Higher-order thinking skills of Grade 4–6 students before and after a culturally responsive 3D animation intervention: de-identified student-level dataset

Student-level pre-test and post-test scores on three rubric-scored higher-order thinking skill (HOTS) instruments — problem-solving, critical thinking and creative thinking — collected from 2,258 students in 44 small schools in the Mekong River Basin area of Thailand between September and December 2022. The data support the analyses reported in the associated article. Design: single-group pre-test–post-test, with cluster sampling using schools as primary units. Participants were in Grades 4–6 (approximately 9–12 years). Instruments: each pairs a culturally grounded problem-scenario interview with a teacher-completed analytic rubric. Every dimension is scored 0–3 (0 = no response; 1 = attempts but not yet correct; 2 = partially correct; 3 = fully correct on all points). Problem-solving and critical thinking each comprise three dimensions (maximum 9 points); creative thinking comprises four dimensions (maximum 12 points). The analytical-thinking instrument used in the same research programme is reported in the companion paper and is not included here. Completeness: all 2,258 records have pre- and post-test scores on all three instruments. No imputation was applied. Files: the CSV contains the dataset in an open, preservation-friendly format. The XLSX contains the same data together with documentation, a data dictionary, and all descriptive statistics, paired-samples tests, effect sizes, school-level summaries and reliability estimates reproduced as live spreadsheet formulas, so that every reported value can be traced to the underlying records. De-identification: no personal identifiers were collected or retained. School and province names have been replaced with arbitrary codes assigned in randomised order; the code-to-name key is held by the corresponding author and is not distributed. Student identifiers are within-school sequence numbers with no link to any individual. Grade and sex were not retained in the analytic dataset and therefore cannot be released. Interpretation: the study used a single group with no control condition, so pre-to-post differences describe change associated with the intervention and do not establish causation. Identical instruments were administered at both time points, so practice effects cannot be separated from intervention effects. Ethics: approved through full board review by an institutional Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number 30/65 Exp.) on 9 March 2022, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, the CIOMS guidelines and ICH-GCP. Written informed consent was obtained from the parents or legal guardians of all participating minors, with age-appropriate assent from the students themselves.