Modeling Higher Order Thinking: The Alignment Between Objectives, Classroom Discourse, And Assessment

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe the levels of cognition modeled and the alignment among the levels of cognition modeled via course objectives, instructional strategies, and assessments in preservice teacher preparation courses. The accessible sample consisted of seven teacher educators teaching courses for secondary and middle school-level education majors at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Higher levels of cognition (application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) were modeled in 88% of the preservice teacher preparation course objectives. Lower levels of cognition, were modeled in 61% of classroom discourse. Application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels of cognition, represented 39% of the classroom discourse. Higher levels of cognition as a whole represented a mean of 90% of all classroom assessments, with the synthesis level of cognition representing a mean of 40% of the classroom assessments for all instructors. Hierarchical cluster analysis methods were employed to examine the alignment among the cognitive levels of instructional objectives, classroom discourse, and assessments, respectively.

A Comparison Of The Cognitive Behaviors Exhibited By Secondary Agriculture And Science Teachers

“…Whittington (1998) studied the effects on intervention on college professors, similar studies should be conducted with high school teachers. Ball and Garton (2005) found that teacher development professors are not modeling higher-level behavior. Additionally, it is recommended that pre-service instructional methods reflect the in-service practices of teaching higher-level behavior to build cognitive behavior and attitude prior to entering teaching.…”

“…These two assertions led Miller (1989) to state, "The FTCB can be considered valid in light of the support generally given to Bloom's Taxonomy as a means of identifying behaviors in the various levels of cognition" (p. 43). Additionally, the FTCB was used and deemed valid in several other studies (Ball & Garton, 2005;Cano & Metzger, 1995;Whittington, 1991;1998).…”

“…This conclusion is consistent with Cano and Metzger (1995) who found secondary horticulture teachers taught at lower-levels of cognition 84% of the time. At the college level, lower-order behavior was found 61% (Ball & Garton, 2005), 98% (Whittington, 1995), and 80% (Whittington, et al 1997).…”

Student Teacher Dialogue in an Electronic Community of Practice: Cognition Level Related to the INTASC Standards

“…Researchers utilize the FTCB to observe teachers' and students' cognitive behaviors in the classroom. The validity of the FTCB (Brown et al, 1970) comes from its direct development from Bloom et al's (1956) Taxonomy (Ball & Garton, 2005;López & Whittington, 2001;Miller, 1989;Whittington, 1991;Whittington & Newcomb, 1993). Through the instrumentation of the FTCB (Brown et al, 1970) student teachers' blog posts were analyzed for their level of critical thinking.…”

Inclusive Pedagogy Literacy among Academic Community at Institute of Teacher Education, Kuala Lumpur

“…The practice of Inclusive Pedagogy in the classroom is one of the initiatives proposed to achieve the government's aim of enhancing equity The academic community in a tertiary institution plays a role as a model for students (Bocala, 2012) [6]. They also act as catalysts in encouraging higher order thinking skills, creativity, innovation and building self concept in activating the learning process in line with the current curriculum needs (Ball & Garton, 2005) [7]. The academic community also functions in determining the direction of learning with the set objectives, and in fact is an important model of learning for the students (Bocala, 2012) [6].…”