Drew H. Wolfe Towson State University Towson, Maryland 21204 and Henry W. Heikkinen Universitv of Marvland College Park, 20742
I
Assessing Introductory College Students' Hiaher Cognitive Skills "
A concern of introductory chemistry instructors has con~ i n u e dto he focused on the relative degree of understimding which ntudents carry au,ay from their intruductory wurses. Howrw.r. "understandine" is diffirult todefine. and is more -difficult to assess. In recognition of this, a study was conducted (1) , , to ouerationallv define selected understandium - that an introductory chemistry student might be expected to gain, and (2) to seek evidence that such student understanding.can he measured by a suitably designed test. As a part of this investigation, a new examination, the Test of Higher Cognitive Learning in Chemistry (THCLC) was develooed. This test was based on the learning hierarchy of loom;' which defines five specific levels of understanding above the Knowledge (1.00) or recall level. These higher cognitive levels are termed Comprehension (2.00), Application (3.00). Analvsis (4.00), Synthesis (5.00), and Evaluation ~~
.~
~
,....,.
A multiple choice format was adopted for construction of test items..based on Ehel's eeneral test-construction midelines and his specific suggestions for multiple choice tests.2 Despite some commonly recognized limitations in multiple choice testing (assessment limited to verbal learning and recognition of correct responses) this investigation sought to secure evidence concerning how effectively student understanding could he assessed through such an objective, easily scored approach. THCLC items were written to sample the content of first semester general rhemistry, assessing student performance at h u r different cognitivr lrrels-Rlwm leoels 1.(10, 2.00, 3.00 and .1.00, fi.01). 1)iffivulr~was encount~wdin writing and validating upprr-lwei multiple choice items arcord~nyto Hloom's criteria. It was not possible to reliahly distinguish items written at levels 4.00 (Analysis) through fi.OU t Evaluation).'l'hus these upper three levels were combined and designated as "highest level items." Test items f
