Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 207–225 | Cite as

Teaching Thinking Skills in Context-Based Learning: Teachers’ Challenges and Assessment Knowledge

  • Shirly Avargil
  • Orit Herscovitz
  • Yehudit Judy DoriEmail author
Article

Abstract

For an educational reform to succeed, teachers need to adjust their perceptions to the reform’s new curricula and strategies and cope with new content, as well as new teaching and assessment strategies. Developing students’ scientific literacy through context-based chemistry and higher order thinking skills was the framework for establishing a new chemistry curriculum for Israeli high school students. As part of this endeavor, we developed the Taste of Chemistry module, which focuses on context-based chemistry, chemical understanding, and higher order thinking skills. Our research objectives were (a) to identify the challenges and difficulties chemistry teachers faced, as well as the advantages they found, while teaching and assessing the Taste of Chemistry module; and (b) to investigate how they coped with teaching and assessing thinking skills that include analyzing data from graphs and tables, transferring between multiple representations and, transferring between chemistry understanding levels. Research participants included eight teachers who taught the module. Research tools included interviews, classroom observations, teachers-designed students’ assignments, and developers-designed students’ assignments. We documented different challenges teachers had faced while teaching the module and found that the teachers developed different ways of coping with these challenges. Developing teachers’ assessment knowledge (AK) was found to be the highest stage in teachers’ professional growth, building on teachers’ content knowledge (CK), pedagogy knowledge (PK), and pedagogical-content knowledge (PCK). We propose the use of assignments designed by teachers as an instrument for determining their professional growth.

Keywords

Teachers’ professional growth Context-based teaching Chemistry understanding levels Thinking skills Assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Julie Luft, Patricia Friedrichsen, and Allan Feldman and the late Sandra Abell, for their contribution to the research described in this paper while serving as mentors of the first author at the NARST SRI 2009 for doctoral students.

References

  1. Abell SK (2007) Research on science teacher knowledge. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 1105–1149Google Scholar
  2. Abell SK (2008) Twenty years later: does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? Int J Sci Educ 30:1405–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abell SK, Lee MH (2008) Making the most of professional development. Sci Child 45:62–63Google Scholar
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for all Americans, project 2061. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. American Association for the Advancement of Science—AAAS (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Baartman LKJ, Bastiaens TJ, Kirschner PA, van der Vleuten CPM (2007) Evaluating assessment quality in competence-based education: a qualitative comparison of two frameworks. Educ Res Rev 2:114–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker DR, Piburn MD (1990) Teachers’ perceptions of the effects of a scientific literary course on subsequent learning in biology. J Res Sci Teach 27:447–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barak M, Dori YJ (2005) Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Sci Educ 89:117–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barak M, Shakhman L (2008) Fostering higher-order thinking in science class: teachers’ reflections. Teach Teach Theory Pract 14:191–208Google Scholar
  10. Barak M, Ben-Chaim D, Zoller U (2007) Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: a case of critical thinking. Res Sci Educ 37:353–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barnea N, Dori YJ, Hofstein A (2010) Development and implementation of inquiry-based and computerized-based laboratories: reforming high school chemistry in Israel. Chem Educ Res Pract 11:218–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barnett J, Hodson D (2001) Pedagogical context knowledge: toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Sci Educ 89:426–453Google Scholar
  13. Bell B, Gilbert J (1996) Teacher development: a model from science education. Falmer Press, London, UK. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED395763.pdf
  14. Bennett J, Gräsel C, Parchmann I, Waddington D (2005) Context-based and conventional approaches to teaching chemistry: Comparing teachers’ views. Int J Sci Educ 27:1521–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bennett J, Lubben F, Hogarth S (2007) Bringing science to life: a synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Sci Educ 91:347–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Birenbaum M (2003) New insights into learning and teaching and their implications for assessment. In: Segers M, Dochy F, Cascallar E (eds) Optimizing new modes of assessment: in search of quality and standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 13–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Briscoe C (1993) Using cognitive referents in making sense of teaching: a chemistry teacher’s struggle to change assessment practices. J Res Sci Teach 30:971–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clarke D, Hollingsworth H (2002) Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teach Teach Educ 18:947–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crippen KJ, Archambault L, Ford MS, Levitt GA (2004) Curriculum carts and collaboration: a model for training secondary science teachers. J Sci Educ Technol 13:325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis EA, Krajcik J (2005) Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educ Res 34:3–14Google Scholar
  21. Dori YJ (2003) From nationwide standardized testing to school-based alternative embedded assessment in Israel: students’ performance in the “Matriculation 2000” project. J Res Sci Teach 40:34–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dori YJ (2007) Educational reform at MIT: advancing and evaluating technology-based projects on- and off-campus. J Sci Educ Technol 16:279–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dori YJ, Barak M, Adir N (2003) A web-based chemistry course as a means to foster freshmen learning. J Chem Educ 80:1084–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dori YJ, Hameiri M (2003) Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. J Res Sci Teach 40:278–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dori YJ, Herscovitz O (1999) Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. J Res Sci Teach 36:411–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dori YJ, Herscovitz O (2005) Case-based long-term professional development of science teachers. Int J Sci Educ 27:1413–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dori YJ, Sasson I (2008) Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: the value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. J Res Sci Teach 45:219–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dori YJ, Tal RT, Peled Y (2002) Characteristics of science teachers who incorporate web-based teaching. Res Sci Educ 32:511–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Duschl R (2008) Science education in three-part harmony: balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Rev Res Educ 32:268–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Feldman A (1996) Enhancing the practice of physics teachers: Mechanisms for the generation and sharing of knowledge and understanding in collaborative action research. J Res Sci Teach 33:513–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fessler R (1985) Teacher career stages. In: Burke PJ, Heideman R (eds) Career long teacher education. Springfield, ThomasGoogle Scholar
  32. Friedrichsen PJ, Abell SK, Pareja EM, Brown PL, Lankford DM, Volkmann MJ (2009) Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in an alternative certification program. J Res Sci Teach 46:357–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Friedrichsen P, Van Driel JH, Abell SK (2010) Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, Article first published online. doi: 10.1002/sce.20428
  34. Fullan M (2002) The change leader. Educ Leadersh 59:16–20Google Scholar
  35. Fullan M, Hargreaves A (1992) Teachers development and educational change. In: Fullan M, Hargreaves A (eds) Teachers development and educational change. Falmer, Washington, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  36. Fuller FF (1969) Concerns of teachers: a developmental conceptualization. Am Educ Res J 6:207–226Google Scholar
  37. Gabel D (1999) Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: a look to the future. J Chem Educ 76:548–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gilbert JK (2006) On the nature of “Context” in chemical education. Int J Sci Educ 28:957–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harris JB, Grandgenett N (1999) Correlates with use of telecomputing tools: K-12 teachers’ beliefs and demographics. J Res Comput Educ 31:327–341Google Scholar
  40. Harrison C, Hofstein A, Eylon B, Simon S (2008) Evidence-based professional development of science teachers in two countries. Int J Sci Educ 30:577–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Henze I, van Driel JH (2007) Science teachers’ knowledge about teaching models and modeling in the context of a new syllabus on public understanding of science. Res Sci Educ 37:99–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Herscovitz O, Kaberman Z, Dori YJ (2007) Taste of chemistry. Yessod Publishing House, Holon, Israel (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  43. Herscovitz O, Kaberman Z, Saar L, Dori YJ (2011) The relationship between metacognition and the ability to pose questions in chemical education. In: Zohar A, Dori YJ (eds) Metacognition in science education. Springer, NYGoogle Scholar
  44. Hofstein A, Kesner M (2006) Industrial chemistry and school chemistry: making chemistry studies more relevant. Int J Sci Educ 28:1017–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hofstein A, Lazarowitz R (1986) A comparison of the actual and preferred classroom learning environment in biology and chemistry as perceived by high school students. J Res Sci Teac 23:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hofstein A, Navon O, Kipnis M, Mamlok-Naaman R (2005) Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. J Res Sci Teach 42:791–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Huberman M (1993) Steps toward a developmental model of the teaching career. In: Kremer-Hayon L, Vonk HC, Fessler R (eds) Teacher professional development: a multiple perspective approach. Swets and Zeitlinger B.V, Amsterdam, The Netherland, pp 93–118Google Scholar
  48. Huffman D, Goldberg F, Michlin M (2003) Using computers to create constructivist learning environments: impact on pedagogy and student achievement. J Comput Math Sci Teach 22:153–170Google Scholar
  49. Kaberman Z, Dori YJ (2009) Question posing, inquiry and modeling skills of chemistry students in the case-based computerized laboratory environment. Int J Sci Math Educ 7:597–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kamen M (1996) A Teacher’s implementation of authentic assessment in an elementary science classroom. J Res Sci Teach 33:859–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kesner M, Hofstein A, Ben-Zvi R (1997) The development and implementation of two industrial chemistry case studies for the Israeli high school chemistry curriculum. Int J Sci Educ 19:565–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kozma R (2003) The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learn Instruct 13:205–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Krajcik J, McNeill KL, Reiser BJ (2008) Learning-goals-driven design model: developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Sci Educ 92:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lawrenz F (1990) Science teaching techniques associated with higher-order thinking skills. J Res Sci Teach 27:835–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lee E, Luft JA (2008) Experienced secondary science teachers’ representation of pedagogical content knowledge. Int J Sci Educ 30:1343–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Leoul M, Abder P, Riordan M, Zoller U (2006) Using ‘HOCS-centered learning as a pathway to promote science teachers’ metacognitive development. Res Sci Educ 36:69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Levy Nahum T, Mamlok-Naaman R, Hofstein A, Taber KS (2010) Teaching and learning the concept of chemical bonding. Studies Sci Educ 46:179–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lin PJ (2006) Conceptualizing teachers’ understanding of students’ mathematical learning by using assessment tasks. Int J Sci Math Educ 4:545–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lustick D (2010) The priority of the question: focus questions for sustained reasoning in science. J Sci Teach Educ 21:495–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Magnusson S, Krajcik J, Borko H (1999) Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In: Gess-Newsome J, Lederman NG (eds) Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 95–144Google Scholar
  61. Marbach-Ad G, Rotbain Y, Stavy R (2008) Using computer animation and illustration activities to improve high school students’ achievement in molecular genetics. J Res Sci Teach 45:273–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McBroom R, Oliver-Hoyo MT (2007) Food enzymes. Sci Teach 74:58–63Google Scholar
  63. Mertler CA (2009) Teachers’ assessment knowledge and their perceptions of the impact of classroom assessment professional development. Improv Sch 12:101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mintzes JJ, James H, Wandersee J, Novak D (2005) Assessing science understanding: a human constructivist view. Elsevier Academic Press, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  65. Morrison J, McDuffie AR, Akerson VL (2005) Preservice teachers’ development and implementation of science performance assessment. Int J Sci Math Educ 3:379–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962&page=1
  67. Osborne J, Millar R (1998) Science education for the future: which way now? Prim Sci Rev 52:21–23Google Scholar
  68. Osborne J, Collins S, Ratcliffe M, Millar R, Duschl R (2003) What “Ideas-about-Science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. J Res Sci Teach 40:692–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Osborne J, Erduran S, Simon S (2004) Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. J Res Sci Teach 41:994–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Parchmann I, Gräsel C, Baer A, Nentwig P, Demuth R, Ralle B, The ChiK Project Group (2006) “Chemie im Kontext”: a symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. Int J Sci Educ 28:1041–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Parke HM, Coble CR (1997) Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: a model for transformational science teaching. J Res Sci Teach 34:773–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  73. Phillips LM, Norris SP (2009) Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Res Sci Educ 39:313–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pilot A, Bulte AMW (2006) The use of “contexts” as a challenge for the chemistry curriculum: its successes and the need for further development and understanding. Int J Sci Educ 28:1087–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Porter LA (2007) Chemical nanotechnology: a liberal arts approach to a basic course in emerging interdisciplinary science and technology. J Chem Educ 84:259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Resnick LB (2010) 2009 Wallace foundation distinguished lecture: nested learning systems for the thinking curriculum. Educ Res 39:183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rivet AE, Krajcik JS (2004) Achieving standards in urban system reform: an example of a sixth grade project-based science curriculum. J Res Sci Teach 41:669–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sadler TD, Zeidler DL (2009) Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: assessment for progressive aims of science education. J Res Sci Teach 46:909–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sadler TD, Amirshokoohi A, Kazempour M, Allspaw KM (2006) Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: teacher perspectives and strategies. J Res Sci Teach 43:353–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schraw G (1998) Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instr Sci 26:113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schwartz AT (2006) Contextualized chemistry education: the American experience. Int J Sci Educ 28:977–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schwartz RS, Lederman NG, Abd-El-Khalick F (2000) Achieving the reforms vision: the effectiveness of a specialists-led elementary science program. Sch Sci Math 100:181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shulman LS (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ Res 15:4–14Google Scholar
  84. Shulman LS (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harv Educ Rev 57:1–22Google Scholar
  85. Shwartz Y, Ben-Zvi R, Hofstein A (2005) The importance of involving high-school chemistry teachers in the process of defining the operational meaning of “Chemical Literacy”. Int J Sci Educ 27:323–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  87. Taitelbaum D, Mamlok-Naaman R, Carmeli M, Hofstein A (2008) Evidence for teachers’ change while participating in a continuous professional development programme and implementing the inquiry approach in the chemistry laboratory. Int J Sci Educ 30:593–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tal RT, Dori YJ, Keiny S, Zoller U (2001) Assessing conceptual change of teachers involved in STES education and curriculum development—the STEMS project approach. Int J Sci Educ 23:247–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. van Braak JV (2001) Factors influencing the use of computer mediated communication by teachers in secondary schools. Comput Educ 36:41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. van Driel JH, Beijaard D, Verloop N (2002) Professional development and reform in science education: the role of teachers’ practical knowledge. J Res Sci Teach 38:137–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. van Driel JH, Bulte AMW, Verloop N (2008) Using the curriculum emphasis concept to investigate teachers’ curricular beliefs in the context of educational reform. J Curric Stud 40:107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Walker KA, Zeidler DL (2007) Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. Int J Sci Educ 29:1387–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Watanabe M, Nunes N, Mebane S, Scalise K, Claesgens J (2007) “Chemistry for all, instead of chemistry just for the elite”: lessons learned from detracted chemistry classrooms. Sci Educ 91:683–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wood KE (2001) Interdisciplinary instruction, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  95. Zohar A (1999) Teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking. Teach Teach Educ 15:413–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zohar A, Dori YJ (2003) Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: are they mutually exclusive? J Learn Sci 12:145–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zoller U (1993) Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe for LOCS: unlikely for HOCS. J Chem Educ 70:193–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shirly Avargil
    • 1
  • Orit Herscovitz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yehudit Judy Dori
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Education in Technology and ScienceTechnion, Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Division of Continuing Education and External StudiesTechnion, Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.Center for Educational Computing Initiatives, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations