The Practice of Critical Thinking Skills in Teaching Mathematics: Teachers' Perception and Readiness

Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 19, No.
1 (January) 2022, pp: 1–30
MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF LEARNING

AND INSTRUCTION
http://e-journal.uum.edu.my/index.php/mjli
How to cite this article:

Ismail, S. N., Muhammad, S., Omar, M. N., Shanmugam, S. K. S., & Rajoo, M.
(2022). The practice of critical thinking skills in teaching mathematics: Teachers’
perception and readiness. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 19(1),
1-30. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2022.19.1.1
THE PRACTICE OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS: TEACHERS’
PERCEPTION AND READINESS
1
Siti Noor Ismail, 2Shamsuddin Muhammad,
3
Mohd Norakmar Omar
& S. Kanageswari Suppiah Shanmugam
4
1,3&4
School of Education, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah,
Malaysia
2
Teacher Education Institute, Kota Baharu Campus, Kelantan,
Malaysia
Corresponding author: siti.noor@uum.edu.my

1
Received: 15/10/2020 Revised: 25/5/2021 Accepted: 14/6/2021 Published: 31/1/2022
ABSTRACT
Purpose - This study was conducted to identify the relationship and

influence of mathematics teachers’ perception and readiness on the
practice of critical thinking skills (CTS) in implementing pedagogical
processes in secondary schools.
Methodology - Participants of the study consisted of 226 mathematics

teachers who taught in three different secondary school categories,
namely high performing schools (HPS), moderate performing schools
(MPS) and low performing schools (LPS) throughout the state of
Kelantan, Malaysia. The instrument used was adapted from Thurman
(2009) to test the teachers’ perception of CTS, while the teachers’
readiness to apply CTS was adapted from Nagappan (2001) and Yusof
1
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 19, No. 1 (January) 2022, pp: 1–30
and Ibrahim (2012). Besides, measurement of the teachers’ practice

of CTS was adapted from Aldegether (2009), Barak and Shakhman
(2008), and Shim and Walczak (2012).
Findings - Teachers’ perception, readiness, and CTS practice in

mathematics teaching were high in HPS but low in LPS. There
was a strong positive relationship between teachers’ perception of
CTS practice and teachers’ readiness to implement CTS practice
in mathematics teaching. In addition, a total of 65 percent variance
was contributed by both variables, namely teachers’ perception and
teachers’ readiness for CTS practice in mathematics teaching, and this
contribution was very high.
Significance - The findings of the study also proved that the practice
of CTS has improved the pedagogical quality of teachers, especially
in meeting the needs of 21st century learning in the classroom. The
emphasis on higher order thinking skills (HOTS) is a continuation
of the excellence of teaching strategies through a variety of planned
learning resources.
Keywords: Teacher perception, teacher readiness, critical thinking

skills, mathematics, HOTS.
INTRODUCTION
Critical thinking is an approach that is increasingly applied in the

education system as a guide and also as an indicator to build a highly
skilled and quality workforce in the future. Thus, each teaching and
learning process nowadays are more focused on the methods of how
teachers and students develop their ability and capability in CTS to
solve problems (Cansoy et al., 2018). The development of CTS not
only builds capacity in HOTS, but it also enhances the identity of the
teacher as an educator who has great attitude and authority, informing
more effective teaching (Janssen et al., 2019). Therefore, the practice
of CTS is now becoming more widespread and creative in modifying
existing education curricula for the implementation of higher-purpose
learning (Erdem & Adiguzel, 2019).
The ability and confidence of teachers to apply CTS in shaping

meaningful teaching is a requirement that should be routine for each
learning process. CTS is essential in the problem-solving process,
in addition to building other cognitive skills such as problem
identification skills, making comparisons, classifying, finding cause
2
and effect, hypothesis testing and also in the decision-making process

(Maryuningsih et al., 2019). The practice of CTS in this teaching has
been clearly stated in the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013–2025
(PPPM 2013–2015) by the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE)
through its emphasis on the aspects of human capital development
that is critical, creative, innovative and highly skilled. The impact on
this development plan is to develop people who can be competitive in
the social, cultural and economic growth of the country (MOE, 2013).
Several studies have recognized that the practice of CTS has a huge
significance in promoting problem-solving methods among students
(Dehghayedi & Bagheri, 2018; Kozikoglu, 2019; Widana et al., 2018).
Most of the problem-solving methods can be explained by students
more efficiently, especially involving HOTS in mathematics. For
example, Widana et al. (2018) found that HOTS elements have been
highly emphasized in developing students’ mental ability to think more
critically and creatively to solve problems involving mathematical
calculations. Besides, CTS is also effectively applied when students
use problem-based learning in mathematics associated with daily
life. What is most interesting is that CTS is used to solve complex
mathematical problems by building and integrating 4D models as
learning aids in specifically difficult topics (Putri et al., 2020).
Although previous studies have been of significant importance in

developing the potential of students in CTS, there are still obstacles
in realizing the concept of learning. Students still need to apply the
fundamental aspects related to CTS because not everyone can acquire
these skills naturally (Mahanal et al., 2019; Rini et al., 2020). This
situation was also raised by Snyder and Snyder (2008) who found
four factors which proved to be significant barriers to the proliferation
of CTS namely (1) insufficient training, (2) lack of resources and
information, (3) bad feelings and prejudices, and (4) time constraints.
Therefore, the effectiveness of teachers’ teaching methods using CTS
may be hindered when these four factors are still plaguing the students.
The implementation of CTS requires a high level of readiness among

educators to ensure that CTS practice becomes a reality in the
existing curriculum. The readiness of teachers to implement CTS is
an effort that must be nurtured to advance the vision and mission of
education to a higher level (Changwong et al., 2018; Ennis, 2016).
A study by As’ari et al. (2017) found that the level of CTS readiness
among mathematics teachers was still low as the majority of them
were categorized as non-critical thinkers. Besides, a CTS perception
study by Kusaeri and Aditomo (2019) also concluded that only 60
3
percent of mathematics teachers tried to incorporate CTS elements in

their teaching process. However, the rest preferred to use traditional
approaches. These findings indicate that the application of CTS in
mathematics has not been fully implemented by educators.
On the other hand, teachers’ perception and readiness are aspects that
need to be given attention in providing teachers the competencies
to plan, manage and diversify practical-based teaching activities
(Ismail et al., 2019). At present, the teaching of mathematics in the
existing curriculum still does not indicate a clear direction towards
the construction of critical, creative and innovative skills among
teachers and students (Firdaus et al., 2015; Widana et al., 2018). There
are also a handful of mathematics teachers who try to apply some
aspects of CTS in the teaching process. However, such situations
occur unconsciously or beyond the knowledge of teachers as a result
of various activities and the indirect application of HOTS values
(Tanujaya et al., 2017).
Based on this problem, it is appropriate to conduct a study to identify

the cause(s) of weaknesses in the implementation of CTS in the
teaching process, especially in the subject of mathematics in Malaysia.
The focus of the study conducted was on the practice of applying
CTS in mathematics implemented by teachers in the classroom. First,
the study attempted to identify the level and relationship between
teachers’ perception and readiness to apply CTS practice that have
been implemented over the years. Besides, this study also determined
the influence of teachers’ perception and readiness on CTS practice in
the teaching of Mathematics.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Theory and Concept of Critical Thinking Skills
Critical thinking is one of the elements in HOTS that explains in more

depth about creative thinking methods, problem-solving processes,
and critical situations in making good decisions (Behar-Horenstein &
Niu, 2011). In comparison, Duran and Dokme (2016) argue that CTS
is a continuation of out-of-the-box thought processes that involve
questioning methods and ways to get answers focused on inquiry-
based learning. Previously, the Curriculum Development Division,
MOE has listed HOTS elements presented in the i-Think program
namely critical thinking, logical thinking, reflective thinking, creative
thinking and meta-cognitive thinking (MOE, 2012). Furthermore,
4
Acharya (2017) agrees that the insight factor is another element that
should exist in shaping CTS processes more practically.
However, some basic concepts need to be built in an individual to

use CTS successfully in teaching and learning. Among the concepts
include the ability to interpret, analyse, make inferences, evaluate,
explain and self-regulate (Facione, 2006, 2015). These concepts
are similar to the views of Paul and Elder (2005). They agree that
critical thinking is a method employed by an individual in attempting
to improve his thinking abilities to the highest level, creating unique
ideas and thoughts with a range of skills, competencies and intellectual
standards that he already has. Meanwhile, there are several elements
that make up CTS in education today, namely problem definition,
systematic observation, brainstorming, beginning of problem solution,
setting short-term goals, argumentation based on qualitative indicators,
feedback and self-assessment (Plotnikova & Strukov, 2019).
Besides, CTS can be created through a variety of cognitive and

intellectual skills that an individual possesses. These skills are
identifying problems, arbitrating an idea, avoiding any biased
factors, formulating strategies to support a cause, making thoughtful
decisions and meeting needs (Birgili, 2015). CTS is also associated
with various levels of skills according to the ability and wisdom of a
person to reason, decide and solve problems (Mahanal et al., 2019).
Meanwhile, Vaughter (2016) has also elaborated that the concept of
critical thinking is more widespread where every high-quality critical
thinking result should be translated into real action.
In mathematics, the application of CTS is usually more inclined to

the skills of analyzing arguments, making inferential analysis either
through inductive or deductive reasoning methods, performing
assessments, and making accurate decisions from existing problems
(Ismail et al., 2019; Munawaroh et al., 2018). Therefore, students who
can think critically will have a high level of scientific thinking and
can perform work very systematically. Usually these students can
also solve learning problems and daily tasks more perfectly (Su et al.,
2015).
5
2015). CTS is also associated with various levels of skills according to the ability and wisdom of a
person to reason, decide and solve problems (Mahanal et al., 2019). Meanwhile, Vaughter (2016) has
also elaborated that the concept of critical thinking is more widespread where every high-quality
critical thinking result should be translated into real action.
In mathematics, the application of CTS is usually more inclined to the skills of analyzing arguments,
makingMalaysian
inferential Journal
analysisofeither
Learning andinductive
through Instruction,
or 19, No. 1 (January)
deductive reasoning2022, pp: 1–30
methods, performing
assessments, and making accurate decisions from existing problems (Ismail et al., 2019; Munawaroh
et al., 2018). Therefore, students who can think critically will have a high level of scientific thinking
and can perform work very systematically. Usually these students can also solve learning problems
Figure 1 more perfectly (Su et al., 2015).
and daily tasks
Critical
Figure 1
Thinking Model (Modified from Zechmeister and Johnson,
1992)
Critical Thinking Model (Modified from Zechmeister and Johnson,1992)
Redesign to solve problem
Reflective Thinking
Careful judgement, seriousness in thinking, purpose-based

thinking, clear objective(s), strategic and systematic planning
How do I act? What do I need to know?
 What behaviour can lead to  What concepts of thinking should

critical thinking? be used to be more productive?
 Are the capabilities and  Am I aware of the limitations or
tendencies of each bias bias in my knowledge?
identified?
Willingness to respond thoughtfully and Knowledge such as reasoning and logical

with perceptiveness discovery skills
Problems encountered
Figure 1 shows the model of critical thinking put forward by Zechmeister and Johnson (1992), which
Figure
explains how1 a shows
problem canthe model
be easily solved of critical
through thinking
CTS. According to them,put
CTS forward by
should be linked
Zechmeister and
to three main factors, Johnson (1992), which explains how a problem can
as follows:
be easily solved through CTS. According to them, CTS should be
linked to three main factors, as follows: 4
(a) Tendency to accept and consider thought and perception in

managing problems.
(b) Knowledge of methods to carry out logical reasoning and
inquiry.
(c) Skills in using method(s) to solve problems encountered.
Critical Thinking Model in Malaysia
The education system in Malaysia is indeed focused on the

development of students based on four elements namely physical,
emotional, spiritual and intellectual. This matter has been touched
6
on in one of the objectives of the secondary school curriculum

development in Malaysia where students are expected to develop
and enhance their intellectual capacity, possess rational behaviour,
are creative and critical in their thinking when making decisions
(Curriculum Development Centre, 1989). In 1993, the MOE found
that the education system in Malaysia was able to combine four
models of critical thinking. These models were used to implement
each programme under the management of the MOE which was
based on the concept of thinking skills in a more creative, critical and
systematic manner (Curriculum Development Centre, 1993).
In 2011, the Primary School Standard Curriculum (PSSC) was

introduced to further strengthen the conceptual capacity of teaching
and learning in primary schools. The PSSC policy also embedded
elements such as CTS in shaping subject content, pedagogical
methods, interpretation, time management and organization (Yusof
& Ibrahim, 2012). Subsequently, the Secondary School Standard
Curriculum (SSSC) was introduced in 2017, by prioritizing 4C skills,
namely communication, critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration
(Kaviza, 2020). The main focus of SSSC was to shape the future of
students in terms of knowledge, skills and values. This case has also
been enshrined in the National Education Philosophy, which aims to
produce educators and students with a high level of creativity, critical
thinking and innovativeness to drive the country to greater glory.
Previously, there were four models of thinking skills practised by

teachers in the teaching and learning process. The following are the
four models:
(a) Swartz and Parks Model

This model was introduced by Robert Swartz and Sandra
Parks, who went through a planned preparation process
through the National Centre for Teaching Thinking. In
Malaysia, this model is more popularly known as the ‘Boston
Model’ by taking the name of the location of this model which
was in Boston City. According to Swartz and Parks (1994),
three elements must be mastered by a critical thinker namely
understanding, retention, and clarifying ideas.
(b) KWHL Model

This model combines four key elements with ‘K’ for
knowledge, ‘W’ for What, ‘H’ for How, and ‘L’ for Learnt
(Nagappan, 2001). ‘Knowledge’ refers to what source of
knowledge an individual has, while ‘what’ describes the
7
objectives that an individual must achieve after going through

a phase of critical thinking. Meanwhile, ‘How’ is interpreted
as a method that should be implemented to achieve the goal
through critical thinking, and ‘Learnt’ is the result obtained
through the process after implementing the phases of thinking
creatively and critically.
(c) CoRT 1 and CoRT 4 Model

CoRT 1 refers to ‘widening the perception’, while CoRT 4
refers to ‘creative and lateral thinking’. Both models were
introduced by Edward de Bono, who placed more emphasis on
the training and coaching aspects to improve critical thinking.
An individual has critical thinking when he/she can form
initial perception, be able to shape existing problems, analyze
and have high creativity in decision-making (DeBono, 1985).
(d) PILTS and PADI Model

PILTS model means Program Instruction in the Learning
of Thinking Skills, while PADI refers to Intellectual Power
Upgrades and Enhancements. This model was introduced
in 1992 which emphasized on the method of thinking
conceptually, thinking through analytical method, absorbing
creative and critical thinking, and also solving a problem(s) in
a more organized way (Ismail et al., 2019).
The theoretical framework introduced in the Swartz and Parks Model,

is on the ability and tendency of teachers to think critically. Based on
Swartz and Parks (1994), these two factors will affect the ability of
teachers to master the CTS method and the content of a subject. In
contrast, the KWHL Model considers that every piece of information
obtained is due to critical and creative thinking. In some aspects, not
all information can be easily obtained through the power of thought
alone, and it has to go through certain phases in forming the ability to
think (Kozikoglu, 2019). Thus, a systematic phase is indispensable in
facing the challenges of learning in the 21st century.
The CoRT1 and CoRT4 models are highly compatible with lateral
and creative thinking, in forming an initial perception of a problem.
The advantage of this model is that it can encourage teachers to think
ahead in determining what action(s) should be taken before, during
and after teaching and learning activities take place (Al-Faoury &
8
Khwaileh, 2014). Nevertheless, the PILTS and PADI Model are more
compatible with mathematics because they are created based on the
learning environment in Malaysia. CTS among mathematics teachers
in Malaysia and those abroad varies in terms of culture, moral values
and ethics (Ismail et al., 2019).
There are also CTS models such as Marzano’s New Taxonomy model
that focuses on improving the thinking styles of teachers and students.
According to Marzano (2001), critical thinking is based on four
elements: (i) self-system, (ii) metacognitive system, (iii) a cognitive
system, and (iv) knowledge domain. Studies in Malaysia have found
that this model has triggered new ideologies in developing high levels
of critical thinking among teachers and students (DeWitt et al., 2016;
Rahman & Manaf, 2017). A crucial fundamental point in this critical
thinking is the teacher’s ability to make decisions in line with planned
activities. In addition, this model is also highly synonymous with the
accuracy of goal-based decisions and authentic sources resulting from
the robustness of critical thinking generated.
There is no denying that CTS models have a uniformity in which

educators must enhance creativity and innovation in making the
teaching and learning a desirable process. Based on Sulaiman et
al. (2017), CTS is very useful in the teaching process because it
motivates students to apply its benefits in daily life. CTS can also
balance the concept of learning in the classroom with the challenges
that students will face in the future (Choy et al., 2017). Thus, teachers
are advised to adopt the corresponding CTS models to evoke their
ability in shaping more outstanding students in line with the concept
of 21st-century learning.
Teacher’s Readiness in CTS
The teaching and learning process in schools, begins with careful

planning and preparation carried out by teachers. Without proper
planning, classroom management will become chaotic and can affect
the teaching and learning process (Omar et al., 2019). According
to Danielson (2007), the planning and readiness of a teacher in
organizing effective teaching strategies can be defined as ‘behind-
the-scenes business’ in designing the learning environment in the
classroom. The effectiveness of teaching requires a high sacrifice
to change the learning environment to suit the diversity of students’
backgrounds and also their level of acceptance. Therefore, the
readiness and planning of teachers in applying pedagogical content,
teaching methods, determining learning outcomes, use of diverse
9
teaching resources and student interpretation are among the elements

that should be emphasized (Tatto et al., 2012).
Further, the readiness of teachers in practising CTS in teaching

and learning is a behaviour that needs to be observed from time to
time. If teachers fail to apply these CTS elements, the development
of innovation in teaching will not become a reality. According to
Nisbet and Collins (1978), there are several barriers and obstacles in
implementing teaching innovation including conflicting and adverse
reactions, inadequate planning, imperfect teacher preparation, lack
of commitment from teachers and the school community, and also
lack of resources. Other barriers include lack of in-depth knowledge,
experience, and ability that make teachers less prepared to undergo
each planned change (Vaughter, 2016).
Every teacher should have a repertoire of skills, including extensive

knowledge in the core areas of teaching, additional skills, a genuine
interest in educating students and a positive attitude to implement
change. These aspects will boost teachers’ ability to implement CTS
in teaching and learning in the classroom. However, the willingness
of teachers to shape the effectiveness of teaching also has high
significance together with the commitment of various other parties to
generate a vision and mission towards educational excellence (Yusof
& Ibrahim, 2012). The effectiveness of mathematics teaching also
depends entirely on the willingness of teachers to make the learning
environment more meaningful. In other words, the elements of CTS
become the booster for mathematics teachers to implement teaching
based on the content that has been embedded in the curriculum in
order to develop critical and creative thinking abilities of students
(Aini et al., 2019; Firdaus et al., 2015).
Thus, this study will focus on four main elements in teacher readiness
to apply CTS practice in the classroom such as knowledge, pedagogical
skills, attitude and interest in the teaching process. According to
Hollins (2011), teacher readiness and sound planning in pedagogy
can lead to a higher quality teaching process. At the same time, CTS
practice can also be applied in a more direct way when teachers plan
and prepare lessons that are focused on practical activities (Kusaeri
& Aditomo, 2019). Hands-on activities can help enhance students’
critical and constructive thinking processes to generate HOTS
elements in mathematics learning.
10
Research Questions
Based on the description, the study emphasized in answering the

following research questions:
1. What is the level of teachers’ perception of CTS, teachers’

readiness to apply CTS and teachers’ practice of CTS in high
performing schools (HPS), moderate performing schools
(MPS) and low performing schools (LPS)?
2. Is there a significant relationship between teachers’ perception
of CTS, teachers’ readiness to apply CTS and teachers’
practice of CTS in teaching mathematics?
3. Is there an influence on teachers’ perception of CTS and
teachers’ readiness to apply CTS that affects teachers’ practice
of CTS in teaching mathematics?
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study was conducted based on a cross-sectional survey method

involving a quantitative approach. A questionnaire was used to
collect data from selected participants consisting of secondary school
mathematics teachers in the state of Kelantan, Malaysia. The focus
of the study was to obtain information related to the relationship and
influence of teachers’ perception of CTS and teachers’ readiness for
CTS, which may have an impact on changes in teachers’ practice
of CTS. Based on the objective, the implementation of quantitative
research was the best method because this method is suitable for
researchers to collect research data based on phenomena that occurred
at a particular time (Creswell, 2014).
Population and Sampling
The population of this study consisted of mathematics teachers serving

in the state of Kelantan, Malaysia. The selection of this population was
based on the recommendation of Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) who
suggested that the entire population should reflect the characteristics
of the desired respondents. Therefore, the sampling technique used
to select participants was proportional stratified random sampling
according to the school category, which was classified into three,
namely HPS, MPS, LPS. According to Creswell (2014), the use of
proportional stratified random sampling can be implemented if the
11
number of mathematics teachers in each category, that is, the school

category in the context of this study varies. Using the sample size
determination table of Krejcie and Morgan (1970), the division of the
total number of participants is shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Number of Samples by School Category
Number Total number Sample

School Category
of schools of teachers selected
High Performing School 5 60 25
(HPS)
Moderate Performing School 15 225 106
(MPS)
Low Performing School (LPS) 17 230 95
Total 37 515 226
Based on Table 1, each sample was randomly selected, referring to

each stratum by looking at the percentage of mathematics teachers in
the study population. In HPS, 25 samples were selected from a total of
60 mathematics teachers, with a rate of 11.1 percent. Meanwhile, 106
mathematics teachers were selected from a total of 226 teachers in
MPS (46.9%) and the remaining 95 samples were selected from 230
mathematics teachers in LPS with a rate of 42.0 percent.
Instrumentation
There were four sections in the questionnaire. Part A consisted of the

demographics of the participants such as gender, teaching experience,
attendance of HOTS courses and type of school. Part B contained
items related to teachers’ perception of CTS adapted from Thurman
(2009). Section C contained items to measure teachers’ readiness for
CTS whereby the items were modified from a questionnaire conducted
by Nagappan (2001) and also, Yusof and Ibrahim (2012). Meanwhile,
Part D contained items which measured the practice of CTS in the
teaching of mathematics, adapted from Barak and Shakhman (2008),
Aldegether (2009) and also Shim and Walczak (2012). Before the
study’s implementation, the instrument’s validity was made by three
experts in related fields. For instruments in English, the translated
version in the Malay language was checked for compatibility with
12
the original instrument. All instruments were consolidated, and a pilot

study was conducted to obtain the following instrument reliability
values as shown in Table 2.
Table 2
The Reliability Value of Each Variable
Code Section Item Alpha Value

Section B
PE Teachers’ Perception of CTS 6 0.86
Section C (Teachers’ Readiness for CTS)

KN Knowledge 9 0.96
SK Skills 8 0.94
AT Attitude 8 0.92
IN Interest 7 0.90
Section D (Teachers’ Practice of CTS)

TE Creating a thinking environment 6 0.91
MC Meta-cognitive conversation map 6 0.90
QU Questioning 5 0.84
TH Thinking habits 3 0.85
SL Self-learning 4 0.82
Based on Table 2, it was found that all parts of the instrument had
achieved a high level of reliability. This was evidenced by the
Cronbach’s Alpha value (α) which ranged between 0.82 and 0.96.
According to Pallant (2011) a reliability value above 0.70 was good
and indicated that an instrument could measure what was to be
evaluated in a study. Thus, the high value of reliability indicated that
the study was equipped with a highly consistent measuring tool in
achieving its objectives (Hair et al., 2014).
Data Analysis
After the questionnaire was returned, the data was analyzed using
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24.0 and
Structural Equation Modeling-Analysis of Moment Structures (SEM-
13
AMOS). SPSS software was used to answer the first research question,
which was to determine the level of study variables through the use
of descriptive data such as mean values and standard deviations.
Meanwhile, SEM-AMOS was used to answer the second and third
research questions, which were to determine the relationship and
influence between the study variables involved. The study model
could be formed through SEM-AMOS, and the findings could help
improve the quality of the study through the value of fitness indexes
for each study variable (Awang et al., 2018; Hair et al., 2014).
RESULTS
Participants’ Profile
The total number of participants in this study was 226 secondary

school mathematics teachers in the state of Kelantan, Malaysia. Of
these, 81 teachers (35.8%) were male, and the remaining 145 teachers
(64.2%) were female. There were 13 teachers (5.7%) who had served
for five years or less, 31 teachers (13.7%) had between six and 10
years of teaching experience, and 65 teachers (28.8%) had between 11
and 15 years of teaching experience. The largest group came from 117
mathematics teachers who had taught for more than 15 years (51.8%).
Furthermore, the analysis showed that a total of 181 teachers (80.1%)

had participated in training related to HOTS/CCTS via workshops
and/or courses. In comparison, the remaining 45 teachers (19.9%)
did not receive any training via related courses/workshops. Findings
through descriptive analysis showed the breakdown of participants
based on the type of schools where they served. From the report,
there was a total of 25 mathematics teachers (11.1%) teaching at HPS,
another 106 teachers (46.9%) teaching at MPS, and the remaining 95
teachers (42.0%) serving at LPS throughout the state of Kelantan. A
summary of the descriptive analysis of these participants categorized
according to demographics is shown in Table 3 as follows.
14
Table 3
Demographic Distribution of Study Participants
Number of
Demographics Category Percentage (%)
Participants
Gender Male 81 35.8
Female 145 64.2
Teaching experience 1–5 years 13 5.7

6–10 years 31 13.7
11–15 years 65 28.8
More than 15 years 117 51.8
Attendance of Yes 181 80.1

HOTS/CCTS courses No 45 19.9
Type of school High performing 25 11.1

school (HPS)
Moderate performing 106 46.9
school (MPS)
Low performing 95 42.0
school (LPS)
Levels of Each Variable
For the first research question, the mean value was used to measure
and compare the level of each study variable based on three school
categories namely HPS, MPS and LPS. Previously, Nunnally (1994)
suggested that the interpretation of mean values at high levels be
between 4.01 and 5.00, moderate levels between 2.01 and 4.00 and
low levels between 1.00 and 2.00. For the first variable, it was found
that teachers’ perception of CTS for mathematics in HPS was higher
than the perception of CTS of the teachers in MPS and LPS. Teachers’
perception of CTS in HPS recorded a high mean value (mean = 4.24,
SP = 0.45), however only moderate levels were recorded for teachers’
perception of CTS in MPS (mean = 3.89, SP = 0.68) and LPS (mean
= 3.63, SP = 0.52).
The results also showed that teachers’ readiness to apply CTS in

mathematics was at a high level for two types of schools namely
HPS (mean = 4.32, SP = 4.07) and MPS (mean = 4.07, SP = 0.32)
compared to LPS which recorded a moderate level (mean = 3.82, SP
= 0.32). The results of the study also showed the level of practice of
15
CTS among mathematics teachers in Kelantan, Malaysia. The mean

score for teachers’ practice of CTS was high among mathematics
teachers in HPS (mean = 4.39, SP = 0.43) and in MPS (mean = 4.20,
SP = 0.37), but teachers’ practice of CTS in LPS was at a moderate
level (mean = 3.79, SP = 0.44). In general, all three study variables
showed a high level in HPS. However, the findings were the opposite
for mathematics teachers in LPS, where all the three study variables
showed moderate level findings. The summary of the mean score for
each study variable is shown in Table 4 as follows.
Table 4
Mean Score of Each Variable Based on School Category
Category of
Variable Mean SD Result
School
Teachers’ perception of
HPS 4.24 0.45 High
CTS
MPS 3.89 0.68 Moderate
LPS 3.63 0.52 Moderate
HPS 4.32 0.33 High

Teachers’ readiness for
MPS 4.07 0.32 High
CTS
HPS 4.39 0.43 High

MPS 4.20 0.37 High
Teachers’ practice of
CTS
Relationship between teachers’ perception, teachers’ readiness

and teachers’ practice of CTS in teaching mathematics
The following Figure 2 shows the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

for pooled models of all study variables. This CFA model reached the
level of fitness indexes as suggested by Awang et al. (2018) where
the value of RMSEA = 0.049 (RMSEA < 0.08), CFI = 0.906 (CFI >
0.90), TLI = 0.902 (TLI > 0.90) and Chi Sq / df = 1.548 (Chi Sq / df
< 5.0). According to Arbuckle (2016), these fitness indexes need to be
adhered so that the model formed can be used to analyze the objectives
of other studies. Therefore, the correlation values between the study
variables can be identified more easily, clearly and accurately through
the CFA model once the level of fitness indexes has been reached.
16
Figure 2
CFA for Pooled Mode
Table 5 shows the correlation values between the study variables

released as a result of the CFA for the pooled model shown in
Figure 2. Based on the analysis, teachers’ perception of CTS
indicated a high positive and significant correlation to teachers’
practice of CTS (r = .75, p < .01). At the same time, teachers’
readiness for CTS also showed a high and significant positive
correlation with teachers’ practice of CTS (r = .77, p < .01). This
correlation strength value was with reference to Dancey and
Reidy (2011), where the high correlation was between 0.70 and
0.99. These findings clearly showed that mathematics teachers
in Kelantan had high perception and readiness in applying CTS
in their practice.
17
Table 5
Correlation Between Study Variables
Variable Variable Correlation Output
High positive
CTS Practice ßà Perception .75** correlation
CTS Practice ßà Readiness .77** High positive
correlation
**p<0.01
The Influence of Teachers’ Perception and Teachers’

Readiness that Affects Teachers’ Practice of CTS in Teaching
Mathematics
The following Figure 3 shows the output of standardized path

coefficients based on the beta expectation value to measure
the influence of the teachers’ perception and readiness on their
practice in CTS. Based on this diagram, it was found that the
expected value of beta on the influence of teachers’ perception
on CTS practice was 0.38, while the expected value of beta on
the influence of teachers’ readiness for CTS practice was 0.47.
Meanwhile, the coefficient that determined the value of R2 was
0.65. This value meant that 65 percent of the variance of CTS
practice was present from the influence of teachers’ perception
and teachers’ readiness variables. In comparison, the remaining
35% was the error variance present from other factors not
mentioned in this study. This study model was considered a good
model because the value of R2 = 0.65 was high; in addition, the
factor load value for each item exceeded the value of 0.60. A
factor load value above 0.60 indicated that the item used in the
model was highly consistent and measured every construct in
the study (Awang et al., 2018; Shiau et al., 2019).
18
Figure 3
Output Standardized Path Coefficients Between Variables in

The Model
Figure 4 shows the value of the regression path coefficient

between the variables in this study. From the analysis, it was
found that the path coefficient value for teachers’ perception of
CTS practice was 0.54. At the same time, the same regression
value of 0.54 was also obtained on teachers’ readiness for
CTS practice. Therefore, these findings proved that teachers’
perception and teachers’ readiness had a significant impact on
CTS practice among mathematics teachers in Kelantan.
19
Figure 4
Regression Path Coefficients between the Variables in the Model
Table 6 shows the effect of the influence of teachers’ perception

and teachers’ readiness for CTS practice in more detail. The beta
value of 0.544 indicated that when teachers’ perception increased
by 1 unit, then the CTS practice variable also increased by 0.544
units. Besides, the beta value of 0.538 indicated that when
teachers’ readiness increased by 1 unit, then the CTS practice
variable also increased by 0.538 units. Thus, the regression
equation coefficients that can be formulated are as follows:
CTS Practice = 0.544 (Teachers’ Perception) + 0.538 (Teachers’

Readiness)
CTS Practice = 0.544. Teachers’ Perception + 0.538. Teachers’
Readiness
20
Table 6
Regression Path Coefficient among Study Variables
Variable Variable Beta Value SE CR p-value Output
CTS Practice ß Perception 0.544 0.151 3.610 0.00 Significant

CTS Practice ß Readiness 0.538 0.123 4.387 0.00 Significant
Note. SE = standard error, CR = critical ratio
DISCUSSION
HOTS is a field of knowledge that is highly demanded in the current

education system. However, the level of practice is not yet satisfactory.
Based on the findings, it was found that only mathematics teachers
in HPS recorded high levels for all three study variables. These
findings also showed that the level of practice among mathematics
teachers in LPS was of a moderate level for all three variables, while
findings were mixed for MPS for each variable, which was between
medium and high levels. Thus, previous theory which claimed that the
application of CTS practice contributed to the academic improvement
of students is accurate. Studies by Aini et al. (2019), Kusaeri and
Aditomo (2019), Su et al. (2015) and Widana et al. (2018) also agreed
that mathematics teachers who apply the practice of CTS in teaching
can further strengthen their pedagogical processes in the classroom.
Differences in the level of perception, readiness and application of

CTS practice in mathematics in schools also depend on the level of
students’ ability to accept the teaching process. Thus, the practice
of CTS is more suitable to be applied in HPS because teachers
can maximize the HOTS elements in the learning due to high
student acceptance (Ganapathy & Kaur, 2014). However, it is quite
challenging to implement CTS practice in MPS and LPS due to low
student acceptance as well as their academic achievement, especially
in mathematics, which is relatively unsatisfactory. According to
Facione (2015), the practice of CTS should be made a culture in the
learning environment so that the existence of HOTS elements can
21
be integrated more effectively. Teachers should take the initiative to

implement teaching strategies, including creating strategic teamwork
so that students can accept the practice of CTS more effectively
(Plotnikova & Strukov, 2019).
Meanwhile, the findings of the study have implications based on

existing theories discussed further by Swartz and Parks (1994),
Aldegether (2009), Paul and Elder (2005), and also Zechmeister and
Johnson (1992). These studies mentioned how CTS practice can be
implemented in the education system, especially in schools. Based
on the findings, it was found that teacher perception and teacher
readiness had a highly significant and positive relationship with the
practice of applying CTS. This situation proves that mathematics
teachers have excellent perception and readiness for the practice of
CTS, and they are ready to implement CTS either in HPS, MPS and
LPS. These findings also give the impression that teachers with CTS
can reconstruct their thinking to solve any problem in mathematics, as
proposed in the model by Zechmeister and Johnson (1992).
This result indicates that mathematics teachers can apply the elements
of CTS and HOTS teaching methods such as inquiry-based learning,
problem-solving skills and project-based learning which suit the
knowledge and skills possessed by teachers as well as aligned with
student acceptance (Duran & Dokme, 2016; Kozikoglu, 2019; Rini et
al., 2020). Hollins (2011) suggests that the planning and readiness of
teachers in implementing lessons are essential elements in describing
teachers’ personality, seriousness and practice in designing high-
quality teaching.
Through the SEM-AMOS model, there was a significant effect

between the two independent variables, namely teachers’ perception
and teachers’ readiness for the application of CTS practice. This
situation concurred with the findings by Erdem dan Adiguzel (2019),
whereby the application of CTS practice was based on the perception
of teachers in the school environment that they served. Besides,
demographic factors such as gender and teaching experience, the
level of teacher education also play a significant role in improving
teacher perception of CTS practice in teaching. Even so, teachers’
perception of CTS practice can also depend on internal factors and
skills such as self-motivation, expectations in acceptance, simple
language use, teaching methods and communication skills with
students (Dehghayedi & Bagheri, 2018; Warsah et al., 2021).
22
Indeed, teacher readiness to implement CTS in mathematics is highly

demanded in the teaching process. Teacher readiness is not only based
on pedagogical skills and knowledge, but it is also influenced by the
attitude and interest of teachers in placing CTS as a vital aspect in the
classroom (Nagappan, 2001; Yusof & Ibrahim, 2012). Based on the
SEM-AMOS analysis, it turned out that the four elements of teacher
readiness affected the application of CTS practice in the teaching of
mathematics. Birgili (2015) has also touched on the importance of
teachers’ pedagogical skills and knowledge in implementing CTS
practice so that it can produce students who can solve problems
involving everyday situations, more critically and creatively. Thus,
the practice of CTS demands a positive attitude and deep interest
among educators. Failure to practice CTS in teaching usually occurs
when teachers themselves do not care about the importance of critical
thinking (As’ari et al., 2017).
CONCLUSION
Perfect teaching is teaching that incorporates elements that can enhance

creativity and critical thinking among students. To achieve this goal,
teachers must have a positive perception of the implementation
of CTS and have a high readiness in practising CTS in teaching.
When both elements of teacher perception and readiness have been
developed, the application of CTS practice can be implemented
in teaching, especially in mathematics. To improve the quality of
teaching mathematics, teachers should be thoroughly prepared before
the teaching and learning process until the end of the process based on
the elements of CTS. Thus, factors such as skills, knowledge, attitude
and deep interest among teachers become a priority in ensuring the
practice of CTS implementation can occur successfully in teaching
(Yusof & Ibrahim, 2012).
As mathematics is one of the core and essential subjects of the

Malaysian curriculum, the approach emphasized should help teachers
and students in that the application of CTS practice does not interfere
with existing curriculum requirements. One of the best steps is to apply
the elements of HOTS in every teaching process to produce students
who are highly creative and able to think critically (Munawaroh et al.,
2018). Therefore, teachers need first to have a high level of perception
and readiness in the application of CTS. Mathematics teachers should
be aware that the practice of CTS is not an easy thing, as it requires
huge sacrifices to produce a positive outlook. When teachers have
awareness, then it is easier for teachers to make careful preparation,
23
including empowering their skills and knowledge to practice CTS in

every lesson (Hollins, 2011). Through a variety of teaching strategies,
the use of teaching aids that are appropriate and aligned with the
level of student acceptance, the interest and attitude of teachers to
implement CTS will be more prominent to produce high student
creativity (Su et al., 2015).
Based on the findings of the study, a good implication for teachers

is that the application of CTS practice requires continuous training.
Mathematics teachers are also advised to follow professional
development programmes in the field of pedagogy, or soft skills in
cultivating a variety of teaching strategies and to have high self-esteem
to form high-quality CTS practices (Ennis, 2016; Erdogan, 2020).
Based on the latest developments, the education system is moving
towards the implementation of 21st-century learning. Therefore,
the application of CTS practice should have continuity towards that
goal with the implementation of the vision and mission of a national
education focused on the development of culture and human beings
with critical thinking (Ab Kadir, 2017). The common practice of CTS
among teachers will be a catalyst for students to gradually accept
the concept of CTS in their learning and to eventually produce high-
quality academic achievement.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in

the public, commercial or non-profit sectors. There was no potential
conflict of interest as reported by the authors.
REFERENCES
Ab Kadir, M. A. (2017). What teacher knowledge matters in

effectively developing critical thinkers in the 21st century
curriculum? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 79–90. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.10.011
Acharya, K. P. (2017). Exploring critical thinking for secondary level
students in chemistry: From insight to practice. Journal of
Advanced College of Engineering and Management, 3, 31–
39. https://doi.org/10.3126/jacem.v3i0.18812
24
Aini, N. R., Syafril, S., Netriwati, N., Pahrudin, A., Rahayu, T., &
Puspasari, V. (2019). Problem-based learning for critical
thinking skills in mathematics. Journal of Physics: Conference
Series, 1155(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
6596/1155/1/012026
Al-degether, R. (2009). Teacher educators’ opinions and knowledge
about critical thinking and the methods they use to encourage
critical thinking skills in five female teacher colleges in Saudi
Arabia (Doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, USA.
Al-Faoury, O. H., & Khwaileh, F. (2014). The effect of teaching CoRT
program no. (4) entitled ‘creativity’ on the gifted learners’
writings in Ein El-Basha Center for gifted student. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 4(11), 2249–2257.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2016). IBM SPSS AMOS 24 User’s Guide. Amos
Development Corporation.
As’ari, A. R., Mahmudi, A., & Nuerlaelah, E. (2017). Our prospective
mathematics teachers are not critical thinkers yet. Journal
on Mathematics Education, 8(2), 145–156. https://doi.
org/10.22342/jme.8.2.3961.145-156
Awang, Z., Hui, L. S., & Zainuddin, N. F. S. (2018). Pendekatan
Mudah SEM: Structural Equation Modelling. MPWS Rich
Resources Sdn Bhd.
Barak, M., & Shakhman, L. (2008). Reform-based science teaching:
Teachers’ instructional practices and conceptions. EURASIA
Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,
4(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75301
Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Niu, L. (2011). Teaching critical thinking
skills in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal
of College Teaching & Learning, 8(2), 25–42. https://doi.
org/10.19030/tlc.v8i2.3554
Birgili, B. (2015). Creative and critical thinking skills in problem-
based learning environments. Journal of Gifted Education
and Creativity, 2(2), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.18200/
JGEDC.2015214253
Cansoy, R., Parlar, H., & Polatcan, M. (2018). Teacher candidates’
critical thinking tendencies research in Turkey: A content
analysis. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(9),
1974–1980. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060916
Changwong, K., Sukkamart, A., & Sisan, B. (2018). Critical thinking
skill development: Analysis of a new learning management
model for Thai high schools. Journal of International Studies,
11(2), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2018/11-
2/3
25
Choy, S. C., Yim, J. S. C., & Tan, P. L. (2017). Reflective thinking

among preservice teachers: A Malaysian perspective. Issues
in Educational Research, 27(2), 234–251.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design : Qualitative, quantitative,
and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Curriculum Development Centre. (1989). Rancangan kurikulum baru
sekolah menengah. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
Curriculum Development Centre. (1993). Kemahiran berfikir:
Konsep, model dan strategi pengajaran-pembelajaran.
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2011). Statistics without maths for
psychology (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework
for teaching. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
DeBono, E. (1985). DeBono’s thinking course. Facts on File
Publications.
Dehghayedi, M., & Bagheri, M. S. (2018). EFL teachers’ learning and
teaching beliefs: Does critical thinking make a difference?
International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 223–240. https://
doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11415a
DeWitt, D., Alias, N., & Siraj, S. (2016, July 31-August 3). Problem
solving strategies of Malaysian secondary school teachers.
Educational Technology World Conference, Bali, Indonesia.
Duran, M., & Dokme, I. (2016). The effect of the inquiry-based
learning approach on student’s critical thinking skills.
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education, 12(12), 2887–2908. https://doi.org/10.12973/
eurasia.2016.02311a
Ennis, R. H. (2016). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision.
Topoi, 37(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-
9401-4
Erdem, A. R., & Adiguzel, D. C. (2019). The opinions of primary
school teachers on their creative thinking skills. Eurasian
Journal of Educational Research, 19(80), 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.14689/ejer.2019.80.2
Erdogan, F. (2020). The relationship between prospective middle
school mathematics teachers’ critical thinking skills and
reflective thinking skills. Participatory Educational Research,
7(1), 220–241. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.13.7.1
Facione, P. A. (2006). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts.
Carlifornia Academic Press.
26
Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it

counts. In Insight assessment (pp. 1–28). Hermosa Beach,
CA: Measured Reasons LLC. Retrieved from https://www.
insightassessment.com/CT-Resources/Teaching-For-and-
About-Critical-Thinking/Critical-Thinking-What-It-Is-and-
Why-It-Counts/Critical-Thinking-What-It-Is-and-Why-It-
Counts-PDF
Firdaus, Kailani, I., Bakar, M. N., & Bakry. (2015). Developing
critical thinking skills of students in mathematics learning.
Journal of Education and Learning, 9(3), 226–236.
Ganapathy, M., & Kaur, S. (2014). ESL students’ perceptions of
the use of higher order thinking skills in English Language
writing. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(5),
80–87. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.5p.80
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014).
Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education
Limited.
Hollins, E. R. (2011). Teacher Preparation For Quality Teaching.
Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 395–407. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022487111409415
Ismail, S. N., Muhammad, S., Kanesan, A. G., & Ali, R. M. (2019).
The influence of teachers’ perception and readiness towards
the implementation of critical thinking skills (CTS) practice
in Mathematics. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2),
337–352. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12222a
Janssen, E. M., Mainhard, T., Buisman, R. S. M., Verkoeijen, P. P.
J. L., Heijltjes, A. E. G., van Peppen, L. M., & van Gog, T.
(2019). Training higher education teachers’ critical thinking
and attitudes towards teaching it. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 58(March), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2019.03.007
Kaviza, M. (2020). Hubungan antara amalan kemahiran 4C dan
pencapaian Sejarah. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences
and Humanities, 5(12), 405–412. https://doi.org/10.47405/
mjssh.v5i12.652
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2012). Program i-Think:
Membudayakan kemahiran berfikir.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint
2013–2015. https://www.moe.gov.my/en/dasarmenu/pelan-
pembangunan-pendidikan-2013-2025
Kozikoglu, I. (2019). Investigating critical thinking in prospective
teachers: Metacognitive skills, problem solving skills and
academic self-efficacy. Journal of Social Studies Education
Research, 10(2), 111–130.
27
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining

sample size for research activities. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 38(1), 607–610. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001316447003000308
Kusaeri, K., & Aditomo, A. (2019). Pedagogical beliefs about critical
thinking among Indonesian Mathematics pre-service teachers.
doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12137a
Mahanal, S., Zubaidah, S., Sumiati, I. D., Sari, T. M., & Ismirawati,
N. (2019). RICOSRE: A learning model to develop critical
thinking skills for students with different academic abilities.
doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12227a
Maryuningsih, Y., Hidayat, T., Riandi, R., & Rustaman, N. Y. (2019).
Critical thinking skills of prospective biology teacher on
the chromosomal basic of inheritance learning through
online discussion forums. Journal of Physics: Conference
Series, 1157(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
6596/1157/2/022090
Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educatonal
objectives. Experts in assessment. Sage Publications.
Munawaroh, H., Sudiyanto, & Riyadi. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions
of innovative learning model toward critical thinking ability.
International Journal of Educational Methodology, 4(3),
153–160. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.4.3.153
Nagappan, R. (2001). The teaching of higher-order thinking skills in
Malaysia. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 2(1), 1–21.
Nisbet, R. I., & Collins, J. (1978). Barriers and Resistance to
Innovation. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 3(1),
1–29. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.1978v3n1.1
Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychimetric theory (3rd ed.). Tata McGraw-
hill education.
Omar, M. N., Ismail, S. N., & Kasim, A. L. (2019). Hubungan
kepimpinan teknologi pengetua dan efikasi kendiri guru.
Jurnal Kepimpinan Pendidikan, 6(4), 1–21.
Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual (4th ed.). Allen & Unwin.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2005). The miniature guide to critical thinking:
Concepts and tools. The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Plotnikova, N. F., & Strukov, E. N. (2019). Integration of teamwork
and critical thinking skills in the process of teaching students.
Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 14(1), 1–10. https://
doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v14i1.4031
Putri, A., Roza, Y., & Maimunah. (2020). Development of learning
tools with the discovery learning model to improve
28
the critical thinking ability of Mathematics. Journal of

Educational Sciences, 4(1), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.31258/
jes.4.1.p.83-92
Rahman, S. A., & Manaf, N. F. A. (2017). A critical analysis of
Bloom’s Taxonomy in teaching creative and critical thinking
skills in Malaysia trought English literature. English
Language Teaching, 10(9), 245–256. http://doi.org/10.5539/
elt.v10n9p245
Rini, D. S., Adisyahputra, & Sigit, D. V. (2020). Boosting student critical
thinking ability through project based learning, motivation
and visual, auditory, kinesthetic learning style: A study on
Ecosystem topic. Universal Journal of Educational Research,
8(4A), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081806
Shiau, W.-L., Sarstedt, M., & Hair, J. F. (2019). Internet research
using partial least squares structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM). Internet Research, 29(3), 398–406. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IntR-10-2018-0447
Shim, W.-J., & Walczak, K. (2012). The impact of faculty teaching
practices on the development of students’ critical thinking
skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, 24(1), 16–30. Retrieved from http://www.
isetl.org/ijtlhe/
Snyder, L. G., & Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and
problem solving skills. Delta Pi Episilon Journal, 50(2), 90–
99.
Su, A. H. F. H., Ricci, F. A., & Mnatsakanian, M. (2015).
Mathematical teaching strategies: Pathways to critical
thinking and metacognition. International Journal of
Research in Education and Science, 2(1), 190–200. https://
doi.org/10.21890/ijres.57796
Sulaiman, T., Muniyan, V., Madhvan, D., Hasan, R., & Rahim, S. S.
A. (2017). Implementation of higher order thinking skills in
teaching of science: A case study in Malaysia. International
Research Journal of Education and Sciences, 1(1), 1–3.
Swartz, R., & Parks, S. (1994). Infusing the teaching of critical and
creative thinking into content instruction: A lesson design
handbook for the elementary grades. Critical Thinking Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics
(5th ed.). Pearson Education Inc.
Tanujaya, B., Mumu, J., & Margono, G. (2017). The relationship
between higher order thinking skills and academic performance
of student in Mathematics instruction. International Education
Studies, 10(11), 78. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n11p78
29
Tatto, M. T., Peck, R., Schwille, J., Bankov, K., Senk, S. L., Rodriguez,
M., & Rowley, G. (2012). Policy, practice, and readiness to
teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 countries:
Findings from the IEA Teacher Education and Development
Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement.
Thurman, B. A. (2009). Teaching of critical thinking skills in the
English content area in South Dakota public high schools and
colleges (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Dokota,
USA.
Vaughter, P. (2016). Climate change education: From critical thinking
to critical action. United Nations University.
Warsah, I., Morganna, R., Uyun, M., Hamengkubuwono, H., & Afandi,
M. (2021). The impact of collaborative learning on learners’
critical thinking skills. International Journal of Instruction,
14(2), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14225a
Widana, I. W., Parwata, I. M. Y., Parmithi, N. N., Jayantika, I. G.
A. T., Sukendra, K., & Sumandya, I. W. (2018). Higher
order thinking skills assessment towards critical thinking on
Mathematics lesson. International Journal of Social Sciences
and Humanities, 2(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.29332/ijssh.
v2n1.74
Yusof, S. M., & Ibrahim, N. (2012). Kesediaan guru Matematik
tahun satu dalam pelaksanaan Kurikulum Standard Sekolah
Rendah (KSSR) di daerah Kluang. Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 6(1), 26–38.
Zechmeister, E. B., & Johnson, J. E. (1992). Critical thinking: A
functional approach. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
30

The Practice of Critical Thinking Skills in Teaching Mathematics: Teachers' Perception and Readiness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Practice of Critical Thinking Skills in Teaching Mathematics: Teachers' Perception and Readiness

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Practice of Critical Thinking Skills in Teaching Mathematics: Teachers' Perception and Readiness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 19, No.

1 (January) 2022, pp: 1–30

MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF LEARNING

How to cite this article:

THE PRACTICE OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

Corresponding author: siti.noor@uum.edu.my

Received: 15/10/2020 Revised: 25/5/2021 Accepted: 14/6/2021 Published: 31/1/2022

Purpose - This study was conducted to identify the relationship and

Methodology - Participants of the study consisted of 226 mathematics

and Ibrahim (2012). Besides, measurement of the teachers’ practice

Findings - Teachers’ perception, readiness, and CTS practice in

Keywords: Teacher perception, teacher readiness, critical thinking

Critical thinking is an approach that is increasingly applied in the

The ability and confidence of teachers to apply CTS in shaping

and effect, hypothesis testing and also in the decision-making process

Although previous studies have been of significant importance in

The implementation of CTS requires a high level of readiness among

percent of mathematics teachers tried to incorporate CTS elements in

Based on this problem, it is appropriate to conduct a study to identify

Theory and Concept of Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking is one of the elements in HOTS that explains in more

However, some basic concepts need to be built in an individual to

Besides, CTS can be created through a variety of cognitive and

In mathematics, the application of CTS is usually more inclined to

Redesign to solve problem

Careful judgement, seriousness in thinking, purpose-based

How do I act? What do I need to know?

 What behaviour can lead to  What concepts of thinking should

Willingness to respond thoughtfully and Knowledge such as reasoning and logical

(a) Tendency to accept and consider thought and perception in

Critical Thinking Model in Malaysia

The education system in Malaysia is indeed focused on the

on in one of the objectives of the secondary school curriculum

In 2011, the Primary School Standard Curriculum (PSSC) was

Previously, there were four models of thinking skills practised by

(a) Swartz and Parks Model

(b) KWHL Model

objectives that an individual must achieve after going through

(c) CoRT 1 and CoRT 4 Model

(d) PILTS and PADI Model

The theoretical framework introduced in the Swartz and Parks Model,

There is no denying that CTS models have a uniformity in which

Teacher’s Readiness in CTS

The teaching and learning process in schools, begins with careful

teaching resources and student interpretation are among the elements

Further, the readiness of teachers in practising CTS in teaching

Every teacher should have a repertoire of skills, including extensive

Based on the description, the study emphasized in answering the

1. What is the level of teachers’ perception of CTS, teachers’

This study was conducted based on a cross-sectional survey method

Population and Sampling

The population of this study consisted of mathematics teachers serving

number of mathematics teachers in each category, that is, the school

Number of Samples by School Category

Number Total number Sample

Based on Table 1, each sample was randomly selected, referring to

There were four sections in the questionnaire. Part A consisted of the

the original instrument. All instruments were consolidated, and a pilot

The Reliability Value of Each Variable