Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Enhancing Higher Order Thinking Skills Among Inservice Science Teachers Via Embedded Assessment

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

Testing students on higher order thinking skills may reinforce these skills among them. To research this assertion, we developed a graduate course for inservice science teachers in a framework of a “Journal Club”—a hybrid course which combines face-to-face classroom discussions with online activities, interrelating teaching, learning, and assessment. The course involves graduate students in critical evaluation of science education articles and cognitive debates, and tests them on these skills. Our study examined the learning processes and outcomes of 51 graduate students, from three consecutive semesters. Findings indicated that the students’ higher order thinking skills were enhanced in terms of their ability to (a) pose complex questions, (b) present solid opinions, (c) introduce consistent arguments, and (d) demonstrate critical thinking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 719–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M. (2007). Transitions from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in undergraduate chemistry courses. Computers & Education, 48, 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., Ben-Chaim, D., & Zoller, U. (2007a). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher- order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education, 37, 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., Carson, K. M., & Zoller, U. (2007b). Chemistry is in the news project: Can a workshop induce a change? Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 1712–1716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education, 89, 117–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). Online question-posing and peer-assessment as means for Web- based knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61, 84–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birenbaum, B. (2003). New insights into learning and teaching and their implications for assessment. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 13–36). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Classroom assessment is not (necessarily) formative assessment (and vice versa) towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. In M. Wilson (Ed.), 103rd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 183–188). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, handbook I: Cognitive domain. Longmans, Green: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodzin, A. M. (2002). Teaching science methods courses with Web-enhanced activities: Proceedings of the annual international conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED465603).

  • Bybee, R., & DeBoer, G. (1994). Research on goals for the science curriculum. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 357–387). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J. (2003a). A framework for project-based assessment in science education. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 89–118). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J. (2003b). From nationwide standardized testing to school-based alternative embedded assessment in Israel: Students’ performance in the “Matriculation 2000” project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 34–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Barnea, N. (1997). Inservice chemistry teachers training: The impact of introducing computer technology on teachers’ attitudes and classroom implementation. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 577–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. W. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect students’ understanding of scientific concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 243–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 411–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (2005). Case-based long-term professional development of science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1413–1446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. R. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educationa1 Researcher, 18, 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Facione, P. A. (1998). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallows, S., & Chandramohan, B. (2001). Multiple approaches to assessment: Reflections on use of tutor, peer, and self-assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 229–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, F. S. (2000). Journal clubs - a successful vehicle to science literacy. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29, 320–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govindasamy, T. (2002). Successful implementation of e-learning pedagogical considerations. Internet and Higher Education, 4, 287–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Person, N., & Hu, X. (2002). Improving comprehension through discourse processes. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 89, 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28, 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P., & Derry, S. J. (Eds.). (1993). Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • MaKinster, J. G., Barab, S. A., & Keating, T. M. (2001). Design and implementation of an on- line professional development community: A project-based learning approach. Journal of Science Education, 5. Retrieved August 2007 from http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/ejsev5n3.html.

  • Marbach-Ad, G., & Sokolove, P. G. (2000). Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask higher questions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 854–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: 1 outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2001). Standards for professional development schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2003). Standards for science teacher preparation. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, R. (1990). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for critical thinking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (2003). The era of assessment engineering: Changing perspectives on teaching and learning and the role of new modes of assessment. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 1–12). Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K., Kahle, J., & Fraser, B. (1990). Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Zee, E., & Roberts, D. (2006). Making science teaching and learning visible through web- based “snapshots of practice”. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 367–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, J. Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effect of computer animation on particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 521–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, J. R., & Winkel, C. E. (1982). Journal club format emphasizing techniques of critical reading. Journal of Medical Education, 57, 799–801.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitude, and intentions of Science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 792–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 145–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U. (1993). Lecture and learning: Are they compatible? Maybe for LOCS; unlikely for HOCS. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 195–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, 32000, Haifa, Israel

    Miri Barak & Yehudit Judy Dori

Authors
  1. Miri Barak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yehudit Judy Dori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miri Barak.

About this article

Cite this article

Barak, M., Dori, Y.J. Enhancing Higher Order Thinking Skills Among Inservice Science Teachers Via Embedded Assessment. J Sci Teacher Educ 20, 459–474 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9141-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9141-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation