Higher order thinking in chemistry curriculum and its assessment

Fensham, Peter J.; Bellocchi, Alberto

doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2013.06.003

Cited by 61 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This taxonomy is widely used for evaluating the students' performances (Biggs, 1979) and analysing the learning activities and assessment questions (Fensham & Bellocchi, 2013;Gezer & İlhan, 2014;Gezer & İlhan, 2015) in different disciplines such as geography, mathematics, foreign languages and science (Braband & Dahl, 2009;Jones, Collis, & Watson, 1993;Lucas & Mladenovic, 2009;Pegg & Tall, 2004). The SOLO taxonomy has a five-level structure.…”

Section: Solo Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An analysis of the related literature reveals that a lot of studies have used the SOLO and Bloom's taxonomies (Alsaadi, 2011;Bağdat & Anapa-Saban, 2014;Başol, Balgalmış, Karlı, & Öz, 2016;Çalışkan, 2011;Dindar & Demir, 2006;Göçer & Kurt, 2016;Gökler, Aypay, & Arı, 2012;Özdemir & Göktepe-Yıldız, 2015;Peter & Alberto, 2013;Tarman & Kuran, 2015;Zorluoğlu, Kızılaslan, & Sözbilir, 2016); however, few have compared the two. Studies comparing SOLO and Bloom's taxonomies have yielded inconsistent results.…”

Section: A Comparison Of Solo and Bloom's Taxonomiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bu taksonomi; coğrafya, matematik, fen bilimleri, yabancı diller gibi farklı disiplinlerde (Braband & Dahl, 2009;Jones, Collis, & Watson, 1993;Lucas & Mladenovic, 2009;Pegg & Tall, 2004), hem öğrencilerin performanslarının değerlendirilmesinde (Biggs, 1979) hem de kazanımlar, öğrenme etkinlikleri ve değerlendirme sorularının bilişsel düzeylerinin incelenmesinde (Fensham & Bellocchi, 2013;Gezer & İlhan, 2014;Gezer & İlhan, 2015) (Çetin & İlhan, 2016) Tablo 1'de görüldüğü üzere SOLO taksonomisi; yapı öncesi, tek yönlü yapı, çok yönlü yapı, ilişkisel yapı ve soyutlanmış yapı olmak üzere beş düzeyden oluşmaktadır (Biggs, 1996;Biggs & Collis, 1982;Biggs & Tang, 2007). Öğrencilerin performanslarının değerlendirilmesinde bu beş düzeyin tamamı esas alınırken, program öğelerinin sınıflandırılmasında yapı öncesi basamağı göz önünde bulundurulmamaktadır.…”

Section: Solo Taksonomisiunclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

A comparison of the reliability of the Solo- and revised Bloom's Taxonomy-based classifications in the analysis of the cognitive levels of assessment questions

İlhan

Gezer

2017

Pegegog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to compare the reliability of SOLO and revised Bloom's taxonomy-based (RBT) classifications in the determination of the cognitive levels of the assessment questions. The data were obtained by three experts' examination of the assessment questions in the Seventh Grade Social Studies Textbook published by the Ministry of National Education and Eight Grade Science and Technology Textbook published by Yıldırım Publishing in 2015. The collected data were analyzed in a crossed design whereby the assessment questions were the object of measurement and the experts were the facet on the basis of the generalizability theory. It was found that the variance percentage of the main effect of the assessment question was found to be higher in the SOLO-based classifications. The variance component related to the experts' main effect and the residual variance values were found to be higher in the RBT than in the SOLO taxonomy. In conclusion, compared to the RBT, the SOLO-based classifications were found to have higher G and Phi coefficients. These results indicate that SOLO taxonomy seems to be more reliable than RBT in the determination of the cognitive level of assessment questions.

show abstract

Section: Solo Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Comparison Of Solo and Bloom's Taxonomiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Solo Taksonomisiunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparison of the reliability of the Solo- and revised Bloom's Taxonomy-based classifications in the analysis of the cognitive levels of assessment questions

İlhan

Gezer

2017

Pegegog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This, and the fact that Vision II does not emphasise formal knowledge structures, is problematic for international, national and school-based assessment alike that seeks to capture a broader notion of scientific literacy. The need for accountability by governments and schools often means that assessment is driven and constrained by specific indicators and numeric scoring at the expense of high-order learning outcomes (Tytler, 2007;Fensham & Bellocchi, 2013).…”

Section: The Challenges Of Assessing Broader Notions Of Scientific LImentioning

confidence: 99%

The Challenge of Evaluating Students’ Scientific Literacy in a Writing-to-Learn Context

Tomas

Ritchie

2014

Res Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports on the challenge of evaluating students' scientific literacy in a writing-to-learn context, as illustrated by our experience with an online sciencewriting project. In this mixed-methods study, Year 9 students in a case study class (13-14 year olds, n = 26) authored a series of two 'hybridised' short stories that merged scientific and narratives genres about the socioscientific issue of biosecurity. In seeking to measure the efficacy of the intervention, we sought evidence of students' conceptual understanding communicated through their stories. Finding a suitable instrument presented our first challenge. This led to the development of scoring matrices to evaluate students' derived sense of scientific literacy. Student interviews were also conducted to explore their understanding of concepts related to the biosecurity context. While the results of these analyses showed significant improvements in students' understanding arising from their participation in the writing tasks, the interviews highlighted a second challenge in evaluating students' scientific literacy; a disparity between their written and vocalised understandings. The majority of students expressed a deeper level of conceptual understanding at interview than they did in their stories. The interviews also revealed alternative conceptions and instances of superficial understanding that weren't expressed in their writing. Aside from the methodological challenge of analysing stories quantitatively, these findings suggest that in a writing-to-learn context, evaluating students' scientific literacy can be difficult. An examination of these artefacts in combination with interviews about students' written work provided a more comprehensive evaluation of their developing scientific literacy. The implications of this study for our understanding of the derived sense of scientific literacy, as well as implications for classroom practice, are also discussed.

show abstract

“…This category is also known as critical thinking skill. Based on the Bloom's Taxonomy, the LOT includes remembering, understanding, applying, and the HOT includes analysing, evaluating, and creating [11,16,17]. In the formulation of Trikaya Taxonomy, Subagia dan Wiratma [9] described the HOT including thinking, speaking, and acting levels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Quality of Chemistry Learning Process Viewed from Learning Outcome Indicators and Process of Teaching

Subagia¹,

Wiratma²

2017

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Innovative Research Across Disciplines (ICIRAD 2017)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This research aims at describing and explaining the quality of chemistry learning of senior high school students. This research was a qualitative study focusing on analysing the formulation of learning outcome indicators and the learning process organized by teachers as well as factors influencing the learning process. Three chemistry teachers teaching at grade ten, eleven, and twelve from three different schools located at the district of Buleleng, the Province of Bali, were involved in this study. Document analysis and interview technique were used to collect information. The result of this study revealed that: 1) The formulation of learning outcome indicators involved lower order thinking and higher order thinking categories. However, most formulations were fallen into low order thinking category. 2) The learning process used various approaches, methods, and strategies. 3) The factors influencing the teaching learning process came from three resources, namely: the students, the teachers, and the schools.

show abstract

Higher order thinking in chemistry curriculum and its assessment

Cited by 61 publications

References 13 publications

A comparison of the reliability of the Solo- and revised Bloom's Taxonomy-based classifications in the analysis of the cognitive levels of assessment questions

A comparison of the reliability of the Solo- and revised Bloom's Taxonomy-based classifications in the analysis of the cognitive levels of assessment questions

The Challenge of Evaluating Students’ Scientific Literacy in a Writing-to-Learn Context

The Quality of Chemistry Learning Process Viewed from Learning Outcome Indicators and Process of Teaching

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About