Study Pack, HOTS, and Evaluation

1. STUDY PACK, HIGH ORDER
THINKING & EVALUATION
Presented by:
Bernadeta Ajeng
Sri Astuti
Zukrina Kholis

2. 1
2
3
4
Study Pack
High Order Thinking
Bloom’s Taxonomy
An Overview of study pack in the frame of K-13 & CEFR

3. What is Study
Pack?

4. Study Pack
Is simply all content available on a specific
title or topic which is delivered in one
meeting, except Lesson Plans and puzzle
packs

5. What is it for?
Help the teachers to
conduct some
classroom activities.
Make the teachers
easier to organize
the learning process.
Motivate the
students to learn
English language.
Cover three learners
styles.(VAK: Visual,
Audio, Kinaesthetic)

6. The contents of a Study Pack
Target
group
Framework
Reason Aims
Synopsis
Overviewing
Pre-
viewing
activity
While-
viewing
activity
Post-
viewing
activity

7. Study pack’s Materials
Text
Game
Video

8. What is
Bloom’s
Taxonomy?

9. Bloom’s Taxonomy
by Benjamin Bloom 1956
Is a classification of the different objectives and skills that
educators set for their students (learning objectives) which
covers three domains of educational activities (cognitive,
affective, and psychomotor)

10. Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy by Anderson & Krathwohl (2001)
Higher Order
Thinking
Lower Order
Thinking

11. How to make a question based on bloom’s taxonomy?
Click me!

12. What is Higher Order
Thinking Skills?
HOTS have been defined in the literature as “occurring when
a person takes new information and information stored in
memory and interrelates and/or rearranges and extends this
information to achieve a purpose or find possible answers in
perplexing situations” (Lewis & Smith, 1993, p. 136).

13. Thinking that takes place in the higher level of the hierarchy of
cognitive processing which measure (C4) analyzing, (C5) evaluating
, and (C6) creating in Bloom’s taxonomy.

14. INCORPORATING HIGH ORDER THINKING SKILLS IN A
STUDY PACK (K13)
In activity 1 the teacher
asks students to find out
the meaning of the signs
given. The instruction
refers to C2, understand.
So, this activity is not
HOTS. In curriculum 201
3, this activity belongs to
observing activity.

15. In activity 2, the teacher asks students to repeat the words after her/him.
Since the activity belongs C1 that is remember, so this activity is not HOTS.

16. In this activity, the teacher asks students to arrange a story based on the pictures given and
then develop their own story in a group. This activity is not HOTS, because its belongs to C3,
applying.

17. In activity 4 and 5 belong
to C4 that is analyzing
stage. In activity 4 the
teacher asks students to
watch the film and
compare it to their own
story. besides they are ask
to analyze the plot,
settings, characterizations,
moral of stories and
costumes. In activity 5, the
teacher asks students to
give their opinion about the
film. So we can say that in
activity 4 dan 5 do not use
HOTS questions.

18. In activity 6, teacher asks students to read “Driving safety tips from Nationwide” after that,
the students should fill the checklist given based on Driving safety tips text. Therefore, this
activity belongs to C5 that is evaluating. It means it includes in HOTS.

20. Continue ...
Activity 7, 8 and 9 belong to C6 that is creating stage. In activity 7, the teacher asks students to write
their own drama based on their previous draft. In activity 8, each group performs their play and all of
their friends shall give score based on their friends’ performance in the rubric given. In activity 9,
the teacher divides the class into three big groups and asks them to make new poster. So the last
three activities are HOTS.

21. The Conclusion of Study Pack of
Curriculum 2013
Based on the study pack of curriculum 2013, it can be inferred that:
The activities are classified from LOTS to HOTS (Bloom’s Taxonomy). In the
last activity, the author applies the last stage which is creating. From 10
activities, most of them belong to HOTS question. The author states clearly
the target group, referring curriculum, and goals which can be achieved.
But the author does not state the time allocation. The activities are not
monotonous because the activities are various and interesting. In its activities,
the instructions are written clearly so the reader can understand easily how to
use it. The weakness of this study pack is the author still has some mistakes i
n grammar. So it should be corrected.

22. In activity 1, the teacher shows the short
film and asks students to guess what film is
about. This activity belongs to C2, understand
so, we can say it is not HOTS.
INCORPORATING HIGH ORDER THINKING SKILLS IN A STUDY
PACK (CEFR)

23. The teacher gives some
questions related to the
film and the students
answer it. This activity
belongs to C3 tht is apply.
So, it can be concluded
that this activity is not
HOTS.

24. The teacher asks students to rearrange the scramble phrases into the correct order and
asks them to looking for the unfamiliar words in dictionary. This activity belongs to C2 that
is undertanding. So, it can be concluded that this activity is not HOTS.

25. The teacher asks students to
rearrange the scramble phrases into
the correct order and asks them to
looking for the unfamiliar words in
dictionary. This activity belongs to C2
that is undertanding. So, it can be
concluded that this activity is not
HOTS.

26. This activity belongs to C4

27. This activity belongs to C5

28. This activities belong to C6

29. This activities belong to C6

30. The Conclusion of Study Pack of
CEFR
Good point:
Most of the activity encourages HOTS in interesting way.
The material that used in this study pack (You can be a Hero)
is very inspiring and teaches moral value to the students.
Weaknesses:
Some of the instructions are the reader couldn’t too clear and
specific. So, the reader couldn’t easily to understand the
procedure of activity.

31. Thank you
Insert the title of your subtitle Here

32. References
Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Write Effective Learning Objectives Retrieved from https://tips.uark.
edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R.(2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A re
vision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition. White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking. Theory into practice, 32(3), 131-13
7.