Journal Menu
Submit Manuscript via ScholarOne

Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education
Volume 8, Issue 2 (October 2016), pp. 59-70

DOI: 10.12973/ejpce.2016.00006a

Downloaded 1290 times.

Research Article

Published online on Jul 28, 2016

How to reference this article?

 

Analysis of the West African Senior School Certificate Examination Chemistry Questions according to Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy

Johnson Enero Upahi, David Oluwadamilare IsraeI & Adekunle Solomon Olorundare

Abstract

The current reform initiatives in science education placed a deliberate emphasis on the need for students to develop students’ higher order cognitive skills (HOCS) through question asking, critical thinking, and problem solving. One of the ways to achieve this goal is to improve on the quality of questions asked in examinations. This study adopted the framework of Bloom’s revised taxonomy to analyze chemistry examination questions conducted by the West African Examinations Council. 328 Chemistry questions for a period of 5 years were analyzed using this framework that reflects dual perspective on learning and cognition. The results revealed that 80% of the questions merely measured students’ lower order cognitive skills (LOCS), while 49.4% and 19.5% of the questions measured conceptual and procedural knowledge respectively. The results further revealed that none of the questions require students to employ their cognition (metacognitive knowledge). It is concluded that the questions emphasized LOCS, and do not adequately reflect the advocacy for HOCS-oriented assessments.
Keywords: Bloom’s revised taxonomy, cognitive process skills, knowledge dimension, chemistry questions, higher order cognitive skills


References
  1. Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
  2. Azar, A. (2005). Analysis of Turkish high-school physics-examination questions and university entrance exams questions according to Bloom’s taxonomy. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 2 (2), 144–150. Retrieved from http://www.tused.org/internet/tused/archive/V2/i2/fulltext/tusedv2i2s5.pdf
  3. Barak M., Ben-Chaim, D. & Zoller, U. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Journal of Research in Science Education, 37, 353–369. DOI 10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2.
  4. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives - Handbook 1 Cognitive domain. London: Longmans.
  5. Dixon-Roman, E. (2011). Assessment to inform teaching and learning. Assessment, Teaching and Learning 1(2), 1–8. Retrieved from http://www.gordoncommission.org/rsc/pdfs/vol_1_no_2_18654.pdf
  6. Edwards, N. (2010). An analysis of the alignment of the Grade 12 physical sciences examination and the core curriculum in South Africa.  South African Journal of Education, 30 (4), 571–-590.
  7. Gordon, E. W. (2001, September). Affirmative development of academic ability. Pedagogical Inquiry and Praxis, 2. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Institute for Urban and Minority Education.
  8. Karamustafaoĝlu, S., Sevim, S., Karamustafaoĝlu, O. & Çepni, S. (2003). Analysis of Turkish high school chemistry examination questions according to Bloom’s taxonomy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,4 (1), 25–30. Retrieved from http://www.uoi.gr/cerp/2003_February/pdf/05Karamustafaoglu.pdf
  9. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 212–218.
  10. Mansell, W., James, M. & the Assessment Reform Group. (2009). Assessment in schools. Fit for purpose? A commentary by the teaching and learning research programme. London: Economic and Social Research Council, Teaching and Learning Research Programme. Retrieved from http://www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/assessment.pdf
  11. Mason G. (1998). Change and diversity: The challenges facing higher education. Royal Society of Chemistry.
  12. Tikkanen, G. & Aksela, M. (2012). Analysis of Finnish chemistry matriculation examinations questions According to cognitive complexity. NORDINA, 8 (3), 258–268. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/nordina/article/viewFile/532/578
  13. Tsaparlis, G. & Zoller, U (2003). Evaluation of higher vs. lower-order cognitive skills-type examinations in chemistry: Implications for university in-class assessment and examinations. UniversityChemistry Education, 7 (2), 50–57.
  14. West African Examinations Council (2005). Regulations and syllabuses for the West African school certificate examination (WASSCE). WAEC, Accra, Ghana.
  15. Zheng, A. Y., Lawhorn, J. K., Lumley, T. & Freeman, S. (2008). Application of Bloom’s taxonomy debunks the MCAT myth. Science, 319, 414–415.
  16. Zoller, U. & Pushkin, D. (2007). Matching higher-order cognitive skills (HOCS) promotion goals with problem-based laboratory practice in a freshman organic chemistry course. Chemistry EducationResearch and Practice, 8 (2), 153–171. Retrieved from http://www.rsc.org/images/Zoller%20paper%20final_tcm18-85039.pdf
  17. Zoller, U. & Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Higher and lower-order cognitive skills: The case of chemistry. Research in Science Education, 27, 117–130.
  18. Zoller, U. (2001). Alternative assessment as (critical) means of facilitating HOCS-promoting teaching and learning in chemistry education. Chemical Education Research and Practice in Europe, 2 (1), 9–17
  19. Zoller, U., Ben-Chaim, D., Ron, S., Pentimalli, R., & Borsese, A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking of high school and university science students: An inter-intra Israeli–Italian study. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (6), 571–582.
  20. Zoller, U., Dori, Y., & Lubezky, A. (2002). Algorithmic, LOCS and HOCS (chemistry) exam questions: Performance and attitudes of college students. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (2), 185–203.