ANALYSIS OF HOTS ABILITY IN SCIENCE MATERIAL OF FIFTH GRADE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36526/sosioedukasi.v15i3.9049Keywords:
Analyzing, Ecosystem, Evaluating, HOTS, Natural and Social SciencesAbstract
The low ability of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) of students in ecosystem material is a crucial problem in science learning in elementary schools. This study aims to map in depth the profile of HOTS abilities of fifth grade students in ecosystem material reviewed from the cognitive domains of analyzing (C4) and evaluating (C5). The study used a descriptive qualitative approach with a case study type. The sample consisted of 30 fifth grade students of Kaligayam 1 Elementary School, Klaten Regency, who were selected through a purposive sampling technique. Data collection was carried out through a HOTS diagnostic test in the form of 10 essay questions and semi-structured interviews with 8 selected students. Data analysis followed the interactive model of Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña. The results showed that students' HOTS abilities were classified as low with an average score of 52.3 and 60% of students were in the Low to Very Low category. The main findings indicate a significant gap between C4 (55.8) and C5 (47.1) abilities, and the highest failure rate occurred in the subtopic of the impact of human activities (73.3%) caused by conceptual misconceptions, neglect of the role of decomposers, and weak systemic thinking. This study concludes that the root of the low HOTS lies in learning that is still LOTS-oriented. The contribution of this study is to provide a specific diagnostic map of student weaknesses in each HOTS cognitive indicator, which can be a basis for teachers in designing more focused and differentiated HOTS-based science learning.
The low ability of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) of students in ecosystem material is a crucial problem in science learning in elementary schools. This study aims to map in depth the profile of HOTS abilities of fifth grade students in ecosystem material reviewed from the cognitive domains of analyzing (C4) and evaluating (C5). The study used a descriptive qualitative approach with a case study type. The sample consisted of 30 fifth grade students of Kaligayam 1 Elementary School, Klaten Regency, who were selected through a purposive sampling technique. Data collection was carried out through a HOTS diagnostic test in the form of 10 essay questions and semi-structured interviews with 8 selected students. Data analysis followed the interactive model of Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña. The results showed that students' HOTS abilities were classified as low with an average score of 52.3 and 60% of students were in the Low to Very Low category. The main findings indicate a significant gap between C4 (55.8) and C5 (47.1) abilities, and the highest failure rate occurred in the subtopic of the impact of human activities (73.3%) caused by conceptual misconceptions, neglect of the role of decomposers, and weak systemic thinking. This study concludes that the root of the low HOTS lies in learning that is still LOTS-oriented. The contribution of this study is to provide a specific diagnostic map of student weaknesses in each HOTS cognitive indicator, which can be a basis for teachers in designing more focused and differentiated HOTS-based science learning.
References
Aditomo, A., & Klieme, E. (2020). Forms of inquiry-based science instruction and their relations with learning outcomes: Evidence from high and low-performing education systems. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1716093
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2010). Kerangka landasan untuk pembelajaran, pengajaran, dan asesmen: Revisi taksonomi pendidikan Bloom (A. Prihantoro, Penerj.).
Arifin, Z., Sukarmin, S., Saputro, S., & Kamari, A. (2025). The effect of inquiry-based learning on students’ critical thinking skills in science education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(3), em2592. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15988
Arikunto, S. (2019). Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Rineka Cipta.
Arnellis, Fauzan, A., Arnawa, I. M., & Yerizon. (2021). Analysis of High Order Thinking Skill of Students in Contextual Problems Solving. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1742(1), 012021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1742/1/012021
Babakr, Z. H., Mohamedamin, P., & Kakamad, K. (2019). Piaget’s Cognitive Developmental Theory: Critical Review. Education Quarterly Reviews, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.02.03.84
Cantona, I. G. E., Suastra, I. W., & Ardana, I. M. (2023). HOTS Oriented Problem-Based Learning Model: Improving Critical Thinking Skills and Learning Outcomes of Fifth Grade Students in Science Learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity Journal, 6(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.23887/tscj.v6i1.61654
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Febrianti, S. A. D., Widiana, I. W., & Ana, K. Y. (2021). Higher-Order Thinking Skill (HOTS) Instrument-Based Cognitive Evaluation in Grade V Elementary School Students. Thinking Skills and Creativity Journal, 4(2), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.23887/tscj.v4i2.38570
Hugerat, M., & Kortam, N. (2014). Improving Higher Order Thinking Skills among freshmen by Teaching Science through Inquiry. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1107a
Ichsan, I. Z., Sigit, D. V., Miarsyah, M., Ali, A., Arif, W. P., & Prayitno, T. A. (2019). HOTS-AEP: Higher Order Thinking Skills from Elementary to Master Students in Environmental Learning. European Journal of Educational Research, volume–8–2019(volume8-issue4.html), 935–942. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.4.935
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Margolis, A. A. (2020). Zone of Proximal Development, Scaffolding and Teaching Practice. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 16(3), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2020160303
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publication.
Moleong, L. J. (2017). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif (Edisi Revisi). . ISBN: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Nisha, P., John, N., Rubeena, K. A., & Thangavel, M. (2023). Biomass from Terrestrial Environments. In S.
Thomas, M. Hosur, D. Pasquini, & C. Jose Chirayil (Eds.), Handbook of Biomass (pp. 1–27). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6772-6_3-1
Nur’ariyani, S., Jumyati, J., Yuliyanti, Y., Nulhakim, L., & Leksono, S. M. (2023). Scientific Approach to Learning Science in Elementary Schools. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(8), 6659–6666. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i8.3680
Odanova, S. A., Ermekova, T. N., & Moldabayeva, K. E. (2022). THE MAIN ISSUES OF ACADEMIC ESSAY WRITING. Журнал Серии «Филологические Науки», 65(2). https://doi.org/10.48371/phils.2022.65.2.019
Pakkasjärvi, N., Anttila, H., & Pyhältö, K. (2024). What are the learning objectives in surgical training – a systematic literature review of the surgical competence framework. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05068-z
Quinn, S., Hogan, M., Dwyer, C., Finn, P., & Fogarty, E. (2020). Development and Validation of the Student-Educator Negotiated Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale (SENCTDS). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, 100710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100710
Rahayu, S., & Rosawati, E. E. (2023). The development of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) assessment instrument in chemistry using socioscientific issues context: A preliminary trial. 030009. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0118624
Richey, J. E., Andres-Bray, J. M. L., Mogessie, M., Scruggs, R., Andres, J. M. A. L., Star, J. R., Baker, R. S., & McLaren, B. M. (2019). More confusion and frustration, better learning: The impact of erroneous examples. Computers & Education, 139, 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.012
Santrock, J. W. (2018). Educational Psychology (6th ed.). New York.
Sari, N. K. D. A. S., Astawan, G. A., & Ni Ketut Desia Tristiantari. (2024). The Effectiveness of HOTS-Oriented Educational Game Media to Improve Students’ Science Literacy on the Material of Weather Changes on Earth. International Journal of Elementary Education, 8(4), 773–781. https://doi.org/10.23887/ijee.v8i4.89826
Sarwanto, S., Fajari, L. E. W., Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia, laksmievasufiwidifajari@student.uns.ac.id, & Chumdari, C. (2021). Open-Ended Questions to Assess Critical-Thinking Skills in Indonesian Elementary School. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 615–630. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14137a
Sayekti, P., & Anggriani, S. D. (2026). Enhancing 21st Century Teacher Competencies Through HOTS Integration and Diagnostic Assessment in Differentiated Instruction. KnE Social Sciences, 11(2), 74–100. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v11i2.20730
Shalikhah, N. D., & Nugroho, I. (2023). Implementation of Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Elementary School Using Learning Model, Media, and Assessment. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v15i3.3091
Shutaleva, A. (2023). Ecological Culture and Critical Thinking: Building of a Sustainable Future. Sustainability, 15(18), 13492. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813492
Simanjuntak, M. P., Sihite, E. I., Science Education Study Program, State University of Medan, Indonesia, elvinairawatisihite@gmail.com, Suyanti, R. D., & Science Education Study Program, State University of Medan, Indonesia, retnosuyanti@unimed.ac.id. (2023). The Effect of Blended Learning with Edmodo-Assisted Scientific Approach on Independence and Science Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Instruction, 16(4), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.1649a
Sugiyono. (2022). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta.
Sukmayadi, A., & Rofii, M. S. (2025). Indonesia’s Position in The Global War for Talent: A Study of Indonesian Talent Competitiveness Based on Global Talent Competitiveness Index (GTCI) in Year of 2020-2023. In I. K.
Rohman, W. Zhaoyang, M. I. Muttaqin, I. S. Wekke, & I. S. Fitrinitia (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Strategic and Global Studies (ICSGS 2024) (Vol. 33, pp. 521–535). Atlantis Press International BV. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-646-8_31
Wati, E. L., Lestari, I., & Wibowo, F. C. (2026). Systematic Analysis of the Use of Socio Scientific Issues-Oriented Mobile Learning as a Science Learning Media to Improve the Critical Thinking Skills of Elementary School Students. Edunesia : Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 7(2), 837–854. https://doi.org/10.51276/edu.v7i2.1657
Wennersten, L., Wanselin, H., Wikman, S., & Lindahl, M. (2023). Interpreting students’ ideas on the availability of energy and matter in food webs. Journal of Biological Education, 57(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2020.1858935
Woolley, J. S., Deal, A. M., Green, J., Hathenbruck, F., Kurtz, S. A., Park, T. K. H., Pollock, S. V., Transtrum, M. B., & Jensen, J. L. (2018). Undergraduate students demonstrate common false scientific reasoning strategies. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.004
Yee, Y. L., & Karpudewan, M. (2022). Science Writing Heuristics Improve Pre-University Students Understanding of Energy Transfer in an Ecosystem and Argumentation Ability. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 1. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2022.111
Yeo, J.-H., Yang, H.-H., & Cho, I.-H. (2022). Using A Three-Tier Multiple-Choice Diagnostic Instrument Toward Alternative Conceptions Among Lower-Secondary School Students in Taiwan: Taking Ecosystems Unit As An Example. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.69
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Zimmerman, H. T., & Weible, J. L. (2017). Learning in and about rural places: Connections and tensions between students’ everyday experiences and environmental quality issues in their community. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(1), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9757-1
Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (Eds.). (2012). Metacognition in Science Education (Vol. 40). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6
.png)
