Development and validation of Mathematical Higher‐Order Thinking Scale for high school students

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Psychology in the Schools Pub Date : 2024-04-26 DOI:10.1002/pits.23213
Ying Zhou, Yimin Ning, Jihe Chen, Wenjun Zhang, Tommy T. Wijaya
{"title":"Development and validation of Mathematical Higher‐Order Thinking Scale for high school students","authors":"Ying Zhou, Yimin Ning, Jihe Chen, Wenjun Zhang, Tommy T. Wijaya","doi":"10.1002/pits.23213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Globally, significant attention is given to the cultivation and evaluation of Mathematical Higher‐Order Thinking Skills (MHOTS). This study aims to address the gap in developing and validating suitable MHOTS structures for high school students. In this study, 53 items were determined by experts in the field of mathematics education and scale development. The study group of this study consists of 654 students educated at the high school level. We decided to split the samples randomly in two by designating a random half as exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the other half as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA was used to confirm a robust “four‐dimensional, nine‐factor” measurement structure, encompassing four key dimensions, namely mathematical critical thinking, mathematical creative thinking, mathematical problem‐solving, and mathematical metacognitive skills. The scale's quality was assessed through a retest using CFA and the structural validity was evaluated through CFA and correlation analysis. The criterion validity of the scale was also examined using math scores. The results from the double validity analysis showed that the scale had a reasonable and valid structure. The findings established the MHOTS for high school students as a reliable and valid instrument for measuring the level of MHOTS among high school students. This newly developed scale holds promise as an effective tool to assess and enhance mathematical higher‐order thinking in the student population.","PeriodicalId":48182,"journal":{"name":"Psychology in the Schools","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology in the Schools","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23213","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Globally, significant attention is given to the cultivation and evaluation of Mathematical Higher‐Order Thinking Skills (MHOTS). This study aims to address the gap in developing and validating suitable MHOTS structures for high school students. In this study, 53 items were determined by experts in the field of mathematics education and scale development. The study group of this study consists of 654 students educated at the high school level. We decided to split the samples randomly in two by designating a random half as exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the other half as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA was used to confirm a robust “four‐dimensional, nine‐factor” measurement structure, encompassing four key dimensions, namely mathematical critical thinking, mathematical creative thinking, mathematical problem‐solving, and mathematical metacognitive skills. The scale's quality was assessed through a retest using CFA and the structural validity was evaluated through CFA and correlation analysis. The criterion validity of the scale was also examined using math scores. The results from the double validity analysis showed that the scale had a reasonable and valid structure. The findings established the MHOTS for high school students as a reliable and valid instrument for measuring the level of MHOTS among high school students. This newly developed scale holds promise as an effective tool to assess and enhance mathematical higher‐order thinking in the student population.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
高中生数学高阶思维量表的开发与验证
在全球范围内,数学高级思维能力(MHOTS)的培养和评价都受到了极大的关注。本研究旨在弥补在开发和验证适合高中生的数学高层思维能力结构方面的不足。在本研究中,数学教育和量表开发领域的专家确定了 53 个项目。研究对象包括 654 名高中学生。我们决定将样本随机一分为二,指定随机的一半作为探索性因子分析(EFA),另一半作为确认性因子分析(CFA)。通过 EFA,我们确定了一个稳健的 "四维九因素 "测量结构,包括四个关键维度,即数学批判性思维、数学创造性思维、数学问题解决能力和数学元认知能力。量表的质量通过 CFA 重测进行了评估,结构效度则通过 CFA 和相关分析进行了评估。量表的标准效度也通过数学成绩进行了检验。双重效度分析的结果表明,量表具有合理有效的结构。研究结果表明,高中生 MHOTS 是测量高中生 MHOTS 水平的可靠而有效的工具。新开发的量表有望成为评估和提高学生数学高阶思维水平的有效工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychology in the Schools
Psychology in the Schools PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
200
期刊介绍: Psychology in the Schools, which is published eight times per year, is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to research, opinion, and practice. The journal welcomes theoretical and applied manuscripts, focusing on the issues confronting school psychologists, teachers, counselors, administrators, and other personnel workers in schools and colleges, public and private organizations. Preferences will be given to manuscripts that clearly describe implications for the practitioner in the schools.
期刊最新文献
How to Utilize University Nursing Clinic Resources Successfully to Transition Autistic Adolescents into Higher Education The development of sources of self‐efficacy in self‐regulation during one primary school year: the role of gender, special educational needs, and individual strengths Mastery performance‐goal orientation objective test: goal orientation profiles Unpacking the differences in social impact and social preference among Spanish preschool aggressors, victims, aggressor‐victims, and defenders whilst controlling for emotional competences Developing and validating perceived intercultural communication anxiety/apprehension scale
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1