Higher Order Thinking Skills and Low-Achieving Students: Are They Mutually Exclusive?

Author(s): Anat Zohar and Yehudit J. Dori Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 12, No. 2 (2003), pp. 145-181 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1466891 . Accessed: 11/09/2012 03:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

http://www.jstor.org

THEJOURNAL THELEARNING OF SCIENCES, 12(2),145-181 Inc. Associates, Copyright 2003,Lawrence Erlbaum ?

Higher OrderThinkingSkills and Low-Achieving Students:Are They MutuallyExclusive?

Anat Zohar
School of Education Hebrew University

YehuditJ. Dori
Departmentof Educationin Technologyand Science Technion,Israel Instituteof Technology and Centerfor EducationalComputingInitiatives MassachusettsInstituteof Technology
orderthinkingskills is consideredanimportant educational Fosteringstudents'higher theoriessee the developmentof students'thinkingas an imgoal. Althoughlearning portant goal for all students,teachersoftenbelieve thatstimulating higherorderthinking is appropriateonly for high-achieving students. According to this view, low-achievingstudentsare,by andlarge,unableto deal with tasks thatrequirehigher orderthinkingskills andshouldthusbe sparedthe frustration generated suchtasks. by Because this view maycause teachersto treatstudentsin a nonegalitarian way,it is imto portant findout whetherornot it is supported empiricalevidence.The goal of this by studyis to examinethis issue in light of fourdifferentstudies,by askingthe following question:Do low-achieving studentsgain from teaching and learningprocesses that aredesignedto fosterhigherorderthinkingskills?Eachof the4 studiesaddressedadifferent projectwhose goal was to teach higher orderthinkingin science classrooms. Following a brief generaldescriptionof each project,we providean analysis of its effects on studentswith low andhigh achievements.The findingsshow thatby theend of each of the 4 programs,students with high academic achievementsgained higher thinkingscores thantheirpeers with low academicachievements.However,students of bothsubgroupsmadeconsiderable progresswithrespectto theirinitialscore.Inone of the 4 studies the net gain of low achieverswas significantly higher than for high achievers.Ourfindingsstronglysuggestthatteachersshouldencouragestudentsof all academic levels to engage in tasks thatinvolve higher orderthinkingskills. and for should sentto AnatZohar, be Schoolof Education, HeCorrespondence requests reprints brewUniversity, Israel91905.E-mail: Jerusalem, Msazohar@mscc.huji.ac.il

146

ZOHAR ANDDORI

Fosteringhigherorderthinkingamong studentsof all ages is consideredan importanteducationalgoal. As explainedin whatfollows, however,teachersoftenbelieve that this importantgoal is not intendedfor all students.A common belief among teachers is that tasks that requirehigher order thinking are appropriate only for high-achievingstudents,whereaslow-achieving students,who can barely master thebasicfacts,areunableto dealwithsuchtasks(Zohar, 2001). Degani,& Vaaknin, Writing this article was motivatedby incidents we encounteredrepeatedlyas part of our fieldwork in teachers' professional development workshops. These workshopswere designedto prepareteachersfor instructionof higherorderthinkas ing skills in the contextof science modules,prepared partof a large-scaleeducational reform.Teachers'attitudestowardinstructionof higherorderthinkingskills were in generalfavorable,expressingthe view that it is an important valuable and educationalgoal. Nevertheless,many teachers often qualified this attitudeby expressing views such as the following: * Somekidssimplycan'tdo it.... Youcannotignorethevariability amongchildren. * I also think that it's [i.e., higher orderthinking] inappropriate weak stufor dents. I would very much like it to be for the weak students,butI have a feeling it will work well only with the strongones. ... You can trustthem, they are interestedand curious. The weaker ones, we have to give them a lot of supportand carrythem on our shoulderto get some results. These excerptsindeed express the belief that instructionof higherorderthinking is an appropriate goal mainly for high-achievingstudentsand thatlow-achieving students,who have troublewith masteringeven basic facts, are unableto deal with tasksthatrequirethinkingskills. This belief may have seriouseducationalimplications because it underminesthe goal of helping lower achieving studentsin It closing gaps, therebydenyingthemequal educationalopportunities. is therefore importantto examine empiricalevidence regardingthis issue to find out whether this belief is founded. The purposeof this article is to shed light on this issue by presenting four studies and discussing their implications for teaching thinking skills to low-achieving students.

THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING General Background

The educationalgoal of fosteringstudents'thinkinghas been the focus of numerous books and researcharticles(e.g., Adey, 1999; Adey & Shayer, 1994; Brown & Campione, 1990; Bruer, 1993; Burden & Williams, 1998; Carmichael, 1981; Chance, 1986; De Bono, 1985; Feurstein, Rand, & Rynders, 1988; Greeno &

THINKINGSKILLS AND LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS

147

Goldman, 1998; Halpern, 1992; Lipman, 1985; Nickerson, Perkins, & Smith, 1985; Perkins, 1992;Perkins& Grotzer,1997;Resnick, 1987;Resnick & Klopfer, 1989; Schoenfeld, 1989, 1992; Tishman,Perkins, & Jay, 1995). Each of the programsdescribedin these sources has its own definitionof thinkingandof skills. In fact, the differentdefinitionsof thinkingand the numberof availableoptions can be confusing (Marzanoet al., 1988). Referringto this confusion, Resnick (1987) wrotethatthinkingskills resist precise forms of definition;yet, higherorderthinkof ing skills can be recognizedwhen they occur.Some of the characteristics higher order thinking, according to Resnick, are the following: it is nonalgorithmic,it tends to be complex, it often yields multiplesolutions, and it involves the application of multiple criteria,uncertainty,and self-regulation.The term higher order thinkingskills may also be used to delineatecognitive activitiesthatarebeyond the and lower level applicationaccordingto Bloom's taxonstage of understanding omy (Bloom, 1956). We object to the hierarchiesof educationalgoals implied by Bloom's work,but we find thatit specifies cognitive levels thatareclear, succinct, and still useful. Based on Bloom's taxonomy,memorizationandrecall of information are classified as lower order thinking whereas analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluatingare classified as higherorder.Additionalexamples of cognitive activities that are classified as higher orderinclude constructingarguments,asking research questions, making comparisons, solving nonalgorithmiccomplex problems, dealing with controversies,and identifyinghiddenassumptions.Most of the classical scientific inquiryskills, such as formulatinghypotheses,planningexperiments, or drawingconclusions are also classified as higherorderthinkingskills. It is justified to group such varied cognitive activities into the same category of "higherorderthinking"activitiesbecause despite the fact thatthey are so different from each other,they all follow the characteristics higherorderthinkingaccordof to Resnick. In addition,all of them would also be classified into stages thatare ing and beyondrecall of information comprehensionaccordingto Bloom's taxonomy.

and for Teaching Learning Understanding: Higher Order and Students Thinking Low-Achieving
In the early partof the 20th century,educationfocused on the acquisitionof basic literacy skills: reading, writing, and calculating. Most schools did not teach to think and readcriticallyor to solve complex problems.Textbookswere loaded with facts that students were expected to memorize and most tests assessed students' ability to rememberthese facts. The main role of teachers was perceived as that of transmittinginformationto students (Bransford,Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Traditionallearning theories were based on Behaviorism, which advocated learning as linear and sequential. Learning objectives were sequenced to progress from simple, lower order cognitive tasks to more complex ones. Comwas thoughtto occur only by the accumulationof basic, preplex understanding

148

ANDDORI ZOHAR

requisite learning (e.g., Bloom, 1956; Gagne, 1974). It was commonly believed that only after studentshave mastereda new subject at the level of information recall may they progress to engaging in that subject at higher cognitive levels. These proposed hierarchiesof learning forms implied that problem solving and other activities recognized as thinking occupy the top of these hierarchies.Although such theories helped keep alive the idea that there was more to education than acquiringbodies of facts, they isolated thinking and problem solving from the main "basic"or "fundamental" activities of learning.Thinkingand reasoning became not the heart of education, but hoped-for summits that most students never reached (Resnick & Klopfer, 1989). Consequently,low-achieving students were often chronically engaged in lower order cognitive assignments because they never masteredthe simplest level of knowledge. In contrast,higher achieving students,having masteredthe basic skills, were viewed as preparedto handle more complex learning tasks (Shepard, 1991) Contraryto this view, more recent educationalapproachesconsider aspects of "high"literacyas essential for tacklingthe complexities of contemporarylife. As informationandknowledgearegrowingat a farmore rapidratethanever before in the historyof humankind, meaningof "knowing" shiftedfrombeing able to the has rememberandrepeatinformation being able to find anduse it effectively.Develto for opments in cognitive science do not deny thatfacts are important thinkingand problem solving, but show clearly that "usableknowledge"is not the same as a mere list of disconnectedfacts. Being able to use knowledgeto solve new types of problems means that one must understandthat knowledge. Thus, new teaching and learning practices emphasize learning with understanding (Bransfordet al., 2000). Such learningis tightlyrelatedto thinkingandreasoning.This idea was formulated by Perkins and Unger (1999) in the following way: "Understanding a topic is a matterof being able to think and act creatively and competently with what one knows about the topic. ... The ability to perform in a flexible, thought-demanding way is a constantrequirement" 97). (p. An important implicationof this view is thatthe mentalprocesses we have customarily associated with thinking are not restrictedto some advanced stage of learning.Instead,thinkingskills are intimatelyinvolved in successful learning of even elementarylevels of reading, mathematics,and all other school subjects. If acquiringknowledge is defined as learning with understanding, learning simply cannot take place without thinking. Understandingis seen as being constructed while learnersengage in thinkingand inquiryin contexts thatmake sense to them. Learninginherentlyinvolves componentsof inference,judgment,and active mental construction.Thus, the traditionalview thatthe basics can be taughtas routine skills, with thinkingand reasoningto follow lateras an optional activity that may or may not takeplace, can no longer guide the educationalpractice.Instead,thinket ing mustbe appliedto all learningandto all learners(Bransford al., 2000; Bruer, 1993; Perkins, 1992;Resnick & Klopfer, 1989;Resnick & Resnick, 1992; Perkins

STUDENTS THINKINGSKILLS AND LOW-ACHIEVING

149

& Unger, 1999). This view, namely that teaching for higher orderthinkingis importantfor the learningof all studentsin all academictracks,is emphasizedby several additional researchers (Levine, 1993; Newmann, 1990; Peterson, 1988; Pogrow, 1988, 1996; White & Frederiksen,1998). Resnick (1987) referredto this idea in an eloquent way by saying that fostering students'thinking is one of the most ancientgoals of education,datingbackto the days of Plato in ancientGreece. Duringmany generations,this goal was intendedonly for a small, restrictedgroup of elite students;the vast majorityof studentsdid not have the privilegeof enjoying an educationaltraditionthatfosteredtheirthinking.Therefore,said Resnick, there is nothing new in including the teaching of higher order thinking and problem of of solving in the curriculum some students.Includingthis goal in the curriculum all studentsis, however,an educationalinnovation.A similaridea is also expressed in the Science TechnologySociety (STS) approach.

STS Approach: Order Higher andLow-Achieving Students Thinking

Curriculum reformin science educationover the past five decades has been characterizedby differentinterpretations the role of science in the curriculum.Durof ing the 1950s and 1960s, disciplinaryknowledge was at the focus of the science curriculum. of the 1970s, emphasiswas placed on knowledgerelevantto fulfillAs ing personaland societal needs (Bybee, 1993; National Research Council, 1996; Wallace& Louden, 1998). These reformmovementsincludedthe interrelated and movementsof STS (Bybee & Ben-Zvi, 1998), environmental partiallyoverlapping education(Zoller, 1986/1987), and Science for All (Fensham, 1985). Based on the idea of incorporatingsocietal, cultural,environmental,political, and ethical aspects into the science curriculum,the STS approachaims to endow studentswith scientific literacy (Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992; Bybee, 1987; Dori & Herscovitz, 1999; Yager& Hofstein, 1986; Yager& Penick, 1988; Yager& Tamir,1993). STS educationdoes not only encouragescientific literacyin a societal perspective (Driver& Leach, 1993; Pedretti& Hodson, 1995), but it also aims at improving students' higher order thinking skills (Dori & Tal, 2000; Tal, Dori, & Lazarowitz,2000). To be literateconsumersof scientificknowledge, studentsneed to know how to read popularscientific articles writtenby lay people in a critical mannerand how to solve complex problemsthatinvolve science, technology, and society in an effective way. They also need to know how to apply valuejudgments to technological innovations,to questionthe qualityof availableinformation,and to understand that some problems may have more than one possible solution or not even have a solution at all (Dori & Herscovitz, 1999; Tal, Dori, Keiny, & may Zoller,2001). These skills, all of which arenecessaryfor scientific literacyaccording to the STS approach,are all componentsof higherorderthinking.

150

ZOHAR ANDDORI

STS curriculaare expected to make science meaningful to all students. One of the goals of applying such curriculais to increase the numberof studentswho would gain scientific literacy, as compared to the relatively few students who find science meaningful when taught by traditionalcurricula.The rationalefor this approachis that it is importantthat all citizens, not just an elite of scientists, be science literate. Thus, the entire student population should be challenged to develop their higher orderthinking skills, not only high-achievingstudents.This idea is reflected very clearly in the name of the movement Science for All (Fensham, 1985). STS principlesof Science for All advocate teaching science to studentsat all thinking levels, not just to a select elite. Thus, the purposeof STS education is to teach higher orderthinkingand problem-solvingskills to all students, high-achievingas well as low-achieving ones. Unfortunately,currenteducational practices often neglect this goal.

The DiscrepancyBetween Theory and Practice

Practitionersoften disregardmany of the theoreticalrecommendationsand suggestions describedearlier.Specifically, they often overlook the recommendations put forwardby many theoreticiansto teach higher orderthinkingto all students. Raudenbush,Rowan, and Cheong (1993) reporteda numberof studies showing that teachersin classes of high-achievingstudentsare substantiallymore likely to emphasizehigherorderthinkingprocesses thanteachersin classes of low-achieving students.Raudenbushet al. suggested the hypothesisthat the higher the academic trackof a class, the more likely a teacheris to reportan emphasis on teaching for higher order thinking in that class. If this hypothesis is correct, one can assume thatthe same teacherwill teach differentlyin higher and lower academic tracks, leading to considerable "within-teachers" variability.Raudenbushet al. asked teachersin 16 schools to identify their instructionalgoals for each of their classes and then constructed an instrumentto capturehigher order thinking in Mathematics,Science, Social Studies, and English. The results showed that the same teachertendedto emphasizehigherorderthinkingwhen teachingstudentsof higher academic achievements more than when teaching students of lower academic achievements.Raudenbush al. also cited additionalstudies, showing that et teachingfor higherorderthinkingin high school occurs far more often in accelerated tracksthan in low-trackclasses (Metz, 1978; Oakes, 1990; Page, 1990). Another study, pointing in a similar direction, addressedteachers' beliefs in this field. Teachers'beliefs regardinglow-achieving students and instructionof higher orderthinking were addressedby a study using clinical interviews (Zohar et al., 2001). According to this research,only 20% of the interviewed teachers believed thatthe goal of teaching higherorderthinkingis equally appropriate for low- and high-achieving students, whereas 45% believed that it is appropriate only for high-achieving students. The most common explanation teachers gave

THINKINGSKILLS AND LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS

151

for this distinction between low- and high-achieving students is that thinking-based learning creates difficulties and confusion for weak students,alienatfor ing them from the lesson. Indeed, teachers' beliefs that it is inappropriate students to engage in higher order thinking seems to be a major low-achieving factor in dissuading them from using this method. Some teachers indicatedthat thinking-basedlearningmight induce frustrationin weak students,leading to affective difficulties. The findings also suggest that teachers'beliefs in this context are relatedto their generaltheory of instruction.Viewing learningas hierarchical in terms of students'academic level was found to be relatedto a traditionalview of learning, seeing learning as progressing from simple, lower order cognitive skills to more complex ones. These beliefs may have far-reaching consequences,as they may lead teachersto deprivelow-achieving studentsfrom tasks requiringhigher orderthinking,which are crucialfor theirdevelopment.Thus, teachers'beliefs might become a self-fulfilling prophecy,as they arelikely to influence them to expose high-achievingstudents to tasksrequiringhigherorderthinkingskills more often thanthey would expose low-achieving students to such tasks. Consequently,the gap between lowand high-achievingstudentswould become wider.

EDUCATIONAL AN CONTEXT: OVERVIEW OF SCIENCEEDUCATION IN REFORM ISRAEL

A significant decline in the number of high school students electing science courses in Israel,along with insufficientscientific literacyamong nonscience majors and relatively low scores in internationalassessments, motivatedthe Israeli Ministryof Educationto call for a reformin science teaching.The HarariNational Committeeresultedin an elaboratereport-Tomorrow '98-that included43 recommendationsfor new programs,special projects,changes, and improvementsin the areas of curriculumdevelopmentand implementation,pedagogy of science, andprofessionaldevelopmentof science teachers(Harari,1992). Following the report,the Ministryof Educationfinancedseveralreformprojectswhose goal was to The projectsreportedin this implementthe Hararicommittee recommendations. article were all partof these reforminitiatives.The Tomorrow'98 reportconsidered the need to make science an integralpartof the educationfor all citizens, sugOne concernedhigh school studentswho gesting two specific recommendations. do not opt to specialize in any of the science disciplines (biology, chemistry,or physics). A new curriculumwas proposedfor these students-Science and Technology for All. A second recommendationconcernedmiddle school studentsfor whom anothernew curriculumwas proposed-Science and Technology Midfor dle School. These programsconsistedof interdisciplinary modulesintegrating Sci-

152

ZOHAR ANDDORI

and ence, Technology,Environment, personaltopics with the frameworkof teachSciencefor All. ing Hofstein, Aikenhead,andRiquarts(1988) identifiedseveralproblemsconcerning the implementationof such STS-type programs,including the following: * The interdisciplinary natureof the content and unfamiliarityof the teachers with a subjectmatterin which they were not originally trained. * Unfamiliarityof teacherswith requiredteaching strategies. * Inappropriate professionaldevelopmenttechniquesand proceduresfor preand inservice training. Severalof the Tomorrow'98 projectsattemptedto overcomethese obstacles by involvingteachersin theprocessof curriculum development,as well as in the develof instructional andrelevantassessmentmethods.It was hypothopment techniques esized that by involving teachers in the process of "bottom-up"as opposed to curricular one "top-down" procedures, would reducethe level of anxietythatoften exists amongteacherswho areexpectedto teach unfamiliarsubjectmatter(Dori & Hofstein,2000; Dori, Tal,& Tsaushu,2003). SabarandShafriri(1982) claimedthat teachers'participation curriculum in developmentgives the teachergreaterautonandinternalization. materials teachomy Developmentof learningandcurricular by ers has been recognizedin the lasttwo decadesas an important effective method and for understanding curriculum the potential(Ben-Peretz,1985) andfor professional developmentof teachers(Talet al., 2001). In this articlewe presenttwo modules in which teacherswere actively involved in developmentand implementation. These modules are Qualityof the AirAround Us (Dori & Herscovitz, 1999) and Biotechnology,Environment, and Related Issues (Dori et al., 2003). These STS-orientedmodules, which followed the recommendationsof the Hararicommittee, cater to the requirementof fostering higher orderthinkingskills. While developing and applying these modules, special care was takento involve not only high-achievingstudentsbut also low-achievingones to ensurethatall studentswould develop higherorderthinkingskills to the best of their abilities. Anotherrecommendation the Harari of in (1992) committeeaddressed this article concernstheneedto fosterstudents' and skills: higherorderthinking problem-solving In manyplacesin theworldtodaythereareprograms to the designed improve individual's creative inventive etc.... Thisissueis thinking, thinking, logicalthinking, of The is the of such worthy exploration. intention to investigate feasibility including in ourschools.(p.47) programs One of the practicalconsequences of this recommendationwas the funding of the Thinkingin Science Classrooms(TSC) project(Zohar,1996; Zohar& Nemet, & 2000, 2002; Zohar,Weinberger, Tamir,1994). As two of the units describedin

THINKINGSKILLS AND LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS

153

this article (the Genetic Argumentationunit and the Critical and Scientific information aboutthe Thinkingunit) arepartof the TSC project,some background is called for. project Of the many approachesto teachinghigherorderthinking,the TSC projectundertakesthe infusion approach,arguingthat thinking takes place within various curricularareas. Although learning is embedded in rich conceptual frameworks, the thinkingprinciples (also referredto as thinkingskills or strategies) are made explicit and become a focused goal of instructionand thus a common target of classroom discourse (Burden& Williams, 1998; Ennis, 1989). The project'soutcome is a set of learningactivities that were specifically designed to foster inquiry,higher order thinking, and scientific argumentationin multiple science topics. The learningactivities match topics from the junior high school science curriculum.Four books of learningactivities were publishedand inservice professionaldevelopmentcourses took place all over the country. It is particularly to important clarify the meaningof the termskill in the context of the TSC project.In the higherorderthinkingliterature,the term thinkingskills often refers to generalentities that are disconnectedto the rich conceptualframeworks of academic subjects.However,the emphasison thinkingskills in the TSC projectintegratesskill learninginto studies of particular topics in science. In TSC lesson instructionrevolves aroundtasks and problems that studentsare asked to solve. For example, studentsmay be asked to argueabout bioethicaldilemmas in humangenetics, to criticize an articleaboutthe diminishingozone layer,or to engage in open inquiry about vitamins. The cognitive demands for solving these tasks consist of multiplethinkingskills. After engaging these thinkingskills on a procedurallevel (i.e., completingthe tasks and solving the problems),studentsengage in a metacognitive activity regardingthese skills. Through guided discussions and activity sheets, studentsreflect on the thinkingskills they have been using; make generalizationsand rules regardingthese skills; and verbalize how, when, and why each specific skill is being used. Teachersare also advised to engage in transferactivities, directingstudentsto additionalcircumstances(both in other school subjects and in everyday life) where the same thinking pattern(or skill) may be employed. Thus, thinking skills are embedded in rich science contents and are also addressed as explicit educationalgoals. One of the assumptionsthe projectis based on is that teaching of higher orderthinkingmust be systematic.Practicinga skill once or twice a year throughproblemsolving may offer studentsan exceptionally interestinglesson, but will not be very useful in fosteringtheirthinking.The methodology used in the TSC projectis to repeatthe same skill time and again in different scientific contexts and to apply it to various types of problems.Accordingly, several different types of learning activities were developed: learning activities thatfollow lab experiments,Invitationsto Inquiry(Schwab, 1963), criticalassessment of newspaperclips, investigationof microworlds,fostering argumentation

154

ANDDORI ZOHAR

skills, and open-endedinquirylearningactivities. Evaluationstudies have shown that students who studied with the TSC learning activities gained significantly higher scores on reasoning tasks and on science knowledge tests than students from comparisongroups who studied in the traditionalway (Zohar, 1996, 1999; Zohar & Nemet, 2000, 2002; Zoharet al., 1994).

THE RESEARCH AND QUESTION ITS EDUCATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

Weighing the theoreticaland practicalimplicationsdiscussed in the previous section, two contradictoryviews become apparent.The first, embracedby both the "learningfor understanding" conceptionsof learningandby the STS approach,asserts that all studentsshould be the targetof teaching higher orderthinking. The second view, embracedby many practitioners,holds that low-achieving students are, by and large, not really capable of higher orderthinking. To be considerateof low-achieving students'limitationsand to avoid frustrating them, many teachersmaintainthat these studentsshould be sparedthe challenges involved in tasks requiringhigher orderthinking.Such a belief, however, may be questioned in the face of our empirical evidence, which addresses the following research question: Do low-achieving studentsgain from teaching and learningprocesses that aredesignedto fosterhigherordercognitive skills, andif so, to whatextent? It should be noted that seeking an answerto this question was not the primary goal of the studiesdescribedin this article.Rather,these studies were conductedto assess the effects of four differentresearchprojectsthat were designed and implemented as partof the Harariscience educationreformin Israel.All four teaching units or modules described in this sequel share a common goal: to develop students' higher orderthinkingskills as an essential componentof science learning. Each of the two authorswas the directorof two of these projects.After the assessment of our projects had been finalized, we shared our findings. We had worked on the differentprojects independentlyof each other.The students who participatedin these projectswere of differentages. Some of them studied in homogeneous classes, whereasothers studied in heterogeneousones. Nevertheless, we were struckby the observationthat despite the considerablediversity in students' backgrounds learningenvironments,ourfindingsregarding effect of and the these projectson low-achieving studentswere similar.In the course of our fieldwork, both of us also encounterednumerousteacherswho questionedthe value of using these modules with low-achievingstudents(as demonstrated the excerpts by in the opening section of this article). The realizationthat our findings might be

ANDLOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS THINKING SKILLS

155

significantin addressingthe gap between theoryand practicedescribedearlierled us to collaboratein communicatingthese findings througha joint article. The somewhatunusualchronicleof eventsthatled to this articleis reflectedin its special layout.Inwhatfollows, eachof thefourstudiesis describedin a separatesection. For each study, we first provide general information,including the main researchquestionsor objectives,a briefdescriptionof theresearchsetting,theparticimeansof assessment,andthe mainfindings. pantswho wereevaluated,the primary We then elaborateon the specific findings regardingthe effects of that particular studyon low- andhigh-achievingstudents.We wrapup withgeneralconclusionsrefor gardingour findings and with recommendations furtherresearch.A brief sumthatserves as an advanceorganizeris presentedin Table 1. mary

STUDY1: FOSTERING QUESTION-POSING A CAPABILITIES THROUGH CASE-BASED IN TEACHING/LEARNING METHOD THEAIRQUALITY MODULE Research Setting
Tenthgradestudentsin Israelare requiredto take at least one science course. Fol(Harari,1992), nonscience majors lowing the HarariCommitteerecommendations often choose a course titled "Science and Technology for All." The module assessed in this study was developed as partof a Science, Technology,andEnvironment in ModernSociety (STEMS) project,which was partof the effortto develop the Science for Alli curriculum.The module titled The Qualityof Air AroundUs was developed by a group of science teachersmentoredby an academic advisor (Dori & Herscovitz, 1999). The goal was to expose studentsto controversialissues, to develop their ability to pose questions, and to teach them how to read scientific articles in a critical manner.Question posing is a fundamentalcognitive component that guides human reasoning. Particularclasses of questions invite mental construction of causal chains, justifications, and goal-plan-action hierarchies (Graesser, Baggett, & Williams, 1996). Case studies have been effectively used in medical, business, and law schools (Dori, 1994; Herried,1994). The Air Qualitymodule consisted of five case studies taken from sources such as daily newspaperarticles and popularscience magazines thatwere appliedusing the Jigsawcooperativelearningmethod.The module was divided into five topics dealing with nitrogen,carbonand sulfuroxides, green
IInIsrael,the termScience and Technologyfor is used as an extensionof the termSciencefor All All in the science educationliterature.

01

TABLE 1 Overviewof the FourStudies

Module Titleand Reference The Quality of Air AroundUs (Dori & Herscovitz, 1999) Module Subject Matter Chemistry, environment,and social aspects Module Duration 30-40 hr

Participants Seven 10th-grade homogenousa classes from five schools: urban, rural,and agricultural(N = 127) Five experimental 9th-gradeclasses and four comparison classes from two middle- class heterogeneousb schools (N = 186)

Main Rese Objecti

To investigat whetherstude question-pos capabilitiesca serve as an alternative assessment m

The Genetic Revolution: Discussion of Moral Dilemmas (Zohar& Nemet, 2000, 2002)

Humangenetics

10-12 hr

To assess stud progressin argumenta skills and g knowledge assess tran argumenta skills from context of g to everyda

Biotechnology, and Environment, relatedIssues (Dori, Tal, & Tsaushu,2003)

Biotechnology with moraland environmental dilemmas

30-40 hr

FosteringCriticaland Scientific Thinking (Zohar& Tamir, 1993; Zohar, & Weinberger, Tamir,1994)

Waterbalance in living organisms

24 hr

Eight 10th- to 12th-gradeclasses from six different high schools: Arab,Jewish secular and religious, urban and small community (N = 201) Ten experimental 7th-gradeclasses and 11 comparison classes from four schools that were heterogeneousin terms of socioeconomic background(N = 464)

To examine t effect of th Biotechno module on students' knowledge higherord thinkingsk

To assess the of the Thin Science Classroom on student reasonings and biolog knowledge

aHomogeneousclass means thatstudentsin thatclass have similarinterestsin science and come from a class means that studentsin thatclass have dissimilarinterestsin science and come from differentsocioec Ar

158

ZOHAR AND DORI

house effect, ozone layer depletion, and industrialodors as warning signs. Students were exposed to environmentalproblems createdby a nearbypower plant and their possible technological and legislative solutions. Students'assignments included case studies demonstratingsocial and environmentalaspects of science and their relevance to daily life. After reading the case studies studentswere requested to analyze data, solve complex problems,pose questions,conductcritical group discussions, play differentroles, and write creativetitles andpassages with regardto controversialissues. While they were exposed to new learningsituations throughcase studies, studentsinteractedwith each other,therebyconstructingnew knowledge and posing questions at variouscomplexity levels. Researchobjectives were as follows: * To examine ways of using students'question-posingcapabilitiesas an alternative assessmentmethod. * To investigatethe effect of the case study teachingand learningapproachon of at academiclevel. capabilities highschoolstudents different question-posing The researchpopulationincluded seven 10th-gradeclasses from five different in types of schools in the northern partof Israel. All the teacherswho participated the STEMS projectand consentedto teach the Quality of Air AroundUs module taught classes that became part of the research population.Hence there was no preselection of the research population, except for the teachers' willingness to teach the topic. Based on a classificationmade by the managementof each school, the student populationwas dividedinto threeacademiclevels: high (H), science majors;intermediate(I), averagestudents;andlow (L), studentswith some learningdifficulties. Science majors (H level students) were required to take one or more of three courses-physics, chemistry,or biology. These studentstook the module for extra and credit,whereasintermediate low-level studentstook it as the Science andTechcourse.Althoughall classes were to a certainextentheteronology for All required geneous, their averagescientific and academic levels reflected theirclassification into the threeacademiclevels. The school's classificationof studentsinto the three levels was verifiedthrougha partof the pretestaddressingscientific literacy.

AssessmentMethod
To assess the effect of the case studymethodon students'question-posingcapability, the results of pre- and posttest case studies were analyzed. Case studies were part of both the pre- and the posttests. The pretest provideddata for both the init structionandresearch.For instruction, served as a baseline for the teachers,who used it to classify studentsby academiclevels and to assign them into the various and Jigsaw groups.The posttestwas used to assess students'performance to grade

THINKINGSKILLS AND LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS

159

them. Comparingthe results of the pretestcase studies with those of the posttest was used for measuringstudents'improvementin question-posingcapabilityas a result of the learningprocess. To illustrateour method of analyzing question-posingcapability,consider the following set of four questions asked by studentA: 1. What is ozone? 2. Write a letterto a managerin the petrochemicalindustryplant and express your opinion aboutgases emitted thatcause the photochemicalsmog. 3. In your opinion, are we currentlyin danger? 4. Due to the fact thatcertaingases cause the hole in the ozone layer,can we use them to eliminatethe "bad"ozone? We countedthe numberof questionsposed by each student(in ourexampleit is four) and comparedthe percentageof questions asked before and afterthe treatment (see Table2). Next, we categorizedeach questionby its orientation.The threequestionorientation attributesare phenomenonor problem description,hazardsrelated to the or views arethatproposingsoluproblem,andtreatment solution.The researchers' tions point to a higher level of understanding problemthan describingit, and the thatfindingtreatments solutionsis morepositive andproductivethanjust identior fying hazards.Focus was placed not on recognizingthe problemor on identifying the hazards,but on attemptsto find solutions. The orientationof the first three questions(which studentA posed in the aforementioned example) is "problemdescription,"whereas that of the fourth (last) question is "possible solutions."The trendsof change in the questions'orientationare presentedin Figure 1. A more thoroughanalysis was based on the complexityof each question,which was used in the computationof the aggregatescore (see Table3). To determinethe questions'complexity systematicallyand objectively,we developed and applieda methodfor calculatingthe complexityof an individualquestionandof quantitative a set of questions.The complexitylevel of a set of questionsaskedby an individual studentis the student'saggregatescore. The coding scheme of the complexity was influenced by thinking skills classification (Shepardson, 1993; Shepardson & Pizzini, 1991) andcriteriafor questionasking (Graesser& Person, 1994) as well as problemsolving (Zoller, 1987). In a nutshell, the method first calls for determiningwhetheror not answering the questionrequiresonly knowledgethatis presentedin the case study.Questions whose answers requiredknowledge only received a complexity score of zero. Questions requiringapplication, analysis, value judgment, or expression of an opinion regardingcontroversialissues were assigned a higher score. It should be noted thatthe numberof questionsaccountedfor by the firstcomponent(the number of questions posed by each student)is differentthan the numberof questions

TABLE 2 MeanScores,Standard and Number Questions of Deviations, Maximum Students Posedinthe Pre-andPosttests Academic Levels Study1 in by
Pretest Maximum Numberof Questions Posttest Maximum Numberof Questions

Academic Level

SD

SD

pa

High Low

59 39

2.53 2.05

.99 1.12

6 4

56 29

6.38 4.38

2.13 1.39

12 9

.001 .001

Test approximation) mean for number questions student of aAscomputed Kruskal-Wallis (X2 by per the among levels.
504540 35 30 25
20-

Low

pre

_.pslt

1510 5 0 phenomenon hazards questfon odrientation solution

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 phenomenon hazards solution question orientation pre post

High

FIGURE Trends question 1 in orientation thepretest theposttest low-achieving from to for students in students (bottom) Study1. (top)andhigh-achieving

160

THINKINGSKILLS AND LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS

161

TABLE 3 Mean Scores, StandardDeviations,and Significanceof QuestionComplexity in the Pre and Postcase Study Questionnaires Levels in Study 1 by
Pretest Maximum Complexity AggregateScore 8 8 Posttest Maximum Complexity AggregateScore 20 18

AcademicLevel High Low

N 59 39

M 3.71 2.85

SD 1.90 1.61

N 56 29

SD

pa .001 .001

10.23 3.80 6.31 4.18

for aAs computedby a Kruskal-WallisTest (X2approximation) mean complexity aggregatescore per studentamong the levels.

accounted for the student's aggregate score. Student A asked four questions, of which the first question requiredonly knowledge (because the answer was provided in the case study). That student'saggregatescore is the sum of complexity scores of only the threequestions(2, 3, and4) becauseonly these questionsrequire higherorderthinkingskills. The categorizationandthe question's scores (as computedby the formulain Dori & Herscovitz, 1999) were as follows: 2. Writea letterto a managerin the petrochemicalindustryplantand express your opinion about gases emitted that cause the photochemical smog. Complexitycategory = "Expressingopinion."Score = 1 point. 3. In youropinion, arewe currentlyin danger?Complexitycategory= "Judgment and/orevaluation"and "Expressingopinion."Score = 2 points. 4. Due to the fact thatcertaingases cause the hole in the ozone layer,can we use them to eliminate the "bad"ozone? Complexity category = "Application and analysis,""Judgmentand/or evaluation,"and "Interdisciplinary Score = 3 points. approach." The student'saggregatequestion complexity score was obtainedby summing over the complexity scores of the questionsthatthe studentasked.In this case only the aforementionedthree questions were accountedfor by computing the aggregate complexity score, which was therefore6.

Findings
The results indicated that overall, students increased their scores in the posttest comparedto the pretest. Students' performanceimproved significantly between the pretestandposttestwith respectto all the threecomponentsthatwere analyzed (i.e., numberof questions posed, questionorientation,and question complexity).

162

ZOHAR AND DORI

The total numberof questionsposed by studentsincreasedfrom 298 in the pretest to 639 in the posttest (p < .0001). Regardingquestionorientation,we found thatin the pretesthalf of the students were primarilyconcernedwith hazardsrelatedto the problempresentedin the case study.Only aboutone fifth of the questionsstudentsposed relatedto a possible solution or to formulatingan argument.Examiningtrendchanges in question orientation,we found thatthe percentagesof solution- and argument-oriented questions increasedfrom 19% in the pretestto 33% in the posttest. Fewer questions in the posttest (24%)than in the pretest(45%) dealt with hazardsrelatedto the problem. This indicatedan increasein students'awarenessof the need for and feasibility of seeking practicalsolutions to a given problemratherthanbeing fixated on inquiring aboutrisks. Regardingquestioncomplexitywe foundthatthe meanquestioncomplexity increasedfrom3.88 in thepretestto 8.87 in the posttest(p < .0001). Throughthe study of the Air Qualityunit,studentsgaineda morecomplex view of the realworldprobin lems thatwereaddressed thismodule.Takentogether,thesefindingsshow considerable gains in students'question-posingcapabilitiesfollowing instruction.

Low-Versus High-Achieving Students in the AirQualityModule

As explained earlier,studentswere engaged in studyingthe five topics of the Air Quality module using the Jigsaw method. Comparingstudents'achievements in the five topics thatcomprisedthe Air Qualitymodule, we found out thathigh acain the demic level studentsmaintained same level of knowledgeandunderstanding their experttopic as in the othertopics (which they had learnedfrom their peers). and However,the knowledgelevel of intermediate low academiclevel studentsdeclined in the topics they had studiedfrompeers when comparedto the experttopic (which they had learnedon theirown and taughttheirpeers). More details appear in Dori and'Herscovitz(1999). In comparingacademiclevels, we found a significantdifferencein the extent of increase in the averagenumberof questions among the three levels. Because this difference was entirely due to the significant difference between levels H and L, from now on we shall focus on these two levels, puttingthe resultsof the intermediate level aside. The results presentedin Table 2 show the increase in students' question-posing capability in the Air Quality module. The increased capability was significantfor both academiclevels as reflected in the mean numberof questions posed by each student. of Figure 1 shows the distribution questionorientationin the pre- and posttests. was We foundthatthe distribution similarfor H andL levels. The low-achievingstuof dentsincreasedthe solutionorientation theirquestionsfrom 14%to 35%.This is a higher increase thanthatof the high-achievingstudents.

STUDENTS ANDLOW-ACHIEVING THINKING SKILLS

163

Studyingthe complexityof the questionsposed by students,we found thatboth high- and low-achieving studentsimprovedsignificantly in the posttest as comparedwith the pretest(see Table 3). Takentogether,these findings show that students fromboth H andL levels improvedtheirquestion-posingcapabilitiesfollowing their study of the Air QualityModule. Our findings are in line with those of Graesserand Person (1994), who found thatstudents'achievementswere positively correlatedwith the qualityof the questions studentsposed.

STUDY2: FOSTERING STUDENTS' ARGUMENTATION BIOETHICAL SKILLS THROUGH IN DILEMMAS GENETICS Research Setting
The TSC projectwas funded in Israel as partof the science reformthat followed the recommendationsof the HarariCommittee (Harari,1992). The unit The Genetic Revolution-Discussions of Moral Dilemmas (or Genetic Revolution for short) is partof the TSC project.Learningactivities in the TSC projectwere designed to foster higher orderthinkingskills. In this unit, scientific argumentation skills were integratedinto the regularjunior high school science curriculum. This unit was designed accordingto two sets of goals. One set of goals conparticular sists of a list of severaltopics in humangenetics (e.g., genetic counseling, information aboutgenetic traits,gene therapyand genetic cloning). The other set of goals and consists of fosteringargumentation skills (e.g., formulatingan argument justiand fying it or formulatinga counter-argument justifying it). This 12-hrunit, designed for ninthgrade,includes 10 moraldilemmasaboutissues involvingmodem technologies in genetics. Biological knowledgeis addressedin two ways: first,each dilemmabegins with a short written introductionpresenting informationabout concepts in genetics. Second, students must make use of their biological knowledge when they are thinking about the problemspresentedin the dilemmas. The value of grounding decisions upon reliable knowledge is explicitly emphasized time and again throughoutthe unit. Argumentationskills are also addressedin two ways: first, they are addressedin a lesson that is entirelydevoted to explicit instructionabout argumentation. Argumentsare defined and their structureis explained. Criteria between good andbad argumentsare discussed. Second, argumendistinguishing tationskills are addressedin each of the dilemmas when, in the specific contextof each dilemma, studentsare asked to apply them (Zohar& Nemet, 2000, 2002). The generalresearchobjectiveof this study was to investigatethe learningthat took place following the implementation the GeneticRevolutionunit and its efof

164

ZOHAR AND DORI

fects on both biological knowledge and argumentationskills. More specifically, our goal was to answerthe following questions: 1. How do studentsinitially(i.e., before instruction)apply specific biological constructionand what is theirinitial ability to forknowledge to argument mulate arguments? 2. How does instructionof the Genetic Revolution unit affect students'bioskills as comparedto traditionalinlogical knowledge and argumentation structionthatcovers the same biological content? 3. Can studentswho have acquiredargumentation skills in the context of the GeneticRevolutionunittransfer these skills to a new context(moraldilemmas takenfrom everydaylife)? in Participants this study were ninthgrade studentsin two middle-classheteroschools in Israel.The researchdesign includedan experimental geneous groupthat received treatmentand a comparisongroupthatwas taughtthe same topics in human genetics for the same amountof time using traditionalinstruction(Zohar& Nemet, 2000, 2002). The experimentalgroup consisted of five classes and the comparisongroupconsisted of four classes.

AssessmentMethod
Students'reasoningabilitieswere assessed before, during,and afterinstruction by several means, includingan analysis of audio-tapesfrom groupdiscussions and a series of writtentests. Several of the writtentests are relevantfor the purposeof this study: * Argumentation tests in genetics that revolved aroundtwo dilemmas related to genetics. The Cystic Fibrosisdilemma was used as a pretestand the Huntington dilemma was used as a posttest. * Argumentationtransfertests that consisted of two moral dilemmas taken from everydaylife (e.g., "Shouldstudentsreporta classmate who cheatedin a test?"). The purpose of the lattertasks was to assess transferof argumentation skills from the context of genetics to the context of everydaylife. One of these tasks was assigned as a pretestandthe otheras a posttest.It shouldbe notedthatalthoughthe topics of these tests differed from each other, they were all identical in terms of theirlogical structure the sense thatstudentswere requiredto constructthe same in of argumentsin responseto the questions presentedin each of the tasks. type In students'responses to the writtenpre- and posttests, we analyzed students' ability to formulatearguments,alternativearguments,and rebuttalsand to justify

STUDENTS THINKINGSKILLSAND LOW-ACHIEVING

165

them. Alternativeargumentsare argumentsthatcontradictone's originalopinion. Rebuttalsare arguments refutethe alternative that arguments.The criterionfor arformulationwas whetheror not the writtenresponses included a conclugument sion with at least one relevantjustification.Responses that includeda conclusion with no justifications(e.g., "I think they should performan abortion") concluor sions with pseudo-justifications "I thinkthey shouldperforman abortionbe(e.g., cause this pregnancymustbe terminated") were not acceptedas arguments. Justifications were scored accordingto their numberand structure. The score range for the numberof justificationswas 0 (nojustification), 1 (one validjustification), and 2 (two or more validjustifications).The score range for argumentstructure was 0 validjustification), 1 (a simple structure,consisting of a conclusion supported (no by at least one reason), and 2 (a composite structure).For each argument,counor ter-argument, rebuttal,the scores thus rangedbetween 0 to 4 (because each was scored for both the numberof justificationsand the argumentstructure). Because each dilemma consisted of all three components (i.e., arguments,counter-arguments, and rebuttals),the score for each dilemmarangedbetween 0 to 12.

Findings
The analysis of the writtentests revealed that priorto instruction,most students could formulatesimple, unsophisticated arguments. Following instruction,an imabilities. The genetics argumenprovementwas found in students'argumentation tation pretests showed that both experimental and control groups had similar scores, indicatingan initial similarlevel of both groups.However,only studentsin the experimentalgroup improved their scores in the posttest compared to their scores in the pretest.Their gains were found to be statistically significant. Similarly,the transfertests showedthatonly the experimentalgroupstudentswere able to transferthe reasoningabilities taughtin the context of bioethical dilemmas in genetics to the context of moraldilemmas takenfrom everydaylife. To assess the effect of the Genetic Revolution unit on students'knowledge in genetics, studentswere askedto answera multiplechoice test thatconsisted of 20 items. The results showed that studentsin the experimentalgroup scored significantly higher than studentsin the control group in the knowledge test (M = 72.9, SD = 6.0 andM = 59.4, SD = 4.1, respectively;t = 3.94, p < .001). These resultsindicated that the Genetic Revolution unit is more effective for teaching genetics than the traditionalmode of instruction. Qualitativeanalysisof two excerptsfromgroupdiscussions--one froman early discussion and anotherfrom a later one-revealed an improvementin the quality of students'argumentation. the second discussion, studentswere morecarefulin In expressingclaims, in takingmorecare to maketheirclaims explicit, andin justifying them, as compared to the first discussion. In the first discussion, students tended to talk briefly, but in the second they tended to talk for longer periods of

166

ZOHAR AND DORI

time, suggesting an increasein the complexity of theirdiscourse.Indeed, an additional analysis of transcripts showed thatstudents'discourse in the second discusin the firstdiscussion(Zohar& Nemet, 2000, 2002). sion was richerin ideas than

Low-Versus High-Achieving Students and the Genetic RevolutionUnit

The results summarizedin the previous section show that, in general, students benefitedfromthe GeneticRevolutionunit.These results,however,do not indicate the type of studentswho made progressas a resultof instruction.Theoretically,it may well be that only part of the studentpopulation(only higher achieving students or only lower achieving students)contributed the significantgains. to To addressthis issue, we divided our studentpopulationinto three subgroups accordingto their biology grade in the school term that precededour treatment. Students whose biology grade was between 45 and 70 were grouped into the low-achieving groups; students whose grade was above 70 and below 90 were groupedinto the medium-achieving group;and studentswhose gradewas between 90 and 100 were groupedinto the high-achievinggroup.Table4 presents the results of the analysisfor the genetic argumentation tests andTable5 presentsthe results of the analysis for the transfertests (relatingto everydaylife dilemmas). The data presentedin Tables 4 and 5 show that all three subgroupsimproved their posttest scores with respect to their pretest scores in both the genetic argumentationand transferargumentation tests. In all threesubgroups,the differences between pre- andposttestswere statisticallysignificantwith mediumto very large Effect Sizes (ES). Thus, these results show that both lower and higher achieving studentsadvancedtheir reasoningskills following the implementationof the Genetic Revolution-Discussion of Moral Dilemmas unit.

STUDY3: ENHANCING HIGHER ORDERTHINKING SKILLS THROUGH CASE STUDIESIN BIOTECHNOLOGY Research Setting
This study describedand evaluatedthe Biotechnology,Environment, Related and Issues module developed by a group of six teachersfrom differentscience disciand plines, a coordinator, an academicadvisor.The module addressedvariousaspects of developmentsin biotechnology such as new inventionsin agriculture,the of productionof essentialmaterials,andthe transformation genetic characteristics. Students'learninginvolvedscientific and technologicalaspectsthroughan evaluation of their impacts on and the relationshipswith society and the environment.

THINKINGSKILLSAND LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS

167

TABLE 4 Scores of GeneticArgumentation Tests in Study2

Pretest Academic Level All students Low achievers Intermediate achievers High achievers N 71 18 26 27 M 6.6 5.9 6.5 7.3 SD 2.0 2.3 2.1 1.4 Posttest M 8.7 7.5 8.5 9.5 SD 2.1 2.4 1.7 1.9 t 7.5 4.4 3.8 4.9 p <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 EffectSizes 0.98 0.68 1.05 1.32

5 TABLE Scores of GeneticTransfer Tests (Relatingto EverydayDilemmas)in Study2

Pretest AcademicLevel All students Low achievers Intermediateachievers High achievers N 69 18 24 27 M 5.2 4.6 5.6 5.5 SD 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.5 Posttest M 8.3 7.8 8.0 9.0 SD 1.9 2.3 1.6 1.7 t 11.6 6.0 4.9 8.0 p <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 Effect Sizes 1.55 1.42 1.30 1.66

The teachingapproach emphasizedthe developmentof a varietyof thinkingskills: posing questions,presentingarguments,and system thinking.The aim in teaching the Biotechnology module was to provide studentswith the ability to understand varioustopics concerningSTS issues. The uniquecharacteristic the module is of the system approach: case studieswere combinedwith built-inmoraldilemmasfor both learningand assessment.The core of the module consists of moralquestions and controversiesconcerning the environment,raised by biotechnology research and its applications.Discussing such controversiesconstitutesa majorissue in the module and inspires debates among studentsand teachers.As mentionedearlier, the case study method was found to be suitable in other STS programsas well (Dori & Herscovitz, 1999; Dori & Tal,2000; Herried,1994). Both real storiesand fictitious ones were used in the presentunit. The researchobjective was to examinethe effect of the Biotechnology module on students'knowledge and higherorderthinkingskills. The research population consisted of nonscience majors in eight classes of grades 10 to 12 from six differenthigh schools. The 201 studentsrepresentedheterogeneous populations-Arab, Jewish secular and religious schools, and urban and small community schools. The studentswere classified into three academic levels by the mean scores of a pretest.Studentswho scored less than 20% in the pretestwere classified as low-achievingstudents.Those who scoredbetween 21%

168

ZOHAR ANDDORI

and and 38%were consideredintermediate the ones who got more than 38% were classified as high-achievingstudents.

AssessmentMethod
Assessment of the Biotechnology module addressedknowledge and understanding of key scientific issues as well as higherorderthinkingskills. Such skills were measuredin terms of students'ability to identify and analyze environmental,social, and moral dilemmas, as well as their ability to presentargumentsregarding controversialissues. Assessment tools included pre- and posttests consisting of case studies with built-in dilemmas. Throughthese tests, we investigatedstudent of performanceregardingtwo categories: (a) knowledge and understanding key scientific issues and (b) higher orderthinkingskills. The lattercategory included posing questions, presentingarguments,and system thinking.Each category was analyzed both separately(scoring 100%) and as part of a total score. The total score for each studentwas computedas a weightedaverage,with a weight of .3 asand signed to the student'sknowledgeandunderstanding a weight of .7 assignedto her or his higher order thinking skills. The benefit of applying these scoring schemes is thatthey yield a separatescore for each category(low and high thinking) whereasthe total score providesan overallpictureof each individualstudent, each class, and the entireresearchpopulation. Prior to this project, matriculationexaminationswere developed exclusively for science majors. For the first time in Israel, teachers in Studies 1 and 3 (described in this article) were involved in the developmentof matriculation examinations geared toward nonscience majors (Dori & Hofstein, 2000; Dori et al., 2003). The examinationsfor the nonscience majors consisted of tests, projects, critical readingof scientific articles, cooperativeassignments,and mini research. Teachersfelt that their involvementin developing and matching each pedagogical methodwith adequateassessment tools benefitedboth the studentsand themselves. In this study, we focus on analyzing the results of the pre- and posttests administeredas part of the project.

Findings
To investigatethe effect of the STS-orientedBiotechnology module on students' learning outcomes, we compared between the pre- and posttests of the entire population.The results revealeda statisticallysignificant improvementin the total scores of the entire studentpopulation(t = 22.8, p < .0001). This was due to and in their higher improvementin both students'knowledge and understanding order thinking skills (Dori et al., 2003).

THINKING ANDLOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS SKILLS

169

LowVersusHigh-Achieving Students inthe Biotechnology Module

we Comparingeach academiclevel separately, founda patternsimilarto thatof the entire researchpopulation. As Table6 shows, althoughboth low- andhigh-achievingstudentssignificantly improvedtheir total scores from the pre- to the posttests, the improvement(net gain) of the low achievers (54.1) was significantly higher than that of the high achievers (29.9). We furtheranalyzedthe two categories-knowledge and understanding and higher order thinking skills-by the two academic levels. In the knowledge and understanding category, the posttest scores of the low academic level students(M = 80.5; SD = 16.9) were even higher thanthe scores of theirhigh academic level peers (M = 74.5; SD = 15.2). In the higher order thinkingskills category (i.e., posing questions, presenting arguments,and system thinking),studentsof both academiclevels improvedtheir scores significantly(see Table7). The posttestscores of studentsfromthe low academic level group(M = 64.6; SD = 31.9) were lower thanthe scores of theirpeers from the high academic level group(M = 73.0; SD = 28.1). However,the net gain of higherorderthinkingskills for low-achieving students(55.7) was significantly higher than thatof theirhigh-achievingpeers (31.6). Score analysis by the two categories(knowledgeand understanding higher and orderthinkingskills) revealedthatthe gap between the two academicgroupsin the pretest was very wide: 42.1 for the high achieversversus 15.2 for the low achievers. In the posttest, this gap nearly disappearedcompletely: 73.0 for the high achievers and 69.3 for the low achievers. This study establishes that an almost threefoldgap in the pretestscore between low and high academicachieverscan be narrowedor even eliminated. A possible explanationfor the success of Studies 1 and 3 is teachers'involvement in the developing of curriculumand assessmenttools. This has provedto be an effective strategyfor elevatingteachers'awarenessof the pedagogicalpotential of the STS approachin generalandof relatedassessmentmodes in particular (Dori & Tal, 2000; Tal, Dori, & Lazarowitz,2000). These studies show thatwith the apcurriculum instruction,studentsof all academiclevels and plicationof appropriate
TABLE 6 and t Tests of Students'TotalScores Mean,StandardDeviation, in the Pre- and Posttests by AcademicLevels in Study3
Pretest Academic Level High Low N 69 78 M 42.1 15.2 SD 17.7 11.3 N 48 68 Posttest M 73.0 69.3 SD 23.0 24.6 Net Gain 29.9 54.1 t 10.5 17.6 p .0001 .0001

170

ZOHAR AND DORI

7 TABLE Net Gain, StandardDeviations,and t Tests of HigherOrder SkillScores by AcademicLevels in Study3 Thinking
Posttest Versus Pretest Academic Level High Low N 69 78 Net Gain 31.6 55.7 SD 3.9 4.2 t 8.2 13.2 p 0.0001 0.0001 High Versus Low t -5.24 p .0001

profit. The curriculumdevelopmentof the two modules evolved in a bottom-up fashion. Several experimentalteachers noted that an importantlesson had been that involvement of teachers in the development and assessment processes had that positively affectedthe abilityof these teachersto implementthe approach fosters higher orderthinkingskills throughSTS in their classes (Dori & Herscovitz, 1999; Dori et al., 2003).

STUDY4: TEACHING CRITICAL AND SCIENTIFIC THINKING Research Setting

The first stage in the TSC project was aimed at teaching critical and scientific thinkingthroughcarefullydesigned learningactivities.Precisely because this was the first stage in the TSC project,it was the most traditionalpartof the projectin termsof both the pedagogicalmeans and assessmentmethodsemployed.The unit consists of learning activities that follow lab experiments,Invitationsto Inquiry (Schwab, 1963), and critical assessment of newspaperclips (includingadvertisements). The TSC learning activities that follow lab experiments are based on "handson" experimentation tasks emphasizingvariouselements of scientific reasoning and criticalthinkingthatpertainto these tasks. Invitationsto Inquirypresent narrativesdescribing real, historic, classical, or fictitious experiments;the storyis dividedinto severalsegmentsthatarepresentedto the studentone at a time. Studentsare asked to "stepinto the shoes of the scientist"and solve variousproblems derivedfrom each segment(Schwab, 1963). The thirdtype of learningactivity is critical assessment of newspaper clips or advertisements.Students were asked to readnewspaperclips thatrelate to issues they had learnedin science and to addressa series of questionsthatlead to criticalthinkingregarding theircontent. The activitieswere taughtin ways thatmatchthe spiritof criticalthinking,including group and class discussions, problem solving, analysis of experiments,and handlingdata.Assessment of these activities consisted of multiplechoice tests.

STUDENTS THINKINGSKILLS AND LOW-ACHIEVING

171

One of the unitsin thatpartof the projectaddressedthe biological topic of water balance in living organisms.Seven thinking skills were selected as goals for this unit: identifying explicit and tacit assumptions, avoiding tautologies, isolating variables,testinghypotheses,identifyingrelevantinformation, recognizinglogical between experimentalresultsand conclusions. These fallacies, and differentiating skills were integrated into the relevantbiological topics (throughthe TSC learning Each of the seven skills was repeated between six and nine times activities). throughoutthe unit (Zohar& Tamir,1993; Zoharet al., 1994). An evaluation study of that unit consisted of two groups (experimentaland comparison)that studied the same biological topic and used the same textbook (addressingthe issue of waterbalance in living organisms). The researchobjectiveswere to find out whether(andto whatextent) the teaching strategiesused in the unit can: * Contributeto the developmentof critical and scientific thinking in various biological topics. * Contributeto the transferof critical and scientific thinking skills to other (nonbiology) disciplines. * Affect students'knowledge of the biological topics addressedin the unit. A total of 21 seventhgradeclasses participated this study divided between a in comparisonand an experimentalgroup (10 classes were assigned to the experimentalgroupand 11 classes were assignedto the comparisongroup).Studentpopulation was heterogeneous in terms of socioeconomical background.The topic was taughtfor about24 periodsin both groups.The comparisongroupstudiedthe manner,whereasthe experimentalgroupengaged in the TSC topic in a traditional learningactivities in additionto using the textbook.

AssessmentMethod
The effect of the programwas assessed in three areas:students'reasoning skills, students'knowledge of biology, and teachers'feedback to the unit (Zoharet al., 1994). We used the following instruments: 1. Two parallelforms of a General CriticalThinking (GCT) test, which consists of 14 multiplechoice items (with an optionto justify the chosen response)that assess pre- and postperformancein the seven thinking skills listed earlier in the context of everydayreasoning.In developingthe test, items and ideas from several sources were included(e.g., Jungwirth,1985, 1987). One of the forms was used as a pretestand the other was used as a posttest. 2. The Biology Critical Thinking test (BCT), which is similar to the GCT test in its logical pattern,but addresses biological topics. An example of one item is presentedin Figure 2. Cronbach'salpha reliability (internalconsistency)

172

ZOHAR ANDDORI

Students of and in of one All grewtwobeanplants, in a temperature 10*C another a temperature 300C. other conditions wereidentical. was After3 weekstheplant in thantheplantgrown grown the30*Ctemperature bigger in the 10C. What we conclude? can 1. 2. 3. 4. A temperature 30*Cis moresuitable of for beans. than10*C growing Theresults as expected are because general in in environment. plants growbetter a warmer Somebeanvarieties in and in growbetter 30"C other 10C. Noneof theabove. Explain:

FIGURE 2

An example of an item from the BCT test-Study 4.

indexes were .62 and .63 for the GCT and BCT, respectively.In critical thinking tests reliabilities tend to be relatively low, ranging from about .65 to .75 (Norris & Ennis, 1989). One way to increase the reliability is to increase the numberof items. A combined score of the two tests was found to be significantlymore reliable (a = .77). 3. A knowledge test that consists of 20 multiple choice items. 4. A follow-up of teachers'feedback to the unit throughteachers' weekly reports and interviewsat the end of the school year.

Findings
Achievements in the pretest were similar for the experimentaland comparison groups, indicatingthat the initial reasoning level of studentsof both groups was the same. Comparingpretestto posttest scores, we found that studentsin the experimental group significantly improved their thinking skills relative to both their own initial level and to the level of students in the comparisongroup. Improved thinking skills were observed in tasks addressinga new biological context and nonbiological everyday topics, indicating transferacross domains. Students from the experimental group also scored significantly higher than the comparison group students on the knowledge test, suggesting that "learning facts" as one educationalgoal and "learningto think"as anotherneed not conflict, but rather can support each other. Finally, the data from the teachers' weekly reportsand interviews showed that teaching this unit decreased the frequency of teacher-centered teaching and enhanced a more active, student-centered learning (Zohar et al., 1994).

STUDENTS THINKINGSKILLS AND LOW-ACHIEVING

173

and LowVersusHighAchievers Module the Critical Scientific and Thinking

As teacherswere applyingthe learningactivities in theirclassrooms,they noticed that studentsfrom all academic levels got involved in the animatedgroupdiscussions thatdevelopedamong small groupsof studentsandbetween studentsandthe teacher.Some of the teachersreportedthat studentswho had neverbefore participatedin class discussions raisedtheirhandsvoluntarilyfor the firsttime duringthe class discussions that took place as partof the TSC learningactivities. To assess the effect of the criticaland scientific thinkinguniton studentsof different academic levels, students from both the experimental and comparison groupswere divided into subgroupsaccordingto theirbiology grade(i.e., the final grade they had received in biology on the termbefore the study began). Then, the mean gain in students'scores in the GCT test was calculatedseparatelyfor each subgroupof students(who received the same biology final grade).The results are presentedin Table 8. As expected,the meanposttestscoresof studentswho were low achieversin biology werelowerthanthoseof studentswho werehighachieversin biology.Thebetter the students were in terms of their achievementin biology, the higher was their posttestscore in the GCTtest. Yet,the studentsof all subgroupsmadeconsiderable progresswith respectto theirinitial scores. Thus, it may be concludedthatthe unit contributedto developing the thinkingskills of studentsfrom all academiclevels.

TABLE 8 Gains of Students'of Different AcademicLevels (According to TheirBiologyGrade)in the GeneralCritical Test in Study4 Thinking
ExperimentalGroupa Biology Grade 4 5 6 7 8 9 N 11 25 42 61 56 Pretest Score
-

ComparisonGroupb Gain
-

Posttest Score
-

N 4 14 34 51 64 56

Pretest Score 30.4 45.9 39.3 39.4 38.6 40.8

Posttest Score 32.7 37.2 43.9 40.9 45.6 52.1

Gain 2.3 -8.7 4.6 1.5 7.0 11.3

35.7 32.6 40.2 44.1 44.6

66.2 65.4 72.6 81.6 85.8

30.5 32.8 32.4 37.5 41.2

10

10
aN = 205. bN = 259.

58.6

92.9

34.3

36

49.2

55.4

6.2

174

ANDDORI ZOHAR

AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS

in While participating programsthat focus primarilyon fostering the thinkingof students or students with low academic achievements, teachers disadvantaged have engaged these students in intensive thinking activities (e.g., Feuerstein, Rand, Hoffman, & Miller, 1980). However, research shows that when teachers participatein programsthat are targetedtowarda more general student population (i.e., schools or classes that are heterogeneousin terms of students' socioeconomic background and academic abilities), they often tend to engage low-achieving students in thinking activities less than the high-achieving ones (Raudenbushet al., 1993; Zoharet al., 2001). This tendency is likely to be motivated by good intentions:Teachers see higher order thinking tasks as difficult and highly demanding. Therefore, they refrain from assigning higher order thinking tasks to students whom, the teachers believe, will find such tasks hard and frustrating.Despite good intentions, this creates a vicious cycle: Precisely those studentswhose thinkingskills need the most care and teacherattentionget less attention from teachers than their high-achieving peers. Exposing teachers to empirical findings regardingthis particularissue may contributeto changing their beliefs and habits. The four studies describedin this article sharedthe same general educational objective-fostering students'higherorderthinkingskills in the contextof science and technology education.Each of the programswas uniquein termsof its science and content,specific reasoninggoals, studentpopulation,and instructional assessin ment means.Nevertheless,a similarpatternof findingsrecurred all four studies. Studentswith bothhigh and low academicachievementsgainedsignificantlyfrom the educationalinterventions. beliefs (Zoharet al., to Contrary manypractitioners' 2001) and to the findings of some previous studies (e.g., Welch, Klopfer, Aikenhead,& Robinson, 1981), our empiricalevidence shows that instructionof for higherorderthinkingskills is appropriate studentswith high andlow academic achievementsalike. These findingsconfirmthe theoriesof teachingand learningfor understanding, as well as the theoreticalbackground the STS approachthatwere describedin for the TheoreticalBackgroundsection. These theories and the STS approachadvocate that thinking is for all students (e.g., Bransford,Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Bruer, 1993; Dori & Herscovitz, 1999; Fensham, 1985; Perkins, 1992; Perkins& Unger, 1999; Resnick, 1987;Resnick & Klopfer, 1989;Resnick & Resnick, 1992; Yager & Tamir,1993). As Solomon (1993) indicated in her book, TeachingScience, Technologyand Society, "Allpeople need some science education so that they can think,speakandact on those matters,relatedto science, which may affect their quality of living" (emphasisadded;p. 15). Solomon emphasized the need to foster all students' higher order thinking skills. Ourresearchsupportsthese theoreticalviews by showing empiricallythatit

THINKING SKILLS ANDLOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS

175

is indeed feasible to attainthese goals not only for a selective section of the student population,but for all students. Our studies show that by the end of the interventionsstudentswith high academic achievementsgained higherreasoningscores thantheirpeers with low academic achievements.This patternwas repeatedin all four studies. This fact does not underminethe importanceof our findings, because we are by no means sugto gesting thatour treatmentsare guaranteed close the gaps between low and high academic achievers.Our point is that by emphasizingthe developmentof all students'thinkingskills, the scientific andtechnologicalliteracyof studentsat all academic levels may significantly improve relative to each student's initial starting point. In some cases the gap between low and high achieverscan be narrowed. In one of the studies, Case Studies in Biotechnology (Dori et al., 2003), the comparisonbetween scores of low- and high-achievingstudentsaddressedknowlof edge and understanding scientific concepts, in additionto scientific reasoning. Interestingly,by the end of the program,studentswho were initially classified as low academic achieversscored higher than studentswho were initially classified as high academic achieversin the knowledge and understanding category.Informal classroom observations and conversations with teachers indicated that the teacherswho taughtthis unittendedto emphasizemorehigherorderactivitieswith studentswhom they consideredacademically"stronger," while emphasizingmore drilling and recall of informationwith studentswhom they considered"weaker." These observationsarein agreementwith the findings of Raudenbush al. (1993) et and call for two remarks. First, it may well be that all four studies were biased: Although all students supposedly went through the same program, in fact the "hidden curriculum" made teachers engage high-achieving students in more intensive higher order thinking than low-achieving students.Thus, if teachers would be educatedto assign higher order thinking tasks equally to students at all levels, the "lower achievers" could make even greater progress in their thinking skills than our studies have shown. Second, this finding suggests that the emphasis science teachers place on teaching higher order thinking skills to high-achieving students may have caused these teachers to neglect the teaching of scientific concepts. Possibly, the traditional"lower achievers"may do better on a knowledge test because they were taught the science content more thoroughly. Ideally, teachers and studentsalike should targetboth of these learningobjectives, rather than emphasize one at the expense of the other. In all four studies reportedin this article, research,development,and practice areinterwoven,in line with the recommendations Schoenfeld(1999). Aiming at of and teaching for understanding higherorderthinkingskills, while using the methods describedin these studies, we have reachedboth low and high academiclevel studentsand preparedthem to function in the increasinglysophisticatedenvironment of the world today, and more so tomorrow.

176

ZOHAR AND DORI

LIMITATIONS RESEARCH
Because this collection of four distinct studies was not originallydesigned to addressthe researchgoal we havebeen investigatinghere,we were somewhatlimited in what we could analyze. Each study had differentsettings, researchobjectives, and variables,as well as assessment means. For example, we could not compare the knowledge and understanding categoryfor each academiclevel in threeof the four studies because we had not collected the dataneeded for such a comparison. We also could not comparespecific thinking skills in all four studies because the differentprogramsaimedat enhancingdifferentthinkingskills (e.g., questionposing, formulatingan argumentandjustifying it, system thinking,and criticalthinking). Each programdealt with a subset of these skills. Another research limitation is the sizes of the low and high academic level groups. In threeout of the four studies (Study 3 was an exception), the numberof studentsin the two groupswas not balanced.Therewere morehigh academiclevel students than low ones because initially they were the majorityin the programs within which we conductedour studies. This fact might have disadvantagedthe for low-achieving students.Claiming that higher orderthinkingis appropriate all all studentsshouldbe taughthigherorderthinkingusstudentsdoes not imply that ing the same methods.The studyof teachers'beliefs aboutlow-achievingstudents and higher orderthinking (Zoharet al., 2001) showed that many of the teachers for who believed thathigherorderthinkingis appropriate low achieverswere not oblivious to theirlearningdifficulties.While assessing these students'abilities rereasons for alistically, the teachersdid not consider these difficulties appropriate giving up on higher orderthinkinggoals altogether.Instead,they were searching for ways to work toward these teaching goals by adapting special pedagogical means thatincludedbreakingup a complex task into simplercomponents,leading studentsthrougha sequence of steps necessary to solve a problem,giving clues, adding more examples, modeling ways for solving problems,and letting students work in groupsof mixed abilitiesso thatpeers can learnfromeach other.However, teachers indicatedthat in heterogeneousclasses they are often unable to teach in differentiatedways, targetingdifferentinstructionalmeans for differenttypes of students.Ourhypothesisis thatbecause manyof the studentsin threeof the studies were at intermediate high academiclevels, teacherswere more attentiveto their or needs than to those of low academic achievers. In the Biotechnology project (Study 3), teacherspaid special attentionto learningdifficultiesof the low achievmethodsthatwere especially ers. They thereforeappliedappropriate instructional beneficialfor low-achievingstudents,inducingeven largergains in knowledgeand as understanding well as higherorderthinkingskills. The lack of balance in our studies between low and high academic achievers was furtherexacerbated to higherattritionof low academiclevel students.Aldue though this imbalancedid not interferewith drawing statistically significant re-

THINKING SKILLS ANDLOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS

177

suits, it may be arguedthat not all the low-achieving students in the classes we studied were equally representedin our findings. We thereforehave to limit our findings by saying thata considerablegroupof low-achievingstudentsgained sigFurther researchis requiredto find out the extent nificantlyfromour interventions. which subgroupsof the low-achieving studentsare affectedby projectssuch as by the ones we have described. On the other hand, the very fact that these four studies were so diverse is a source of strengthfor our conclusion, as we get four independentindications for the same phenomenon,namely that low academic level studentsbenefit from engaging in educationfor higher orderthinking as much as their peers that exhibit high academic achievements.

EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
Ourfindingsbeareducationalsignificancefor teacherdevelopmentin thecontextof that projectsandprograms involvehigherorderthinking.The compelling empirical evidence shows thatlow-achievingstudentsandhigherorderthinkingarenotmutuelementin the process ally exclusive. This conclusion shouldbe madean important of changing teachers'beliefs and practicesin this field. Obviously,simply stating this conclusionis unlikelyto be enough.We suggest structuring professionaldevelopment regardingthe issues discussed here aroundthreemain themes: 1. Theoreticalconsiderations, explaining why our currentviews about the natureof teaching and learning and of the STS approachrequirethat all students will be taught to think, as described in the theoretical background earlier. 2. Empirical evidence, such as the ones described in our findings, showing gains in thinkingabilities of studentsfrom all academic levels. 3. Practical tools for helping studentsto accomplish tasks requiringhigher orderthinkingeven when these tasksmay seem to be too difficultinitially. This final point is extremelyimportant. Clearly,teachersare often correctin their belief that some tasks may be too difficult for some of their students,causing failure andfrustration. However,insteadof lettingthis belief lead to the prevalentconclusion that thinkingtasks arejust inappropriate large sections of the student for population,staff developmentprogramsmay equip teacherswith tools for helping studentsconstructbetterabilities. Such practicaltools may consist of the pedagogical means listed earlieras partof recommendations describedin the study about teachers'beliefs. In addition,they may include the following means: modeling of thinking procedures,using metacognitive processes, peer learning, scaffolding and involvingthe teachersin the developmentof STS modules, and assessmentin-

178

ZOHAR AND DORI

strumentsfor theirown classes (e.g., Dori & Herscovitz, 1999; Dori & Tal, 2000; White & Fredriksen, 1998, 2000; Zohar & Nemet, 2000, 2002). Incorporating these themes into professional developmentprogramswill be a step forwardtowarda more equitableeducationfor all students.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thankourformergraduatestudentsOritHerscovitz,FloraNemet, Revital TaliTal,MashaTsaushu,and YehuditWeinberger theircontribution to for the researchdescribedin this article. Thanksalso to all the teachers and students who took partin the projectsdescribed.

REFERENCES
Adey, P.(1999). The science of thinking,andscience for thinking:A descriptionof CognitiveAcceleration throughScience Education(CASE) [INNODATA Monographs-2].Geneva,Switzerland:International Bureauof Education,UNESCO. Adey, P, & Shayer,M. J. (1994). Really raising standards.London:Routledge. "Views on Aikenhead,G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The developmentof a new instrument: Science-Technology-Society"(VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 474-491. Ben-Peretz, M. (1985). Curriculum potential. In T. Husen & N. T. Postlethwaite(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (Vol. 2c, pp. 1246-1248). Oxford, England:Pergamon. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy educational objectives: Handbook-I.CognitiveDomain. New York: of David McKay. Bransford,J. D., Brown,A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). Howpeople learn: Brain, mind,experience, and school. Washington,DC: National ResearchCouncil, National Academy Press. Brown, A. L., & Campione,J. C. (1990). Communitiesof learningand thinking,or a context by any other name. Contributions HumanDevelopment,21, 108-126. to Bruer,J. T. (1993). Schoolsfor thought.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. the LondonandNew York:Routledge. Burden,R.,& Williams,M.(1998). Thinking through curriculum. Bybee, R. Y. (1987). Science educationand the Science-Technology-Society(S-T-S) Theme. Science Education, 71, 667-680. Bybee, R. Y. (1993). Reformingscience education,social perspectives, and personal reflections.New Yorkand London:TeachersCollege Press. Bybee, R. Y., & Ben-Zvi, N. (1998). Curriculum change in science: Transforming goals to practice.In B. Fraser& K. Tobin(Eds.), Internationalhandbookofscience education(pp. 487-498). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:KluwerAcademic. Carmichael,J. W. (1981). Project SOAR(Stress on Analytical Reasoning) instructor'smanual. New Orleans:Xavier Universityof Louisiana. in TeachersCollege Press. Chance,P.(1986). Thinking theclassroom:Asurveyofprograms.New York: De Bono,E. (1985).TheCortthinking In & (Eds.), Thinking program. J. W.Segal,S. F Chipman, R. Glaser and learningskills(Vol. 1, pp. 389-416). Hillsdale,NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates,Inc. Dori, Y. J. (1994). Achievementand attitudeevaluationof a case-basedchemistrycurriculumfor nursing students.Studiesin EducationalEvaluation,20, 337-348.

THINKINGSKILLS AND LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS

179

Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, 0. (1999). Question posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmentalcase study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 411-430. and Dori, Y.J., &Hofstein, A. (2000). Thedevelopment,implementation initialresearchfindingsof"Science andTechnologyfor All" in Israel.Columbus,OH: ERICClearinghouse Science, Mathematfor ics, and EnvironmentalEducation. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED439955, SE 063454) Dori, Y. J., & Tal, R. T. (2000). Formaland informalcollaborativeprojects:Engagingin industrywith environmental awareness.Science Education,84(1), 95-113. case studies--Can we imDori, Y. J., Tal,R. T., & Tsaushu,M. (2003). Teachingbiotechnologythrough skillsofnon-scienceMajors? submitted Science Education. to provehigherorder thinking Manuscript view of learning:Children'sconceptionsand the nature Driver,R., & Leach, J. (1993). A constructivist of science. In R. E. Yager(Ed.), Whatresearchsays to the science teacher: Thescience, technology, DC: NationalScience Teachers'Association. society movement(Vol. 7, pp. 103-112). Washington, Ennis, R. H. (1989). Criticalthinkingandsubjectspecificity:Clarificationandneeded research.Educational Researcher,18, 4-10. Fensham,P (1985). Science for all. Journalof Curriculum Studies, 17, 415-435. Feuerstein,R., Rand,Y., Hoffman,M. B., & Miller,R. (1980). Instrumentalenrichmentand intervention programfor cognitive modifiabilty.Baltimore:UniversityParkPress. Feurstein, R., Rand, Y., & Rynders, J. E. (1988). Don't accept me as lam. New Yorkand London: Plenum. Gagne, R. M. (1974). The conditions of learning (2nd ed.). New York:Holt, Rinehart& Winston. Greeno,G. G., & Goldman,S. V. (Eds.). (1998). Thinking practices in mathematicsand science learning. Mahwah,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc. Graesser,A. C., Baggett, W., & Williams, K. (1996). Question-driven explanatoryreasoning.Applied CognitivePsychology, 10, 17-31. Graesser,A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Questionasking duringtutoring.AmericanEducationalResearch Journal, 31, 104-137. Greeno,G. G., & Goldman,S. V. (Eds.). (1998). Thinking practices in mathematicsand science learning. Mahwah,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc. Halpern,D. F (1992). Enhancingthinkingskills in the sciences and mathematics.Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc. 98." Reportof the SupremeCommitteefor Science and Technological Harari,H. (1992). "Tomorrow Education,IsraelMinistryof Education,Jerusalem(in Hebrew). Herried,C. F. (1994). Case studies in science: A novel model of science education.Journalof College Science Teaching,23, 349-355. Hofstein, A., Aikenhead, G., & Riquarts,K. (1988). Discussion over STS at the 4th IOSTE symposium. InternationalJournal of Science Education,10, 357-366. E. of Jungwirth, (1985). Science teaching& pupil-avoidance logical fallacies. SouthAfricanJournalof Education,5(2), 55-60. Jungwirth,E. (1987). Avoidanceof logical fallacies: A neglected aspect of science educationand science-teachereducation.Researchin Science and TechnologicalEducation,5(1), 43-58. Levine, D. U. (1993). Reforms that can work.AmericanSchool Board Journal, 180(6), 31-34. M. & Lipman, (1985). Thinkingskillsfostered philosophyforchildren.InJ. W.Segal,S.F. Chipman, R. by Glaser(Eds.),Thinking learningskills(Vol. 1).Hillsdale, Lawrence and NJ: Erlbaum Associates,Inc. Marzano,R. J., Brandt,R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, F, Presseisen, B. Z., Rankin,S. C., & Suhor,C. and instruction.Alexandria,VA:Asso(1988). Dimensionsof thinking:Aframeworkforcurriculum ciation for Supervisionand Curriculum Development(ASCD). Metz, M. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis of authority in desegregatedsecondary schools. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.

180

ZOHAR ANDDORI

National ResearchCouncil. (1996). National science educationstandards.Washington,DC: National Academy Press. Newmann, F M. (1990). Higher orderthinkingin teaching social studies: A rationalefor the assessment of classroom thoughtfulness.Journal of CurricularStudies, 22(3), 53-75. Nickerson, R., Perkins, D., & Smith, E. (1985). The teaching of thinking.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc. Norris, S. P, & Ennis, R. H. (1989). Evaluatingcritical thinking.Pacific Grove,CA: MidwestPublications. Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplyinginequalities:The effectsof race, social class and trackingon opportunities to learn mathand science. SantaMonica, CA: Rand. Page, R. N. (1990). The lower trackcurriculumin a college preparatory high school. CurriculumInquiry,20, 249-281. Pedretti,E., & Hodson,D. (1995). Fromrhetoricto action:ImplementingSTS educationthroughaction research.Journalof Research in Science Teaching,32, 463-485. FreePress. Perkins,D. N. (1992). Smartschools-From trainingmemoriesto trainingminds.New York: T. Perkins,D. N., & Grotzer, A. (1997). Teachingintelligence.AmericanPsychologist,52, 1125-1133. Perkins, D. N., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching and learning for understanding.In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructionaldesign theories and models (pp. 91-114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Peterson,P. L. (1988). Teachingfor higherorderthinkingin mathematics:The challenge for the next decade. In D. A. Grows & T J. Cooney (Eds.), Perspectiveson researchon effective mathematical learning (Vol. 1, pp. 2-26). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc. S. students.Educational 45,79-85. Pogrow, (1988). Teachingthinkingtoat-riskelementary Leadership, Pogrow,S. (1996). HOTS:Helping low achieversin grades 4-7. Principal, 76(2), 34-35. S. Raudenbush, W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F (1993). Higherorderinstructionalgoals in secondary schools: Class, teacher, and school influences. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 523-555. Resnick, L. (1987). Educationand learning to think.Washington,DC: National Academy Press. An Resnick, L., & Klopfer,L. (1989). Towardthe thinkingcurriculum: overview. In L. Resnick & L. the currentcognitive research:Yearbook the AssociKlopfer(Eds.), Toward thinkingcurriculum: of ation for Supervisionand CurriculumDevelopment.Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. New tools for educational Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinkingcurriculum: reform.In B. R. Gifford& M. C. O'Connor(Eds.), Changingassessments:Alternativeviews ofaptitude, achievementand instruction(pp. 37-75). Boston: Kluwer. Sabar,N., & Shafriri,N. (1982). On the need for teacherstrainingin curriculum development.Curriculum Inquiry,7, 307-315. In Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learningto thinkmathematically. D. A. Grouws(Ed.), Handbookofresearch in mathematicsteaching and learning (pp. 334-370). New York:Macmillan. Schoenfeld, A. (1999). Looking towardthe 21st century:Challenges of educationaltheory and practice. EducationalResearcher,28(7), 4-14. Schwab, J. J. (Ed.). (1963). Biology teacher's handbook.New York:Wiley. Shepard,L. (1991). Psychometricians'beliefs about learning.EducationalResearcher,20(7), 2-9. science activities of the 1980s and thinking skills. School Shepardson,D. P. (1993). Publisher-based Science and Mathematics,93, 264-268. Shepardson,D. P., & Pizzini, E. L. (1991). Questioninglevels of junior high school science textbooks and theirimplicationsfor learningtextualinformation.Science Education, 75, 673-682. Tal, R. T, Dori, Y. J., Keiny,S., & Zoller,U. (2001). Assessing conceptualchange of teachersinvolved in STES education and curriculumdevelopment--The STEMS Project Approach. International Journal of Science Education,23, 247-261.

STUDENTS THINKINGSKILLS AND LOW-ACHIEVING

181

Tal, R. T, Dori Y. J., & Lazarowitz,R. (2000). A project-basedalternativeassessmentsystem. Studies in EducationalEvaluation,26, 171-191. Tishman,S., Perkins,D., & Jay,E. (1995). The thinkingclassroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. In Wallace, & Louden,W.(1998). Curriculum J., changein science:Ridingthewavesof reform. B. J. Fraser The handbook & K. G. Tobin(Eds.),International ofscience education(pp.471-487). Dordrecht, NethKluwer. erlands: Welch,W. Y., Klopfer,L. E., Aikenhead,G. L., & Robinson,J. T. (1981). The role of inquiryin science education:Analysis and foundations.Science Education,65, 33-50. J. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, R. (1998). Inquiry,modelingandmetacognition:Makingscience accessible to all students.Cognitionand Instruction,16(1), 3-118. J. White, B. Y., & Fredriksen, R. (2000). Metacognitivefacilitation:an approachto making science inquiry accessible to all. In J. Minstrell& E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiringinto inquirylearning and teaching in science (pp. 331-370). Washington,DC: AmericanAssociation for the Advancementof Science (AAAS). Reasons, intentions,accomplishments,and outcomes. Yager,R. E., & Tamir,P. (1993). STS approach: Science Education,77, 637-658. Zohar,A. (1996). Transferand retentionof reasoningskills taughtin biological contexts. Research in Science and TechnologicalEducation,14, 205-209. Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers' metacognitive knowledge and instruction of higher order thinking. Teachingand Teachers'Education,15, 413-429. Zohar,A., Degani, A., & Vaaknin,E. (2001). Teachers'beliefs aboutlow achievingstudentsandhigher orderthinking.Teachingand Teachers' Education, 17, 469-485. skills throughbio-ethical dilemmas Zohar,A., & Nemet, F (2000). Fosteringstudents'argumentation in genetics. In B. Anderson,U. Harmes,G. Hellden, & M. L. Sjobeck (Eds.), Researcherin didaktik of biology (pp.181-190). Proceedingsof the second conferenceof researchersin didaktikof biology 1998, November 18-22. Goteborg,Germany:Universityof Goteborg, skills throughdilemZohar,A., & Nemet, F (2002). Fosteringstudents'knowledgeandargumentation mas in humangenetics. Journalof Research in Science Teaching,39, 35-62. criticalthinkingwithin a regularhigh school biology curZohar,A., & Tamir,P. (1993). Incorporating riculum.School Science and Mathematics,93(3), 136-140. Y., Zohar,A., Weinberger, & Tamir,P. (1994). The effect of the biology criticalthinkingprojecton the developmentof critical thinking.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,31, 183-196. educationproject:A new model of interdisciplinary Zoller, U. (1986/1987). The Israelienvironmental Journal of Environmental curriculum. student-oriented Education, 18(2), 25-31. Zoller, U. (1987). The fostering of question-askingcapability.Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 510-512.