Results of the quantitative study

This part of the chapter presents the results of analysing the data collected through questionnaires. Four groups were formed: teacher intervention and control groups and student intervention and control groups. On the basis of the teacher and student questionnaire items, four dependent variables were identified: perceptions of student cognitive skills, perceptions of student thinking dispositions, perceptions of methods for developing student cognitive skills, and perceptions of methods for developing student thinking dispositions. Each variable includes a number of categories that reflect various aspects of the HOTS intervention. In order to examine whether the HOTS intervention programme affected the perceptions of academic and pedagogical skills of teachers and thinking habits of students, all dependent variables and associated categories were measured by using Likert scales (1 – 6: Strongly disagree to Strongly agree respectively), prior to and after the intervention. Data distributions of the variables were tested for normality, using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test (see Methodology, Table 3.4). The results of the above test demonstrate that, since the variables differ significantly (p>0.05) from a normal N (0, 1) distribution, null hypothesis is rejected. The variables do not meet the assumptions of parametric tests which, therefore, are not supported for these variables.

4.2.1 Mann-Whitney U-test for comparing the teacher control and intervention groups

Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences between two statistically independent samples (i.e. results from one sample do not affect results in other sample) (Gorder & Foreman, 2009). Four tests (1-4) were conducted to make comparisons between the pre- and post-intervention scores for the control and intervention teacher groups and between the scores for each group.

122

Table 4.1: Mann-Whitney U-Test comparisons of the intervention and control teacher groups

Teachers Intervention group

Pre-intervention Control group Post-intervention Control group Pre-intervention Intervention group Post-intervention Test 1

H0: There is no difference between the

distributions of the responses of the intervention group teachers and the control group responses.

H1: There is a difference between the

distributions of the responses of the intervention group teachers and the control group responses.

Test 3

H0: There is no difference between the

distributions of the pre-intervention and post- intervention responses of the intervention group teachers.

H1: There is a difference between the

distributions of the pre-intervention and post- intervention responses of the intervention group teachers.

Test 2

H0: There is no difference between the

distributions of the pre-intervention and post- intervention control group responses.

H1: There is a difference between the

distributions of the pre-intervention and post- intervention control group responses.

Test 4

H0: There is no difference between the

distributions of the post-intervention responses of the intervention group teachers and the control group responses.

H1: There is a difference between the

distributions of post-intervention responses of the intervention group teachers and the control group responses.

123

Test 1: The pre-intervention comparison of the responses of the intervention group teachers with the control group teachers’ responses

Table 4.2: Pre-intervention results for the measures of central tendency and interquartile range of the parameters for the teacher intervention and control groups

Variables Intervention group (N=20) Control group (N=23) Md IR Md IR U

Methods for developing the cognitive domain of students’ HOTS - total scores

4.07 0.77 4.14 0.64 -0.68

Teaching to organize learning 4.50 1.00 4.00 0.50 -0.78

Fostering meta-cognition skills 4.25 1.00 4.00 1.00 -1.35

Developing reasoning and argumentation skills 4.17 1.00 4.33 0.67 -0.75

Developing thinking creativity 3.33 1.00 4.00 0.67 -1.60

Instilling HOTS in low achievement students 3.75 1.38 4.00 1.00 -1.38

Increasing transferability of thinking skills 4.50 0.38 4.50 0.50 -1.98

Methods for developing thinking dispositions - total scores 3.45 0.64 4.09 055 -3.43**

Encouraging pervasive thinking in students 3.25 0.50 4.00 0.50 -3.07**

Involving students in teamwork 3.50 0.90 4.00 0.80 -2.13*

Educating independent learners 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 -1.55

Using positive emotions for increasing learning motivation 4.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 -1.48

Promoting tolerance of other’ beliefs 4.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 -1.98*

Developing students’ civic responsibility 4.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 -2.98**

* P<0.05, ** p<0.01, Md: Median; IR: inter- quartile range; U = calculated U-test statistic

The above results show that no statistically significant difference has been found between the pre- intervention scores for control and intervention teachers with regard to developing the cognitive domain of students’ HOTS. Some significant differences were found in the parameters for the development of student’s thinking dispositions: total scores (U = -3.43, p<0.01); encouraging pervasive thinking in students (U = -3.07, p<0.01); involving students in a team work (U = -2.13, p<0.05); promoting tolerance and cooperative behaviour (U = -1.98, p<0.05); and educating to be socially and ethically responsible community members (U = -2.98, p<0.05). In terms of quantitative experimental study, the control group’s increases in perceptions of these intervention areas can be explained by the influence of confounding variables like pre-knowledge of the methods for developing HOTS. For an additional explanation, see section 4.2.3.

124

Test 2: A comparison of pre- and post-intervention responses of the control group teachers

Table 4.3: Pre- and post-intervention results for the measures of central tendency and interquartile range of parameters for the control group teachers

Variables Pre- interventio n results (N=23) Post- interventio n results (N=23) Md IR Md IR U

Methods for developing the cognitive domain of students’ HOTS - total scores

4.14 0.64 4.14 050 -0.154

Teaching to organize learning 4.00 050 4.50 1.00 -0.158

Fostering meta-cognition skills 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 -0.183

Developing reasoning and argumentation skills 4.33 0.67 3.67 1.00 -4.29***

Developing thinking creativity 4.00 0.67 4.33 0.67 -3.45***

Instilling HOTS in low achievement students 4.00 1.0 4.50 1.00 -2.39*

Increasing transferability of thinking skills 4.50 0.50 4.50 0.50 -0.136

Methods for developing thinking dispositions - total scores 4.09 0.50 4.09 0.64 -1.17

Encouraging pervasive thinking in students 4.00 0.50 4.00 1.00 -1.11

Involving students in teamwork 4.00 0.80 4.20 1.00 -0.64

Educating independent learners 4.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 -0.35

Using positive emotions for increasing learning motivation 4.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 -0.98

Promoting tolerance of other’ beliefs 4.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 -0.87

Developing students’ civic responsibility 5.00 2.00 5.00 2.00 -0.011

* P<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; Md: Median; IR: inter- quartile range; U = calculated U-test statistic

The above findings indicate that there are no statistically significant difference between the pre- test and post-test results, except for the following parameters: developing reasoning and argumentation skills (U = -4.29, p<0.001); developing thinking creativity (U=-3.45, p<0.01); and, instilling HOTS in low achievement students (U=-2.39, p<0.05) The results show that, in general, the control group teachers had not changed their beliefs about their skills. As it is with the results obtained in test 1, the control group’s increased perceptions of the intervention areas indicated above can be explained by the influence of confounding variables like pre-knowledge of HOTS and self-education in this area. An additional explanation is provided in section 4.2.3.

125