<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.3/JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<journal-meta>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">52</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="short-title">gesr</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.31703/gesr</journal-id>
  <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Global Educational Studies Review</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">gesr</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group>
  <issn publication-format="print">2708-2113</issn>
  <issn publication-format="electronic">2708-3608</issn>
  <self-uri xlink:href="https://gesrjournal.com"/>
  <publisher>
    <publisher-name>Humanity Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Pakistan</publisher-loc>
  </publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
  <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">392877</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.31703/gesr.2022(VII-II).35</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="other" specific-use="submission-id">3346</article-id>
  <article-version article-version-type="publisher">1.0</article-version>
  <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
      <subject>article</subject>
    </subj-group>
  </article-categories>
  <title-group>
    <article-title xml:lang="en">Effect of Teaching Methods on &quot;Higher Order Thinking Skills&quot; of Elementary Level Science Students</article-title>
  </title-group>
<contrib-group>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="1" corresp="yes">
    <name>
      <surname>Khanam</surname>
      <given-names>Zubaida</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Conceptualization" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualization</role>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – original draft" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Writing – original draft</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/>
    <xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"/>
  </contrib>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="2">
    <name>
      <surname>Awan</surname>
      <given-names>Ahmad Sher</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – review &amp; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"/>
  </contrib>
  <aff id="aff1">
    <label>1</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>Institute of Education and Research (IER), University of Punjab, Lahore</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <named-content content-type="author-role">PhD Scholar</named-content>
    <addr-line>Punjab</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
  <aff id="aff2">
    <label>2</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>. Institute of Education and Research (IER), University of Punjab, Lahore</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <named-content content-type="author-role">Associate Professor</named-content>
    <addr-line>Punjab</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
</contrib-group>
<author-notes>
  <corresp id="cor1">Corresponding Author: Zubaida Khanam, PhD Scholar, Institute of Education and Research (IER), University of Punjab, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan</corresp>
<fn fn-type="COI-statement" id="fn-coi">
  <p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="ethics-statement" id="fn-ethics">
  <p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="data-availability-statement" id="fn-data">
  <p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
</fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="epub" date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
  <day>30</day>
  <month>06</month>
  <year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="collection">
  <month>06</month>
  <year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="print">
  <day>02</day>
  <month>06</month>
  <year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
  <volume>7</volume>
  <issue>2</issue>
  <season>Spring</season>
  <fpage>375</fpage>
  <lpage>383</lpage>
  <history>
    <date date-type="accepted">
      <day>02</day>
      <month>06</month>
      <year>2022</year>
    </date>
  </history>
<funding-group>
  <funding-statement>
<p>The authors received no specific funding for this work.</p>
  </funding-statement>
</funding-group>
<permissions>
  <copyright-year>2022</copyright-year>
  <copyright-holder>Humanity Publications</copyright-holder>
  <license license-type="open-access" xml:lang="en" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
    <license-p>This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</license-p>
  </license>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="text/html" xlink:href="https://gesrjournal.com/article/effect-of-teaching-methods-on-higher-order-thinking-skills-of-elementary-level-science-students"/>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gesrjournal.com/pdf/gesr/apyQ2Ord2c.pdf"/>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gesrjournal.com/pdf/gesr/apyQ2Ord2c.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  <abstract>
    <p>The effect of two different teaching methods on &quot;Higher Order Thinking Skills&quot; (HOTS) of elementary-level science learners was analyzed in this research. This is an emerging field in research globally as well as in the Pakistani scenario. The research design used for this project was a &quot;pre-test and post-test control group design&quot;. Two sections comprising 40 students were selected randomly and were taught with two different teaching methods; the &quot;experimental group&quot; engaged by &quot;Problem Based Learning Method&quot; (PBLM) while the &quot;control group&quot; dealt with the &quot;Traditional Method&quot; (TM). The academic performance of the students was evaluated through an Achievement Test of Science (ATS).Post analysis data study showed that the performance of the &quot;experimental group&quot; engaged by the &quot;problem-based learning method&quot; was better on &quot;higher order thinking skills&quot; at elementary level science.The study findings may be helpful for science teachers, teachers training institutions, and other educational stakeholders.</p>
  </abstract>
<kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-keywords">
  <kwd>Problem Based Learning Method (PBLM)</kwd>
  <kwd>Traditional Method (TM)</kwd>
  <kwd>Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)</kwd>
  <kwd>Achievement Test of Science (ATS)</kwd>
</kwd-group>
  <custom-meta-group>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>views</meta-name><meta-value>774</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>downloads</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>html-views</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>google-scholar-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>crossref-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
  </custom-meta-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="sec-1">
  <title>Introduction</title>
<p>Teaching is a very complex and influential art and needs to take suitable and flexible steps during the teaching activity. More innovative initiatives are required for quality teaching; until one meets these standards, there will be no quality teaching (Tileston, 2003).</p><p>That is why, in the current global scenario, all the nations are trying to evolve their education systems with modern and updated teaching methods and techniques (Ronis, 2008).</p><p>To follow the global trend, the Government of Pakistan also focused on the 2009 Education Policy from &quot;teaching&quot; to &quot;learning&quot; that the curriculum in the future will concentrate on ensuring student absorption (Government of Pakistan, 2009).</p><p>In the student centre approach, “Problem-Based Learning” is a globally emerging method. It is the classroom approach that puts learning in a uniform order. In this approach, students get to know about many open-ended problem-solving experiences (Ronis, 2008).</p><p>Educationists have elaborated the word PBL in various ways. Hmelo-Silver (2004) described the PBL in these terms, &quot;it is a teaching method in which students work together to find possible solutions to problems&quot;.</p><p>The “problem-based learning method” is very vital for teaching multiple subjects due to its similarity with human brain function, &quot;Problem-based learning Method” is effective in teaching students because it strengthens aspects of brain learning (Ronis, 2008). Two main categories of human cognitive skills can be formed; &quot;low order thinking skills&quot; and &quot;higher thinking skills&quot;. &quot;Lower Order Thinking Skills” are the initial stages of Benjamin Bloom&apos;s taxonomy of educational objectives, namely, knowledge, understanding &amp; application. &quot;Higher Order Thinking Skills&quot; are the final stages of this taxonomy, analysis, synthesis &amp; evaluation (Moore &amp; Stanley, 2010).</p><p>Cognitive skills are essential to the educational process. Human imagination can influence the effectiveness of learning capability and its pace, so the learning process is totally dependent on cognition. Students who have thinking minds not only show healthy progress in education but are also not affected by the debacle they are faced with because they can work out the solution to the problem (Yee et al., 2011). &quot;Higher order thinking skills” is a thinking quality that needs greater energy besides memory capacity. “Higher Order Thinking Skills” are students&apos; skills that are introduced when students are confronted with alien issues, unpredictabilities, questions, or situations (King, Goodson, &amp; Rohani, 2013).</p><p>Since problem-solving learning is mainly used in the teaching of science-based subjects, therefore, it seems very appropriate to explore and apply a &quot;problem-based learning method” in dealing with subjects in our domain, but before that, we should have a brief look at past practices of science teaching in Pakistan. It was observed that until 1950 science was not taught at the grass root levels. In 1959 Science Education Commission was established, and the commission recommended compulsory science education in classes VI-VIII in the early sixties, and science education was implemented in I - VIII classes (Iqbal &amp; Mahmood, 2000)</p><p><break/></p><p>Statement of the Problem</p><p>This research project was designed to investigate the effect of teaching methods on the &quot;higher order thinking skills&quot; of elementary-level science students.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-2">
  <title>Significance of the Study</title>
<p>Educational experts of different countries have</p><p>been devising problem-based learning curricula for different subjects at their institutions for the purpose of developing a scientific approach to solve the problems at campuses and in real life, too. Many researchers have been conducting research at secondary and higher levels all over the world. The elementary level is an important one because it will become the base for students in further stages of education. With the intention that students may become familiar with this approach, the researcher has selected the elementary level for conducting this research. Keeping in view the importance of science at the elementary stage for in-depth understanding, advancement of problem-solving skills, classroom-related and lifelong problem-solving skills, problem-based learning (PBL) is very vital. This study would be ready to lend a hand to the teachers and would be advantageous to the students. It would be a constructive study for educators and curriculum developers. So the research will help all the stakeholders of education to tackle the important issues regarding education.</p><p><break/></p><p>Objectives of the Study</p><p>1.	Investigate the students’ Achievement Level of 8th Grade Science engaged in “Problem Based Learning Method” and taught by Traditional Method.</p><p>2.	Compare the effect of teaching methods on “Higher Order Thinking Skills” of 8th Grade Science Students.</p><p><break/></p><p>Hypotheses</p><p>H01: “There is no significant difference of pre-test scores before intervention on students’ academic achievement of 8th-grade science between Control Group and Experimental Group”.</p><p>H02: “There is no significant difference of post-test scores of Control and Experimental Groups after intervention regarding the effect of Problem Based Learning Method on the achievement level of students of 8th-grade science”.</p><p>H03: “There is no significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores of Control Group regarding the effect of Traditional Method on the achievement level of students of 8th-grade science”.</p><p>H04: “There is no significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental group regarding the effect of Problem Based Learning Method on students&apos; achievement level of 8th Grade Science”.</p><p>H05: “There is no significant difference between control and experimental group pre-test scores of higher order thinking skills”.</p><p>H06: “There is no significant difference between control and experimental group post-test scores of higher order thinking skills”.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-3">
  <title>Literature Review</title>
<p>Education plays a crucial part in the development of a nation. School education is a continuous investment in national planning for development. Transformation to increase the standard of education must be a priority for educational institutions. Major social problems should be reflected in the curriculum to focus on the development of multiple skills like problem-solving, questioning practices, critical thinking, guided reading skills, and collaborative work among students (Savery, 2015).</p><p>In recent times, educationists have been designing modern teaching methods to teach effectively. Each has its own characteristic in various subjects. Sometimes one teaching method might be found suitable for one subject, but another method may not be suitable for that particular subject. Many methods are employed in the educational process, for example, collaborative approach, project approach, lifestyle, computer-assisted education, problem-based learning process, etc. Each teaching method has its benefits and disadvantages. Here is a brief description of just two of them.</p><p><break/></p><p>Traditional Method</p><p>The traditional method of teaching is the most commonly used teaching method in our school education. This is a systematic approach for teachers. However, students only listen and do not do much most of the time.</p><p><break/></p><p>Problem-Based Learning Method</p><p>Problem-based learning is based on a student-centred approach and emphasises real-life problems and issues. The problems under study should be valid, challenging, difficult and unexpected. The activities implemented should be vast, and they must be evaluated on specific standards that can assess students’ capabilities for higher-level knowledge application (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007).</p><p>PBLM can change the conventional teaching paradigm philosophy into 21st-century teaching. Thus, like other advanced countries, it will enhance the quality of the educational system in quality. In the classroom, learning may become more interesting through an effective teaching method. Studies in line with this research showed that an effective teaching methodology is the most influential element which definitely influences the learners’ performance in education. (Missildine, Fountain, Summers, &amp; Gosselin, 2013). Furthermore, the use of different teaching approaches is always helpful for the students in understanding the process of problem-solving (Schultz, Duffield, Rasmussen, &amp; Wageman, 2014).</p><p>PBLM was introduced as the latest approach in the field of education. It deals with real-life problems rather than content. Students are supposed to solve problems actively, and teachers as the facilitator. PBLM helps to enhance the progress of lifelong learning skills, i.e. reflective, open-minded, active and critical learning. Likewise, the PBLM help in acquiring skills of interpersonal communication, team working and problem-solving (Tan, 2021).</p><p><break/></p><p>What Are Higher Thinking Skills?</p><p>Thinking is an act of understanding that requires space and time. We do a lot of thinking. We can probably see the way we do in our daily life. Deciding what clothes to wear and remembering to take our keys when we leave the house requires careful thought. Students&apos; ability to recognise, remember, understand and apply their knowledge in real-life problems comes under lower order thinking skills, and these skills are not sufficient for the professional learning process. For this purpose, the student passed through the learning process of higher order thinking skills to have knowledge of synthesis, analysis and evaluation. Lower-order thinking skills provide a basic platform for learning higher-order thinking skills (Brookhart, 2010).</p><p><break/></p><p>Why Is Higher Thinking Ability Important?</p><p>Systematic thinking is essential for development. No explorer has ever found anything new by following in the footsteps of those who were there before. Lower order thinking skills help to understand the knowledge and higher order thinking skills enable to interpret and apply knowledge to reach a conclusion (Barak &amp; Dori 2009). This exposes other areas of knowledge and knows how to re-transfer, use and integrate to create a new and improved version. If you are committed to learning, growing and changing constantly, it is important that you are committed to developing your higher thinking skills (Elser, 2008).</p><p><break/></p><p>The Role of Teachers in Developing High Cognitive Skills</p><p>Our country&apos;s education system focuses on regular testing, and in such cases, learning is almost like a repetition of meaningless information without access to information. The teacher is always forced to compile information even though they know that many students may not fully understand it and may not keep it for long. The role of the teacher is therefore important in providing information as it should be the responsibility of all teachers to provide education using high cognitive techniques, so the learner can think critically and develop problem-solving skills and decision-making skills (Heong et al., 2011). A well-informed and well-educated teacher should be familiar with the facts that before introducing students to a higher learning path, the teacher should equip his or her student with the ability to think before asking him or her to think. The teacher&apos;s role is not simply to help the learner learn to appreciate the important information he or she receives. The teacher should realise that the depth of knowledge is more important than the integration of the lesson and should therefore plan his or her lesson and keep these points in mind (Shukla &amp; Dungsungnoen 2016).</p><p><break/></p><p>Science Teaching for Students at the Elementary Level</p><p>In teaching science, the main purpose is to develop problem-solving skills among students. Students discover scientific concepts and intricate programs and are able to identify and describe their conditions. Students understand the scientific concepts by asking different questions instead of rote learning. Students used scientific methods to understand a process and solve a problem. Students critically analysed facts, figures and concepts and gave reasoning on the results. Students learn different scientific skills and understand science &amp; technology relationship and their impact on society. The scientific method leads students to think critically, understand their problems and solve them; in the recent century significance of science increased. Science introduced wonderful technological advances in comparison with time, extending the prehistoric years to the previous century. This is an era of science and technology, and no nation that ignores the importance of science as a subject can perform better in all fields of life (Lunenburg, 2011).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-4">
  <title>Methodology</title>
<p>This research was experimental in its
design. “Pre-test and Post-test control group design&quot; was  used to explore the Effect of Teaching Methods
on &quot;Higher Order Thinking Skills” of elementary-level science students.
Eighty students in 8th grade were drawn from a randomly selected school. A
pre-test was conducted, and on the results of the pre-test, both groups were
equated and equally distributed into experimental &amp; control groups
subsequently. One group was named &quot;control&quot;, &amp; the second
&quot;experimental&quot;. The data of the pre-test was saved and recorded to be
compared with the data collected through Post-test. The researcher herself
taught both groups along with the science teacher. The treatment group was
engaged in a &quot;problem-based learning method&quot;, and the control group
dealt with the &quot;traditional method&quot; for fourteen weeks. In the end, a
Post-test was conducted to assess the achievements of both groups. The results
obtained through pre and post-tests from both groups were compared and analysed
to explore the effect of Teaching Methods on the “Higher Order Thinking Skills”
of elementary-level science students.</p><p>Pretest
&amp; Posttest Control Group Design employed for this research is described
below:</p><table-wrap id="table1"><label>Table 1</label><caption><title>Table 1</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Control Group</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>R</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>O</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>X1</p> </td><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>O</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Experimental Group</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>R</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>O</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>X2</p> </td><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>O</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><bold>Abbreviations</bold></p><table-wrap id="table2"><label>Table 2</label><caption><title>Table 2</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p>R</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Random assignment
  of group</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>O</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Pre-test &amp;
  Post-test</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>X2</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Treatment (Use of
  PBLM)</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-5">
  <title>Data Analysis and Interpretation</title>
<p><bold>Objective1:
</bold>Investigate
the students’ Achievement Level of 8<sup>th</sup> Grade Science engaged in the
&quot;Problem Based Learning Method” and taught by the Traditional Method.</p> <p><bold>H<sub>01</sub>:</bold>
“There is no significant difference of pre-test scores before intervention on
students’ academic achievementof 8<sup>th</sup>-grade
science between Control Group and Experimental Group”.</p> <p><break/></p>  <p><bold>Table 1.</bold>Comparative analysis
of both groups on Pre-Test Scores</p> <table-wrap id="table3"><label>Table 3</label><caption><title>Table 3</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Test</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Groups</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>N</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>T</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>df</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Sig.</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Pre-Test</p> </td><td> <p>Control
  Group</p> </td><td> <p>40</p> </td><td> <p>12.65</p> </td><td> <p>2.86</p> </td><td> <p>-1.836</p> </td><td> <p>74.994</p> </td><td> <p>.070</p> </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td> <p>Experimental
  Group</p> </td><td> <p>40</p> </td><td> <p>13.72</p> </td><td> <p>2.34</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p> <p>Data were analysed through an independent sample t-test. It
was revealed from data analysis of table 3 that the difference was not
significant between both groups, i.e. control group with values (M=12.65,
SD=2.86) &amp; experimental group with values (M=13.72, SD=2.34) of pre-test
scores at the level of significance p ? 0.05 with (t =
-1.836, p = .070). The null hypothesis “There is no significant difference of
pre-test scores before intervention on students’ academic achievementof 8<sup>th</sup> Grade Science
between Control Group and Experimental Group” is accepted.</p> <p>H<sub>02</sub>: “There is no
significant difference of post-test scores of Control and Experimental Groups
after intervention regarding the effect of ProblemBased Learning Method on the achievement level of studentsof 8<sup>th</sup>-grade science”.</p> <p><break/></p>  <p><bold>Table 2</bold>. Comparison of both
groups on post-test scores</p> <table-wrap id="table4"><label>Table 4</label><caption><title>Table 4</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Test</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Groups</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>N</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>T</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>df</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Sig.</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Post-Test</p> </td><td> <p>Control
  Group</p> </td><td> <p>40</p> </td><td> <p>15.22</p> </td><td> <p>3.99</p> </td><td> <p>-14.930</p> </td><td> <p>70.085</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td> <p>Experimental
  Group</p> </td><td> <p>40</p> </td><td> <p>31.60</p> </td><td> <p>5.66</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p> <p>Data were analysed through an
independent sample t-test. It was revealed from data analysis of table 3 that
the difference was significant between both groups, i.e. control group with
values (M=15.22, SD=3.99) &amp; experimental group with values (M=31.60,
SD=5.66) of post-test scores at the level of significance p ? 0.05 (t=-14.930,
p=0.000). After analysis hypothesis “There is no significant difference between
post-test scores of control and experimental groups afterintervention regarding
the effect of ProblemBased Learning
Method (PBLM) on the achievement level of studentsof 8<sup>th</sup> Grade Science of Control Group and Experimental
Group” is rejected.</p> <p><bold>H<sub>03</sub>:</bold> “There is no significant difference between pre-test and
post-test scores of Control Group regarding the effect of Traditional Method on
the achievement level of students of 8<sup>th</sup>-grade science”.</p> <p><break/></p>  <p><bold>Table 3</bold>. Comparison of Scores
achieved by Control Group in Pre &amp; Post-Tests</p> <table-wrap id="table5"><label>Table 5</label><caption><title>Table 5</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Group</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Tests</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>N</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>t</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>df</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Sig.</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Control
  Group</p> </td><td> <p>Pre-Test</p> </td><td> <p>40</p> </td><td> <p>12.65</p> </td><td> <p>2.86</p> </td><td> <p>-4.586</p> </td><td> <p>39</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td> <p>Post-Test</p> </td><td> <p>40</p> </td><td> <p>15.22</p> </td><td> <p>3.99</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p> <p>Data was analysed through paired sample
t-test. The test was applied at a p ? 0.05 level of
significance (t=-4.586, p=0.000). It was revealed from data analysis of table
4.3 that the difference was significant between both tests, i.e. pre-test with
values (M=12.65, SD=2.86) &amp; post-test with values (M=15.22, SD=3.99)
obtained from the control group. Therefore hypothesis “There is no significant
difference</p> <p>between pre-test and post-test scores of Control</p> <p>Group regarding the effect of Traditional Method on the
achievement level of students of 8<sup>th</sup>-grade science” is rejected.</p> <p><bold>H<sub>04</sub>:</bold> “There is no significant difference between pre-test and
post-test scores of the experimental group regarding the effect of Problem
Based Learning Method on students&apos; achievement level of 8<sup>th</sup> Grade
Science”.</p> <p><break/></p>  <table-wrap id="table6"><label>Table 4</label><caption><title>Difference of Pre &amp; Post-Tests Scores of Treatment Group</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Group</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Tests</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>N</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>T</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>df</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Sig.</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Experimental
  Group</p> </td><td> <p>Pre-Test</p> </td><td> <p>40</p> </td><td> <p>13.72</p> </td><td> <p>2.34</p> </td><td> <p>-19.474</p> </td><td> <p>39</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td> <p>Post-Test</p> </td><td> <p>40</p> </td><td> <p>31.60</p> </td><td> <p>5.66</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p> <p>Data was analysed
through a dependent sample t-test. The test was applied at a p ? 0.05 level of
significance (t=-18.10, p=0.000). It was revealed from data analysis of table 5
that the difference was significant between both tests, i.e. pre-test with
values (M=13.72, SD=2.34) &amp; post-test with values (M=31.60, SD=5.66) of the
treatment group. Therefore hypothesis “There is no significant difference
between pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental group regarding the
effect of Problem Based Learning Method on students&apos; achievement level of 8<sup>th</sup>
Grade Science” is rejected.</p>  <p><bold>Objective 2:</bold>Compare the effect of
teaching methods on “Higher Order Thinking Skills” of 8<sup>th</sup> Grade
Science Students.</p> <p><bold>H<sub>05</sub>:</bold>
“There is no significant difference between control and experimental group
pre-test scores of higher order thinking skills”.</p> <p><break/></p>  <p><bold>Table 5.</bold>Comparison of both groups on Pre-Test Scores (Higher Order
Thinking Skills)</p> <table-wrap id="table7"><label>Table 7</label><caption><title>Table 7</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Test
  </bold></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Groups</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>N</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>T</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>df</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Sig.</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Pre-Test</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>Control Group</p> </td><td> <p>40</p> </td><td> <p>5.12</p> </td><td> <p>1.39</p> </td><td> <p>-1.148</p> </td><td> <p>78</p> </td><td> <p>.254</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td valign="top"> <p>Experimental Group</p> </td><td> <p>40</p> </td><td> <p>5.50</p> </td><td> <p>1.51</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p> <p>Data were
analysed through an independent sample t-test. It was revealed from data
analysis of table 6 that the difference was not significant between both
groups, i.e. control group with values (M=5.12, SD=1.39) &amp; experimental
group with values (M=5.50, SD=1.51) of pre-test scores at the level of
significance p ?
0.05 with (t = -1.148, p = .254). The null hypothesis “There is no significant
difference between control and experimental group pre-test scores of higher
order thinking skills&quot; is being accepted.</p> <p><bold>H<sub>06</sub>:</bold> “There is no significant difference between control and
experimental group post-test scores of higher order thinkingskills”.</p> <p><break/></p>  <p><bold>Table 6.</bold>Difference between both groups on Post-Test Scores (Higher
Order Thinking Skills)</p> <table-wrap id="table8"><label>Table 8</label><caption><title>Table 8</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Test</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Groups</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>N</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>T</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>df</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Sig.</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Post-Test</p> </td><td> <p>Control
  Group</p> </td><td> <p>40</p> </td><td> <p>15.30</p> </td><td> <p>3.93</p> </td><td> <p>-14.944</p> </td><td> <p>69.45</p> </td><td> <p>.000</p> </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td> <p>Experimental
  Group</p> </td><td> <p>40</p> </td><td> <p>31.60</p> </td><td> <p>5.66</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p><p>Data were analysed
through an independent sample t-test. It was revealed from the data analysis of
table 7 that the difference was not significant between both groups, i.e.
control group with values (M=15.30, SD=3.93) &amp; experimental group with
values (M=31.60, SD=5.66) of post-test scores at level of significance p ?
0.05 with (t = -14.944, p = .000). The null hypothesis “There is no significant
difference between control and experimental group post-test scores of higher
order thinkingskills” is being rejected.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-6">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
<p>On the basis of the findings of this research, conclusions drawn as follow:</p><p>1.	The achievement of both groups is almost similar in the pre-test. The groups did not show differences significantly in their achievement. The hypothesis &quot;There is no significant difference of pre-test scores before intervention on students&apos; academic achievement of 8th Grade Science between Control Group and Experimental Group.&quot; is accepted.</p><p>2.	The treatment group’s achievement was better than the control group in results obtained from the post-test. Both groups differ significantly in their mean scores. The null hypothesis &quot;There is no significant difference of post-test scores of control and experimental groups after intervention regarding the effect of Problem Based Learning Method (PBLM) on the achievement level of students of 8th Grade Science.” was rejected.</p><p>3.	The control group differs significantly in its achievement on the results obtained from pre and post-test scores. This indicates the importance of the traditional method of teaching science at the elementary level. “There is no significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores of control group regarding the effect of the traditional method on the achievement level of students of 8th Grade Science.” was rejected.</p><p>4.	The experimental group differs significantly in its achievement results obtained from pre and post-tests. It was concluded in favour of the “problem-based learning method”. “Problem-based learning method” of teaching proved its significance for teaching science subjects at the elementary level. &quot;There is no significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental group regarding the effect of Problem Based Learning Method (PBLM) on students’ achievement level of 8th Grade Science.” was rejected.</p><p>5.	The performance of both groups on results obtained from the pre-test regarding the effect of the “problem-based learning method” &amp; traditional method on “higher order thinking skills” did not indicate any difference. Therefore, the hypothesis “There is no significant difference between control and experimental group pre-test scores of higher order thinking skills.” was accepted.</p><p>6.	The performance of the experimental group was found to be better than the achievement of the control group post-test regarding higher order thinking skills. The groups differ significantly in their results obtained from post-test. Therefore, the hypothesis “There is no significant difference between control and experimental group post-test scores of higher order thinking skills.” was rejected.</p><p>7.	Control group and experimental group don’t differ significantly in their achievement in the mean scores on the pre-test in the cognitive domain. Both the groups showed the same level of performance in the cognitive domain at the time of grouping.</p><p>8.	Difference in results obtained from the post-test of both groups showed that the “problem-based learning method” of teaching is more effective in the teaching of science subjects at the elementary level.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-7">
  <title>Recommendations</title>
<p>After analysis of the data and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations have been formulated:</p><p>1.	 “problem-based learning method&quot; increases students&apos; participation and reduce the role of the teacher; therefore, it is strongly proposed to follow the &quot;problem-based learning method” at all level in teaching science subjects.</p><p>2.	One of the most important aspects of PBLM is the development of students&apos; ability to actualise their experience in other situations; therefore, the “Problem-based learning method” is suitable for the teaching-learning process in social sciences as well as natural sciences.</p><p>3.	To enhance the student&apos;s ability to analyse, synthesise and evaluate different concepts, the “problem-based learning method” proved a very useful teaching method. This method made them able to have their own opinion and develop their ability to assess and evaluate, so it is highly recommended for the students in schools, especially in science subjects.</p><p>4.	It is highly recommended further research on PBLM in context with other disciplines.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<fn-group content-type="conflict-of-interest">
  <title>Conflict of Interest</title>
  <fn fn-type="conflict">
<p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="ethics-statement">
  <title>Ethics Statement</title>
  <fn fn-type="ethics">
<p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="data-availability">
  <title>Data Availability</title>
  <fn fn-type="data-availability-statement">
<p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<app-group>
  <app id="app-suppl">
    <title>Supplementary Materials</title>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gesrjournal.com/pdf/gesr/apyQ2Ord2c.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  </app>
</app-group>
<ref-list>
  <title>References</title>
<ref id="Barak">
  <label>1</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Barak, M., &amp; Dori, Y. J</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <article-title>. Enhancing higher order thinking skills among inservice science teachers via embedded assessment</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Science Teacher Education</source>
    <volume>20</volume>
    <issue>50</issue>
    <fpage>459</fpage>
    <lpage>474</lpage>
    Barak, M., &amp; Dori, Y. J. (2009). Enhancing higher order thinking skills among inservice science teachers via embedded assessment. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(50), 459-474
    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s10972-009-9141-z</pub-id>
    <ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9141-z">10.1007/s10972-009-9141-z</ext-link>
    <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9141-z">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9141-z</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Brookhart">
  <label>2</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Brookhart, S. M</person-group>
    <year>2010</year>
    <article-title>. How to assess higher- order thinking skills in your classroom</article-title>
    <source>ASCD</source>
    Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to assess higher- order thinking skills in your classroom. ASCD.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Education">
  <label>3</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Education Policy Government of Pakistan</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <source>National Education Policy, Islamabad: Ministry of Education</source>
    <page-range>olicy</page-range>
    Education Policy Government of Pakistan (2009). National Education Policy, Islamabad: Ministry of Education.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Elser">
  <label>4</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Elser, C</person-group>
    <year>2008</year>
    <article-title>. The role of writing: Increasing higher level thinking for all students</article-title>
    <source>Graduate Research Papers. Paper 38</source>
    <page-range>apers</page-range>
    Elser, C. (2008). The role of writing: Increasing higher level thinking for all students. Graduate Research Papers. Paper 38.
    <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/38">http://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/38</ext-link>
    <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/38">http://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/38</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Finkle">
  <label>5</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Finkle, S. L., &amp; Torp, L. L</person-group>
    <year>1995</year>
    <article-title>. Introductory documents</article-title>
    <source>Available from the Center for Problem-Based Learning, Illinois Math and Science Academy</source>
    <volume>1500</volume>
    <fpage>60506</fpage>
    <lpage>1000</lpage>
    Finkle, S. L., &amp; Torp, L. L. (1995). Introductory documents. Available from the Center for Problem-Based Learning, Illinois Math and Science Academy, 1500, 60506-1000.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Heong">
  <label>6</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Heong, Y. M., Yunos, J. M., Hassan, R. B., Othman, W. B., &amp; Kiong, T. T</person-group>
    <year>2011</year>
    <article-title>. The perception of the level of higher order thinking skills among technical education students</article-title>
    <source>International Conference on Social Science and Humanity journal. Faculty of Technical Education, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia</source>
    <volume>5</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>281</fpage>
    <lpage>285</lpage>
    Heong, Y. M., Yunos, J. M., Hassan, R. B., Othman, W. B., &amp; Kiong, T. T. (2011). The perception of the level of higher order thinking skills among technical education students. International Conference on Social Science and Humanity journal. Faculty of Technical Education, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia 5(2), 281-285.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="HmeloSilver">
  <label>7</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Hmelo-Silver, C. E</person-group>
    <year>2004</year>
    <source>Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review</source>
    <volume>16</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>235</fpage>
    Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235â€“266
    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1023/b:edpr.0000034022.16470.f3</pub-id>
    <ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1023/b:edpr.0000034022.16470.f3">10.1023/b:edpr.0000034022.16470.f3</ext-link>
    <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1023/b:edpr.0000034022.16470.f3">https://doi.org/10.1023/b:edpr.0000034022.16470.f3</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Iqbal">
  <label>8</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Iqbal, H. M., &amp; Mahmood, N</person-group>
    <year>2000</year>
    <article-title>. Science Teacher Education in Pakistan</article-title>
    <source>Science &amp; Technology Education Library, 75â€“92</source>
    <page-range>akistan</page-range>
    Iqbal, H. M., &amp; Mahmood, N. (2000). Science Teacher Education in Pakistan. Science &amp; Technology Education Library, 75â€“92.
    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/0-306-47222-8_5</pub-id>
    <ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47222-8_5">10.1007/0-306-47222-8_5</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="King">
  <label>9</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">King, F. J., Goodson, L., &amp; Rohani, F</person-group>
    <year>2013</year>
    <article-title>. Higher order thinking skills: Definition, teaching strategies, assessment</article-title>
    <source>Tallahassee, FL: Center for Advancement of Learning and Assessment</source>
    King, F. J., Goodson, L., &amp; Rohani, F. (2013). Higher order thinking skills: Definition, teaching strategies, assessment. Tallahassee, FL: Center for Advancement of Learning and Assessment.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Lunenburg">
  <label>10</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Lunenburg, F. C</person-group>
    <year>2011</year>
    <article-title>. Key components of a curriculum plan: Objectives, content, and learning experiences</article-title>
    <source>Schooling</source>
    <volume>2</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>1</fpage>
    <lpage>4</lpage>
    Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Key components of a curriculum plan: Objectives, content, and learning experiences. Schooling, 2(1), 1-4.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Missildine">
  <label>11</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Missildine, K., Fountain, R., Summers, L., &amp; Gosselin, K</person-group>
    <year>2013</year>
    <article-title>. Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Nursing Education</source>
    <volume>52</volume>
    <issue>10</issue>
    <fpage>597</fpage>
    <lpage>599</lpage>
    Missildine, K., Fountain, R., Summers, L., &amp; Gosselin, K. (2013). Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Education, 52(10), 597-599.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Moore">
  <label>12</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Moore, B., &amp; Stanley, T</person-group>
    <year>2010</year>
    <article-title>. Critical Thinking and Formative Assessments</article-title>
    <source>Larchmount. New York: Eye on Education</source>
    Moore, B., &amp; Stanley, T. (2010). Critical Thinking and Formative Assessments. Larchmount. New York: Eye on Education.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Ronis">
  <label>13</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Ronis, D. L</person-group>
    <year>2008</year>
    <article-title>. Problem based learning for math and science: Integrating inquiry and the internet</article-title>
    <source>Corwin Press</source>
    <page-range>roblem</page-range>
    Ronis, D. L. (2008). Problem based learning for math and science: Integrating inquiry and the internet. Corwin Press
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Savery">
  <label>14</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Savery, J. R</person-group>
    <year>2015</year>
    <article-title>. Overview of problem- based learning: Definitions and distinctions</article-title>
    <source>Essential readings in problem- based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows</source>
    <volume>9</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>5</fpage>
    Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem- based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Essential readings in problem- based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows, 9(2), 5- 15.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Schultz">
  <label>15</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Schultz, D., Duffield, S., Rasmussen, S. C., &amp; Wageman, J</person-group>
    <year>2014</year>
    <article-title>. Effects of the flipped classroom model on student performance for advanced placement high school chemistry students</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Chemical Education</source>
    <volume>91</volume>
    <issue>9</issue>
    <fpage>1334</fpage>
    <lpage>1339</lpage>
    Schultz, D., Duffield, S., Rasmussen, S. C., &amp; Wageman, J. (2014). Effects of the flipped classroom model on student performance for advanced placement high school chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(9), 1334-1339
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Shukla">
  <label>16</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Shukla, D., &amp; Dungsungnoen, A. P</person-group>
    <year>2016</year>
    <article-title>. Student&apos;s perceived level and teachers&apos; teaching strategies of higher order thinking skills: A study on higher educational institutions in Thailand</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Education and Practice</source>
    <volume>7</volume>
    <issue>12</issue>
    <fpage>211</fpage>
    <lpage>219</lpage>
    Shukla, D., &amp; Dungsungnoen, A. P. (2016). Student&apos;s perceived level and teachers&apos; teaching strategies of higher order thinking skills: A study on higher educational institutions in Thailand. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(12), 211-219.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Tan">
  <label>17</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Tan, O. S</person-group>
    <year>2021</year>
    <article-title>. Problem-based learning innovation: Using problems to power learning in the 21st century</article-title>
    <source>Gale Cengage Learning</source>
    <page-range>roblem-based</page-range>
    Tan, O. S. (2021). Problem-based learning innovation: Using problems to power learning in the 21st century. Gale Cengage Learning.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Tileston">
  <label>18</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Tileston D.W</person-group>
    <year>2003</year>
    <article-title>. What every teacher should know about instructional planning</article-title>
    <source>Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, California, USA</source>
    <page-range>lanning</page-range>
    Tileston D.W. (2003). What every teacher should know about instructional planning. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Yee">
  <label>19</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Yee, M. H., Othman, W., Md Yunos, J., Tee, T. K., Hassan, R., &amp; Mohamad, M. M</person-group>
    <year>2011</year>
    <article-title>. The Level Of Marzano Higher Order Thinking Kills Among Technical Education Students</article-title>
    <source>International Journal of Social Science and Humanity</source>
    <volume>1</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>121</fpage>
    Yee, M. H., Othman, W., Md Yunos, J., Tee, T. K., Hassan, R., &amp; Mohamad, M. M. (2011). The Level Of Marzano Higher Order Thinking Kills Among Technical Education Students. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(2), 121- 125
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>