised and finalized the manuscript. YS participated in the preparation of the manuscript. XW analyzed the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harrison H. Yang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lu, K., Yang, H.H., Shi, Y. et al. Examining the key influencing factors on college students’ higher-order thinking skills in the smart classroom environment. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 18 , 1 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00238-7

Download citation

Received : 15 July 2020

Accepted : 26 November 2020

Published : 08 January 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00238-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Smart classroom

We apologize for the inconvenience...

To ensure we keep this website safe, please can you confirm you are a human by ticking the box below.

If you are unable to complete the above request please contact us using the below link, providing a screenshot of your experience.

https://ioppublishing.org/contacts/

• Previous Article
• Next Article

How are students’ higher order thinking skills (HOTS) in mathematical problem solving viewed from the ability to understand mathematical concepts?

[email protected]

[email protected]

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Reprints and Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Ika Putri Lenawati , Wasilatul Murtafiah , Sanusi; How are students’ higher order thinking skills (HOTS) in mathematical problem solving viewed from the ability to understand mathematical concepts?. AIP Conf. Proc. 14 September 2022; 2633 (1): 030004. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0102166

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

The process of learning mathematics requires Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) to solve various mathematical problems. The HOTS of each student is different, one of which is influenced by students' understanding of mathematical concepts. This study aims to determine the students' HOTS in solving mathematical problems on the flat shape material based on the ability to understand students' mathematical concepts. This type of research is qualitative research. Data collection techniques were carried out by test and interview methods. The subjects in this study were three fourth grade students at SD Islam Terpadu Adzkia Indonesia consisting of one student with high concept understanding ability, one student with moderate concept understanding ability, and one student with low concept understanding ability. The data validity technique uses a time triangulation technique. Technical data analysis uses data reduction, data presentation, and conclusions. The results of this study indicate that the HOTS of students with high conceptual understanding abilities have the ability of HOTS indicators in the aspects of (a) analyzing, (b) evaluating, (c) and creating. Students with moderate concept understanding ability have the ability of HOTS indicator in the aspects of (a) analyzing, and (b) evaluating. Students with low concept understanding ability do not have the ability of HOTS indicator.

Citing articles via

Publish with us - request a quote.

Sign up for alerts

• Online ISSN 1551-7616
• Print ISSN 0094-243X
• For Researchers
• For Librarians
• For Advertisers
• Our Publishing Partners  
• Physics Today
• Conference Proceedings
• Special Topics

pubs.aip.org

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Connect with AIP Publishing

This feature is available to subscribers only.

Sign In or Create an Account

Help Your Child Solve the Toughest Primary School Maths Word Problems

What are maths heuristics, master word problems in paper 2, singapore’s first: step-by-step heuristic animations, hassle-free experience for parents, koobits math premium.

Billed Annually in SGD

Frequently Asked Questions

No, KooBits is not online tuition. Instead, it’s an online platform that motivates kids to practise online consistently. There are no tutors or in-person lessons. Students are free to learn by themselves for as long as they want to.

This powerful way of learning boosts knowledge retention and naturally leads to more practice sessions than traditional methods. Some parents admitted that their kids asked them for more practice time with KooBits too!

Yes, KooBits is a perfect supplement to your child’s tuition. KooBits reinforces a child’s knowledge, so they benefit more from an in-person class. Instead of waiting for tuition to clarify doubts, your child can rely on KooBits for help anywhere, anytime.

The school’s version does not have the Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS), a feature used for heuristics practice. This is available only in Premium. Click here to upgrade.

Yes, you can print out word problems worksheets. We’ve designed the worksheets to follow exam-paper format so your child can get used to it. Click here to get free access.

Yes, heuristics will help your child excel in all areas of maths. Heuristics also sharpen critical thinking skills which can boost your child’s performance in other areas.

We require credit card/PayPal information to verify our users and to keep our community of students safe. But don’t worry as you won’t be charged during the 7-day trial period. You may cancel anytime before your trial ends too.

Our Offerings

• For Schools
• Download Parent App

Our Company

Let's connect.

• 50 MacPherson Rd, #05-01 Amazana, Singapore 348471