Skip to main content

Purposely Teaching for the Promotion of Higher-order Thinking Skills: A Case of Critical Thinking

Research in Science Education volume 37, pages 353–369 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

This longitudinal case-study aimed at examining whether purposely teaching for the promotion of higher order thinking skills enhances students’ critical thinking (CT), within the framework of science education. Within a pre-, post-, and post–post experimental design, high school students, were divided into three research groups. The experimental group (n = 57) consisted of science students who were exposed to teaching strategies designed for enhancing higher order thinking skills. Two other groups: science (n = 41) and non-science majors (n = 79), were taught traditionally, and acted as control. By using critical thinking assessment instruments, we have found that the experimental group showed a statistically significant improvement on critical thinking skills components and disposition towards critical thinking subscales, such as truth-seeking, open-mindedness, self-confidence, and maturity, compared with the control groups. Our findings suggest that if teachers purposely and persistently practice higher order thinking strategies for example, dealing in class with real-world problems, encouraging open-ended class discussions, and fostering inquiry-oriented experiments, there is a good chance for a consequent development of critical thinking capabilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Figure 1

References

  • Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education, 89(1), 117–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Chaim, D., Ron, S., & Zoller, U. (2000). The disposition of eleventh-grade science students toward critical thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(2), 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B., 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. New York, NY: David McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boddy, N., Watson, K., & Aubusson, P. (2003). A trial of the five Es: A referent model for constructivist teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 33, 27–42, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P. (1994). Constructivism in mathematics and science education. Educational Researcher, 23, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bono, E. (1976). Teaching thinking. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, J. (2002). Perspectives on environmental education-related research in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1111–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, B., Oty, K., McArthur, J., & Clark, B. (2001). The effect of an interdisciplinary algebra/science course on students’ problem solving skills, critical thinking skills and attitudes towards mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(6), 811–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. H. (1985). The logical basis for measuring CT skills. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44–48.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Facione, P. A. (1990). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST): Forms A and B; and the CCTST test manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (1992). The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI). Millbrae, CA: California Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Facione, P. A., & Facione N. C. (1994). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test-test manual. Millbrae, California: California Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. A. (1996). The California Critical Disposition Inventory-test manual. Millbrae, California: California Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. American Psychologist, 53(9), 449–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(1), 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leou, M., Abder, P., Riordan, M., & Zoller, U. (2006). ‘Using HOCS-centered learning’ as a pathway to promote science teachers’ metacognitive development. Research in Science Education, 36(1–2), 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Science (NAS) (1995). National Science Education Standards. Available online: http://books.nap.edu/html/nses/html/index.html.

  • National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National Science Education Standards-NSES. Washington, DC: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, R. (1996). Critical thinking workshop handbook (pp. 7–8). Rohnert Park, CA: Centre for Critical Thinking, Sanoma State University.

  • Phillips, C. R., Chesnut, R. J., & Rospond, R. M. (2004). The California critical thinking instruments for benchmarking, program assessment, and directing curricular change. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 68(4), Article 101. Available online: http://www.ajpe.org/aj6804/aj6804101/aj6804101.pdf.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. D. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1–2), 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ten Dam, G., & Volman, M. (2004). Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: teaching strategies. Learning and Instruction, 14(4), 359–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1989). Barriers to higher level cognitive learning in high school science. Science Education, 73, 659–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Hook, K. S. (1994). Referents for changing a science curriculum: A case study of one teacher’s change in beliefs. Science Education, 3, 245–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, G., & Glaser, E. (1980). Critical thinking appraisal manual. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, M., Jofili, Z., & Bezerra, R. (1997). A case for critical constructivism and critical thinking in science education. Research in Science Education, 27(2), 309–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilks, S. (1995). Critical and creative thinking: Strategies for classroom inquiry. Armidale, NSW: Eleanor Curtain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teacher’ professional development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    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(2), 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(3), 195–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U. (1999). Teaching tomorrow’s college science courses – Are we getting it right? Journal of College Science Teaching, 29(6), 409–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U. (2001). Alternative assessment as (critical) means of facilitating HOCS-promoting teaching and learning in chemistry education. Chemical Education Research and Practice in Europe, 2(1), 9–17 (an electronic publication).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U., Ben-Chaim, D., Ron, S., Pentimalli, R., & Borsese, A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking of high school and university science students; An inter-intra Israeli–Italian study. International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 571–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U., Dori, Y., & Lubezky, A. (2002). Algorithmic, LOCS and HOCS (chemistry) exam questions: Performance and attitudes of college students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(2), 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Barak Miri

  2. Faculty of Science and Science Education, University of Haifa-Oranim, Kiryat Tivon, 36006, Israel

    Ben-Chaim David & Zoller Uri

Authors
  1. Barak Miri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ben-Chaim David
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zoller Uri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barak Miri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miri, B., David, BC. & Uri, Z. Purposely Teaching for the Promotion of Higher-order Thinking Skills: A Case of Critical Thinking. Res Sci Educ 37, 353–369 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2

Key words

  • class discussions
  • critical thinking
  • higher-order thinking skills
  • inquiry-oriented learning
  • real-world cases
  • teaching strategies