Research: Science & Education
A Content Analysis of General Chemistry Laboratory Manuals for Evidence of Higher-Order Cognitive Tasks Daniel S. Domin Department of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin–Fox Valley, 1478 Midway Rd. Menasha, WI 54952-8002
Laboratory instruction is an important component of secondary and undergraduate science education. Although researchers have found it to possess the potential for enriching the formation of science concepts by fostering inquiry, intellectual development, problem-solving skills, and manipulative skills, it often fails to reach its full potential (1). Reviews of laboratory instruction have found it to be an environment in which very little meaningful learning takes place. Activities are often “cookbook” in nature, with emphasis on following specific procedures to collect data and virtually no attention to planning the investigation or interpreting results (2, 3). Lagowski (4) describes the undergraduate laboratory experience as “rote exercises designed to consume minimal resources whether these be time, space, equipment, or personnel.” This engenders an environment that is ineffective in fostering conceptual change (5), is unrealistic in its portrayal of scientific experimentation (2), and places little emphasis on thinking (6 ). Two explanations account for the inability of traditional laboratory instruction to achieve its full potential. First, in this manner of instruction, students spend more time determining if they obtained the correct results than planning and organizing the experiment (7). Not enough time is allowed for the students to actually think about the science principles being applied in the laboratory. That is, students are not afforded the time necessary for the “deep processing” of information. It is through deep processing that students are able to integrate new experiences with prior knowledge, establish a context for the purpose of the laboratory activity, and determine its relevance to themselves—all of which are characteristics of meaningful learning (8). Second, the design of traditional laboratory activities facilitates the development of lower-order cognitive skills (rote learning, algorithmic problem solving) while neglecting higher-order cognitive tasks. Bloom’s (9) taxonomy of educational objectives is a hierarchical representation of six cognitive processes: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (descriptions and illustrative phrases of each term are provided in Table 1). This classification scheme is often dichotomized into lower- and higherorder mental processes. Behaviors that would encompass the lower levels of cognition include recognizing, recalling, or applying a learned rule. Higher-order thinking is exemplified by such behaviors as inferring, planning, or appraising. Three attributes distinguish the higher-order cognitive skills from the lower-order cognitive skills (6 ). First, higherorder thinking skills reach their greatest development in humans, whereas many animals show evidence of lower-order thinking skills. Second, higher-order cognitive tasks require more contribution from one’s cognitive schema than lower-order
tasks. An act of recalling a rule requires minimal contribution from one’s cognitive structure. In fact, a measure of how well someone recalls a rule is how closely the recalled rule resembles the rule as it was presented. Behaviors involving higher-order thinking possess a large contribution from one’s cognitive schema. Third, higher-order cognition presupposes lower-order cognition. The lower the thinking skill in the hierarchy of Bloom’s taxonomy, the simpler and more independent it is. Moving up the hierarchy, the level of complexity increases and the lower-order thinking skills become necessary components of the higher-order cognitive operations. For example, any type of cognitive act will involve the individual’s recalling or knowing some type of information. Knowledge, the lowest form of cognition, is presupposed by all other types of cognition. Evaluation, the most complex form of cognition, is not a necessary component of a lower form. One can plan an experiment, for example, and not evaluate it. Methodology In order to assess the claim that traditional laboratory instruction does little to develop the higher-order thinking skills of college students, a content analysis of 10 undergraduate general chemistry laboratory manuals was performed. From each manual three experiments corresponding to one of three chemistry principles (gas laws, kinetics, or calorimetry) were analyzed. The analysis consisted of identifying illustrative verbs representative of each type of cognitive skill. The verbs were taken from a list prepared by Gronlund (10). Because a verb can denote more than one type of cognitive skill, the context of the phrase containing the verb was also ascertained. For example, the statement “describe how a catalyst increases reaction rate” is indicative of comprehension, whereas the statement “describe an experiment one could perform to determine a rate law for the following (novel) reaction” indicates synthesis. Conclusions The results of the content analysis are provided in Table 2. All activities analyzed in all of the manuals require the use of the three lower-order cognitive skills. However, 8 of the 10 manuals (11, 13–17, 19, 20) require the learners to operate predominantly at the three lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy: knowledge, comprehension, and application. Significantly fewer activities analyzed within these manuals require students to operate at any of the three higher cognitive levels. The percentage of activities requiring the use of a specific higherorder thinking skill is as follows: analysis, 54%; synthesis, 4%; and evaluation, 4%.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 76 No. 1 January 1999 • Journal of Chemical Education
109
Research: Science and Education
All but one (11) of the Table 1. Descriptions and Illustrative Phrases of the Six Major Categories of Bloom’ s laboratory manuals that fosTaxonomy of Educational Objectives (10) ter only lower-order cogniCognitive Skill Description Illustrative Phrase tion share a similar strucKnowledge The remembering of previously learned Defines terms, identifies objects, states ture: (i) an introduction in material. steps of a procedure. which the concept of interComprehension The ability to grasp the meaning of Explains a concept, interprets a graph, est is presented and exmaterial. generalizes data. plained, (ii) a stepwise proApplication The ability to use learned material in Solves problems, utilizes concept in cedure, (iii) ready-made new and concrete situations. novel situations, constructs graphs. tables or fill-in-the blank Analysis The ability to breakdown material into Identifies pertinent data, identifies sections to record data or reits component parts. inconsistencies, establishes relationships between items. sults, and (iv) pre-lab and/ or post-lab questions that Synthesis The ability to put parts together to form Formulates an hypothesis, proposes a a new whole. plan for an experiment, proposes require the utilization of alternatives. knowledge, comprehension, Evaluation The ability to judge the value of Judges the value of data, judges the and application. From a material based on definite criteria. value of experimental results, justifies management standpoint conclusions. these sections are an efficient means of facilitating concepComputer-assisted instruction (CAI) can minimize the tual understanding. However, from a pedagogical perspecdisadvantages of removing the laboratory manual. The greattive, such a setup promotes an environment in which the cogest advantage of incorporating microcomputers into the labonitive demand is very low. ratory curriculum is the timesaving feature. The arrival of The laboratory manual functions similarly to a catalyst commercially available probes and interfaces has made CAI (Fig. 1). Just as a catalyst speeds up a chemical reaction by easier and more feasible; many types of probes are available providing an alternative lower energy pathway, the laboratory for microcomputers and even calculators (22). Using CAI, manual reduces the amount of time necessary to complete a students can collect data quickly and easily. The microcomlaboratory activity by providing an instructional pathway that puter may also be used in data analysis and graphing. The does not require the utilization of higher-order thinking skills. time saved by using CAI to record and manipulate data alThe laboratory manual has become an instrument that maxilows more time to be spent analyzing and evaluating the data. mizes laboratory efficiency at the expense of fostering higherIn combination with traditional laboratory methods, comorder cognition. puter simulations may also be used to optimize laboratory Higher-order thinking skills are recognized as a valuable time. Multiple computer-simulated experiments can be percomponent of science education and a necessity for young formed in the same amount of time as it takes to perform adults entering the work force. In a recent survey of human one actual experiment. Incorporating computer simulations resource executives by the Bayer Corporation (21) which allows the learner to spend more times designing and evalufocused on science education issues and skills needed for ating methodologies. entry-level jobs, nearly 80% of the executives believe employers Although removing the laboratory manual from the un“will best be served by employees with skills for hands-on dergraduate chemistry curriculum is a possibility, it is not experimentation, problem solving and critical thinking.” the only means of incorporating higher-order cognitive tasks One possible way of encouraging higher-order thinking into the learning environment. Two manuals, Cooper (12) in the chemistry laboratory is to do away with the manual altogether and place the students in the position of designing, developing, and conducting their own experiments (e.g., inquiry- or problem-based learning). The idea is attractive because such a strategy requires the learner to utilize all six levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Besides knowing specific facts and principles about a specific laboratory topic, the learner will need to understand the underlying concepts well enough to synthesize a viable methodology, apply what is already known to the novel situation presented in the experiment, analyze the data, and evaluate the results to determine if the methodology does indeed satisfy the experimental objective. This manner of instruction, although possessing the potential to foster all orders of cognition and meaningful learning, resurrects the problems that the traditional manual has resolved so effectively: the management of resources. Designing an experiment requires a considerable amount of time, making it impossible to cover the same amount of content in the allotted time. Different students may design experiments that require different pieces of equipment, Figure 1. A catalytic portrayal of the laboratory manual as a means creating a logistical headache for laboratory preparation. of circumventing the utilization of higher-order cognitive skills.
110
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 76 No. 1 January 1999 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
Research: Science & Education
Manual
Principle
APPL
ANAL
SYNT
EVAL
Abraham & Pavelich (11)
Calorimetry Gas laws Kinetics
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
–
*
–
–
–
–
Calorimetry Gas laws Electrochemistry
* * *
* * *
* * *
–
–
–
the learning outcomes of the different manuals. This sort of study has not been previously undertaken because the manuals have been too similar in their features. With the advent of new styles of laboratory manuals that utilize different instructional strategies, comparisons may now be made.
* *
* *
* *
Literature Cited
Calorimetry Gas laws Kinetics
* * *
* * *
* * *
* *
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Table 2. Analysis of Ten Commercial Laboratory Manuals in Terms of Bloom’ s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
Cooper (12)
Hall (13)
Cognitive Skilla KNOW COMP
1. Hofstein, A.; Lunetta, V. N. Rev. Educ. Res. 1982, 52, 201–217. 2. Merrit, M. V.; Schneider, – – – Milio, Debye, & Calorimetry * * * M. J.; Darlington, J. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, – – – Metz (14 ) Gas laws * * * 70, 660–662. – – – Kinetics * * * 3. Tobin, K. Eur. J. Sci. Educ. – – – 1987, 8, 199–211. Mills & Calorimetry * * * – – – 4. Lagowski, J. J. J. Chem. Mitchell (15 ) Gas laws * * * – – – Educ. 1990, 67, 541. Kinetics * * * 5. Gunstone, R. F.; Cham– – Nelson & Calorimetry * * * * pagne, A. B. In The Student Laboratory and – – – Kemp (16 ) Gas laws * * * the Science Curriculum; Hegarty-Hazel, E., – – * Kinetics * * * Ed.; Rutledge: London, 1990; pp 159–182. – – Robinson, Gillespie, Calorimetry * * * * 6. Raths, L. E.; Wassermann, – – – Gas laws * * * Hoogendoorn, S.; Jonas, A.; Rothstein, A. Teaching for – – & Bauman (17 ) Kinetics * * * * Thinking: Theories, Strategies, and Activities – for the Classroom; Teachers College: New University of Calorimetry * * * * * York, 1986. Gas laws * * * * Wisconsin– * * 7. Stewart, B. Y. J. Coll. Sci. Madison (18 ) Solubility * * * * * * Teach. 1988, 17, 269–270. – – Whitten, Gailey, Calorimetry * * * * 8. Novak, J.; Go win, R. – – – Bishop, & Bishop Gas laws * * * Learning How to Learn; Cambridge Univer– – (19 ) Kinetics * * * * sity Press: New York, 1984. – Worrell (20 ) Calorimetry * * * * * 9. Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, – – – Gas laws * * * M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, – – Kinetics * * * * D. R. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: aKNOW: knowledge; COMP: comprehension; APPL: application; ANAL: analysis; SYNT: synHandbook I, Cognitive Domain; McKay: New York, 1956. thesis; EVAL: evaluation. * indicates skill is required; – indicates skill is not required. 10. Gronlund, N. E. Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching, 5th ed.; Macmillan: New York, 1985. and the University of Wisconsin (18), possess activities that 11. Abraham, M. R.; Pavelich, M. J. Inquiries into Chemistry, 2nd ed.; consistently promote higher-order cognition. (Abraham and Waveland: Prospect Heights, IL, 1991. 12. Cooper, M. Cooperative Chemistry Laboratory Manual; McGrawPavelich [11] have activities that promote higher-order Hill: New York, 1996. cognition, but these have been relegated to an appendix apart 13. Hall, J. F. Experimental Chemistry, 2nd ed.; Heath: Lexington, MA, from the primary activities.) Interestingly, not only are these 1989. two manuals the most recent in publication, but they also 14. Milio, F.; Debye, N.; Metz, C. Experiments in Chemistry; Harcourt use different instructional strategies to achieve the same outBrace Jovanovich: San Diego, 1989. come. Cooper (12) has students design and implement their 15. Mills, J. L.; Mitchell, R. E. General Chemistry Experiments, 2nd ed.; Morton: Englewood, 1987. own procedure without any prior “training”, or work from a 16. Nelson, J. H.; Kemp, K. C. Laboratory Experiments; Prentice-Hall: vague procedure in which they must fill in important steps. Englewood Cliffs, 1991. The University of Wisconsin (18) requires students to follow a 17. Robinson, E.; Gillespie, R.; Hoogendoorn, I.; Bauman, J. Labogiven procedure, much like the traditional expository approach. ratory Manual to Accompany Gillespie, Humphreys, Baird, and Then, in many of the activities, they are presented with a Robinson Chemistry; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, 1986. novel situation in which they must generate their own pro18. University of Wisconsin–Madison, Department of Chemistry. cedure. Manuals can be written that do not neglect fostering Laboratory Experiments for Chemistry 103 Spring 1996; HaydenMcNeil: Westland, MI, 1996. higher-order cognitive development. 19. Whitten, K.; Gailey, K.; Bishop, C.; Bishop, M. Experiments in In summary, this is a report of a content analysis of 10 General Chemistry; Saunders: Philadelphia, 1988. general chemistry laboratory manuals. The results show that 20. Worrell, J. H. LABTREK: Experiments for General Chemistry, 2nd although the majority of the manuals are similar in their lack ed.; Contemporary: Raleigh, 1994. of promoting higher-order cognition, a few newer manuals 21. Brennan, M. Chem. Eng. News 1996, 74(18), 12. possess the requisite activities for cognitive growth. It cannot 22. Adams, P.; Krockover, G.; Lehman, J. In Issues in Science Education; Rhoton, J.; Bowers, P., Eds.; National Science Teachers Associabe concluded from this study that the newer manuals do tion: Arlington, VA, 1996; pp 66–72. indeed foster higher-order cognition. This must be deter-
mined through empirical studies that will assess and compare JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 76 No. 1 January 1999 • Journal of Chemical Education
111
