Teaching Thinking Skills in Context-Based Learning: Teachers’ Challenges and Assessment Knowledge

Teaching Thinking Skills in Context-Based Learning:Teachers’ Challenges and Assessment Knowledge

Shirly Avargil • Orit Herscovitz • Yehudit Judy Dori

Published online: 12 May 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract For an educational reform to succeed, teachers

need to adjust their perceptions to the reform’s new cur-

ricula and strategies and cope with new content, as well as

new teaching and assessment strategies. Developing stu-

dents’ scientific literacy through context-based chemistry

and higher order thinking skills was the framework for

establishing a new chemistry curriculum for Israeli high

school students. As part of this endeavor, we developed the

Taste of Chemistry module, which focuses on context-

based chemistry, chemical understanding, and higher order

thinking skills. Our research objectives were (a) to identify

the challenges and difficulties chemistry teachers faced, as

well as the advantages they found, while teaching and

assessing the Taste of Chemistry module; and (b) to

investigate how they coped with teaching and assessing

thinking skills that include analyzing data from graphs and

tables, transferring between multiple representations and,

transferring between chemistry understanding levels.

Research participants included eight teachers who taught

the module. Research tools included interviews, classroom

observations, teachers-designed students’ assignments, and

developers-designed students’ assignments. We docu-

mented different challenges teachers had faced while

teaching the module and found that the teachers developed

different ways of coping with these challenges. Developing

teachers’ assessment knowledge (AK) was found to be the

highest stage in teachers’ professional growth, building on

teachers’ content knowledge (CK), pedagogy knowledge

(PK), and pedagogical-content knowledge (PCK). We

propose the use of assignments designed by teachers as an

instrument for determining their professional growth.

Keywords Teachers’ professional growth �Context-based teaching � Chemistry understanding levels �Thinking skills � Assessment

Introduction

Two of the major goals of science education are to develop

students’ scientific literacy and their higher order thinking

skills. Achieving these goals should account for learning

science in context (Gilbert 2006) as well as learning sci-

entific concepts and processes through dealing with real-

world problems and adapted scientific articles. Context-

based learning related to real-world problems promotes

scientific literacy (AAAS 1990; NRC 1996; Dori and

Herscovitz 1999; Kaberman and Dori 2009; Krajcik,

McNeill and Reiser 2008; Osborne et al. 2004; Phillips and

Norris 2009). These two goals of science education were

the framework for developing a new chemistry curriculum

for Israeli high school students who elected to major in

chemistry (Barnea et al. 2010). The reform in Israel was a

S. Avargil � O. Herscovitz � Y. J. Dori (&)

Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion,

Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, 32000 Haifa,

Israel

e-mail: [email protected]

S. Avargil


O. Herscovitz


O. Herscovitz � Y. J. Dori

Division of Continuing Education and External Studies,

Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City,

32000 Haifa, Israel

Y. J. Dori

Center for Educational Computing Initiatives, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

123

J Sci Educ Technol (2012) 21:207–225

DOI 10.1007/s10956-011-9302-7

collaborative effort between two academic institutions and

the pedagogical authorities, specifically the National

Chemistry Superintendent in the Ministry of Education.

They designed and implemented a major reform in teach-

ing and learning chemistry in high schools in Israel (Barnea

et al. 2010).

Traditionally, chemistry instruction was characterized

by a cognitive load of facts and concepts, many of them

irrelevant to the students, isolated from other science dis-

ciplines, and demanding mainly algorithmic thinking and

memorizations (Dori 2003; Gilbert 2006; Hofstein and

Lazarowitz 1986; Watanabe et al. 2007; Zoller 1993).

Unlike the traditional chemistry, the new modules

emphasize chemistry literacy, learning in context, and

higher order thinking skills. The ‘less is more’ paradigm,

advocated for in ‘Benchmark for Science Literacy’ (AAAS

1993, p. 320) was the theme of the Israeli policy makers.

This paradigm has been guiding the curriculum developers

and teachers as it is considered to facilitate the promotion

of deep students’ understanding. The assumption was that

by learning fewer topics that are relevant to the students,

they would acquire deeper understanding and higher order

thinking skills (Dori and Sasson 2008; Hofstein et al.

2005).

This paper focuses on one of the new modules that had

been developed for 11th graders, and on the teachers who

implemented this module. The Taste of Chemistry context-

based module focuses on food chemistry. Until several

years ago, the food and nutrition topics, which interest

almost every teenager, had not received adequate attention

in chemical education in Israel. Although most of the

students know something about preparing and enjoying

food, they know little about food chemistry. This is a

complicated subject, since in addition to chemistry it

involves many other disciplines, including physics, biol-

ogy, physiology, health, and psychology. Researchers

agree that teachers play a major role in successful imple-

mentations of new curricula (Dori and Herscovitz 2005;

Fullan 2002; Sadler et al. 2006; van Driel et al. 2008). As

part of this process, science teachers are required to cope

with new content while also having to learn new teaching

and assessment strategies (Abell 2007; Davis and Krajcik

2005; Hofstein et al. 2005; Kaberman and Dori 2009;

Magnusson et al. 1999). Moreover, they need to go through

a conceptual change while they adopt new teaching

methods and new curricula (Abell 2008; Barnett and

Hodson 2001; Tal et al. 2001).

Our research followed eight chemistry teachers while

they implemented the Taste of Chemistry module in their

classrooms. The objectives of the study were (a) to identify

the challenges and difficulties the teachers faced, as well as

the advantages they found, while teaching this module; and

(b) to investigate the ways in which they dealt with

teaching and assessing thinking skills. We discuss the

implementation of the Taste of Chemistry module from the

teachers’ point of view and analyze whether and how

teachers changed their teaching from traditional to the

reformed mode.

Theoretical Background

Our theoretical background section includes four main

areas with respect to teachers: teaching and learning con-

text-based science, thinking skills and their assessment,

coping with a new curriculum, and expanding teachers’

knowledge about thinking skills and assessment.

Teaching and Learning Context-Based Science

One of the aspects in the definition of science literacy in

the National Science Education Standards is that students

should be able to make decisions about topics that are

interdisciplinary in nature (NRC 1996). Researchers have

emphasized the need to show students the diversity of

scientific thinking and enhance their understanding that

science is comprehensive and does not have disciplinary

boundaries (Osborne et al. 2003). In order to help students

understand the natural world and build scientific under-

standing, there is a need to unify concepts and processes

that transcend disciplinary boundaries, and to restructure

school schedules in order for teachers to have time to

develop interdisciplinary strategies (NRC 1996).

Wood (2001) described the necessary features of inter-

disciplinary instruction. He claimed that interdisciplinary

instruction should focus on a central theme, explore this

theme by using different skills from a variety of disci-

plines, and employ any discipline that would enhance

students’ understanding of the theme. Courses and topics

that emphasize the interdisciplinary approach usually

motivate students and answer their most common question,

‘‘What do I need this for?’’ (McBroom and Oliver-Hoyo

2007; Porter 2007).

Schwartz (2006) described a context-based chemistry

curriculum as having two important aspects: (1) the cur-

riculum needs to be based on real-world problems and (2) it

has to have ‘‘important interdisciplinary connections’’ (p.

981). Hofstein and Kesner (2006) took an interdisciplinary

approach while implementing a context-based curriculum

in industrial chemistry, where teachers had difficulty cop-

ing with interdisciplinary subjects. There is a need to

understand how interdisciplinary contexts can make

chemistry education more up-to-date and broaden its aims

(Pilot and Bulte 2006).

Context-based pedagogy focuses on student-centered

activities and inquiry-based laboratory investigation while

208 J Sci Educ Technol (2012) 21:207–225

123

minimizing traditional lectures and ‘cook-book type’ lab-

oratories (Schwartz 2006). Unlike traditional approaches,

which begin with scientific ideas and then look at appli-

cations, in context-based teaching, applications of science

are the starting points for the development of scientific

ideas (Bennett et al. 2007). Researchers have reported that

context-based learning reaches more students and makes

them more interested and involved. They noted that con-

text-based learning offers a new, equal opportunity to all

the students, who feel freer to express ideas, increasing the

likelihood of students choosing to specialize in chemistry

and study it independently (Bennett et al. 2005; Watanabe

et al. 2007).

Gilbert (2006) distinguished four models of ‘context’

that might be used in chemical education. The first is

presenting context as the direct application of concepts in

an attempt to give meaning to a concept after it had been

learnt. The second model is context as reciprocity between

concepts and applications. For example, in the food

chemistry several subtopics of chemical contexts can be

distinguished. These subtopics include the biochemist

context, the chemical technologist context, and the context

of ethical and social-scientific issues.

The third model is context as provided by a personal

activity while using the ideas of construct psychology. The

fourth model is a context which is situated as a cultural

entity in society, e.g., in food chemistry: healthy food,

anorexia and obesity.

Achieving scientific literacy for all students, not only

those who will eventually embark on a career in the sci-

ences, has become a central goal for education (Hofstein

et al. 2005). The context should enable students to see the

relevance and possible application of their learning pro-

cesses, and tie this new knowledge to their prior knowledge

to enable successful learning according to the construc-

tivism (Parchmann et al. 2006). This is a challenge for both

science curriculum developers and teachers.

Thinking Skills and their Assessment

Developing students’ literacy thorough a context-based

approach requires enhancing their thinking skills. The

desirable outcome of teaching thinking skills is that the

students will grow to be scientific literate citizens (Leoul

et al. 2006). Zohar (1999), who examined teachers’

knowledge about teaching thinking skills, showed that

there is a need to improve teachers’ knowledge of how to

teach for improving higher order thinking skills. There is

evidence that teaching for improving thinking skills and

teaching in a context-based approach are beneficial for the

students when the two are combined (Sadler et al. 2006;

Zohar and Dori 2003). Indeed, many researchers have

reported about reforms that emphasized teaching for

improving higher order thinking skills, such as asking

complex questions, generating argumentation, constructing

graph, transferring between molecular modeling, and ana-

lyzing case-based articles through various innovative ‘real

world’ activities (Baker and Piburn 1990; Dori 2003; Dori

and Herscovitz 1999; Dori and Sasson 2008; Duschl 2008;

Lawrenz 1990; Marbach-Ad et al. 2008; Mintzes et al.

2005; Resnick 2010; Rivet and Krajcik 2004). Further-

more, when students are taught by an expert teacher, whose

views are aligned with the reform vision, they are more

engaged in activities that promote higher order thinking

skills (Huffman et al. 2003; Schwartz et al. 2000).

In the past, the most common way of assessing students

was the traditional form of a summative test. This sort of

test usually examined content knowledge and did not

assess higher order thinking skills (Birenbaum 2003; Dori

2003; Osborne and Millar 1998). In recent years,

researchers have shown that teachers who had applied

formative assessment in order to promote students’ higher

order thinking skills in a context-based environment suc-

ceeded in developing the desirable skills (Barak et al. 2007;

Dori and Sasson 2008; Kaberman and Dori 2009; Walker

and Zeidler 2007).

The transition from teacher-centered lecturing to stu-

dent-centered learning should include complex goals such

as fostering higher order thinking skills and developing

students’ personal efficacy, flexibility, and life-long learn-

ing. According to Dori (2007), assessment tasks should

cover a broad spectrum of cognitive capabilities, including

low, intermediate, and high-end assignments. The latter

includes solving analytical and conceptual problems,

drawing conclusions, constructing models, designing new

experiments, and transferring knowledge from one domain

to another.

Assessment should also be used to encourage class

implementation of new approaches of reforms in science

education and support the promotion of students’ thinking

skills (Sadler and Zeidler 2009). Still, teachers are con-

fused and uncertain about how to promote thinking skills in

their classrooms (Barak and Shakhman 2008; Henze and

van Driel 2007; Lustick 2010). These changes of devel-

oping skills via new curricula need to be accompanied by a

suitable reform in assessment methods (Baartman et al.

2007).

Teachers and Curriculum Reform

Teachers play a key role in any educational reform. In

order for a reform to succeed, the teachers need to adjust

their pedagogical perceptions to the new curricula and

strategies that the reform brings. Educators and researchers

agree that the success of a science education reform

depends on the science teachers’ knowledge, skills, and

J Sci Educ Technol (2012) 21:207–225 209

123

practice (Fullan 2002; Fullan and Hargreaves 1992).

Teaching new and innovating curricula requires redefining

the teacher’s role and shifting from traditional teaching

practices to a different type of teaching. Since chemistry in

a context-based setting is presented in a nontraditional

sequence, teachers need to incorporate issues of public

policy, economics, and ethics into their classrooms (Sch-

wartz 2006). This is in addition to their need to cope with

new subject matter and foster students’ higher order

thinking skills.

Changing teaching approach in order to adapt to a new

curriculum requires long-term professional development

programs, reflection, and on-going support (Clarke and

Hollingsworth 2002; Dori and Herscovitz 2005; Taitel-

baum et al. 2008; van Driel et al. 2002). The teachers need

to undergo conceptual change while adopting new teaching

methods and curricula (Gabel 1999; Tal et al. 2001).

Several researchers have suggested different methods of

supporting teachers through reforms and professional

development. One such method presented by Crippen et al.

(2004) was a collaborative intervention via a master pro-

gram for teachers. The program aim was to strengthen

teachers’ content knowledge and content-specific pedagogy

as a means to improve student outcomes in a technology-

rich learning environment.

Another method is preparing and maintaining a support

network and a community of teachers. This support gives

the teachers a broad and meaningful understanding of the

importance of the reform (Abell and Lee 2008; van Driel

et al. 2008). Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) offered a

teachers’ development model of supporting the teachers

and mentoring them while teaching is taking place. They

argued that reflection and teacher interviews are needed to

gain better understanding of the teaching process that had

occurred.

Teachers often face various obstacles related to their

career path (Fessler 1985; Fuller 1969; Huberman 1993).

Efficient teaches’ preparation and their full cooperation is

needed to overcome resistance while teachers are trying to

implement a new module (Kesner et al. 1997). Various

researchers aimed to identify characteristics of innovating

teachers (Harris and Grandgenett 1999; van Braak 2001).

Innovating teachers initiate and try new ideas, design new

curriculum (Parke and Coble 1997), hold practical

approaches to teaching, and are aware of advantages of

new technologies (Dori et al. 2002; van Braak 2001).

Teachers’ professional development involves not only

different teaching activities but also the development of

beliefs and concepts underlying these activities (Bell and

Gilbert 1996). Sadler et al. (2006) identified teachers that

support the reform especially if it encourages connections

between science and students’ daily life. Teachers, who

undermine a reform, refuse to be part of it, and claim that

shortage of time and resources are restricting factors which

adversely affect their decision to be a part of the reform

(Dori et al. 2002).

Teachers’ Knowledge about Thinking Skills

and Assessment

In the last two decades, teachers’ knowledge has emerged

as a fundamental topic in educational studies (Feldman

1996). The basis of these studies is the framework of

pedagogical content knowledge, first introduced by Shul-

man (1986), who defined it, as ‘‘a particular form of con-

tent knowledge that embodies the aspects of content and of

teaching ability’’ (p. 9). Shulman (1987) suggested seven

categories to formulate teacher’s knowledge (p. 8): content

knowledge—CK, general pedagogical knowledge—PK,

curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge—

PCK, knowledge of learners and their characteristics,

knowledge of educational contexts, and knowledge of

educational purposes and values. Over the years, Shul-

man’s theory has been revised and extended by science

educators and formed the theoretical framework for most

of the research on science teacher knowledge (Abell 2007).

Magnusson et al. (1999) proposed a comprehensive inter-

pretation of PCK which consists of five types of knowl-

edge: (a) aspects of science teaching while conceptualizing

it; (b) science teaching strategies; (c) science assessment

methods; (d) science curriculum goals and materials; and,

(e) science learners.

Magnusson et al. (1999) wrote that experienced teachers

should know what aspects need to be assessed in a par-

ticular module and that their ‘‘knowledge of assessment in

science’’ (p. 108) should also include knowledge of

methods of assessment. Abell (2007) and Friedrichsen et al.

(2009) claimed that there is little research on science tea-

cher knowledge of assessment. Lin (2006) noted that the

topic of teachers as assessors had hardly been researched;

however, he suggested carrying out such a study for

broadening educators’ and teachers’ knowledge about

students’ learning outcomes and encouraging teachers to

design and implement suitable assessment tasks. Fried-

richsen et al. (2009) cited Briscoe (1993), who had found

that a teacher’s ability to change assessment strategies was

influenced by what he/she understood about teaching and

learning. Kamen (1996) found that the teacher’s imple-

mentation of new assessment strategies was facilitated by

administrative support, close contact with students’ par-

ents, and assistance from university faculty. In their study,

Friedrichsen et al. (2009) noted that the teachers used the

assessment as a way to decide if they needed to repeat

teaching the learning materials. Based on Mertler (2009)

assessing students is a critical job of a teacher but many of

the US teachers do not feel adequately prepared to assess


123

their students. These feelings of insufficiency preparedness

manifest themselves especially when the teachers are

exposed to new curricula and teaching methods.

To address this aspect specifically, we focus in this

study on Assessment Knowledge (AK) in addition to CK,

PK, and PCK. This research has explored teachers’ AK via

their ability to design new assignments for assessing their

students’ learning outcomes and incorporating the assign-

ments into their classrooms.

Research Objectives

This research investigated the implementation of the Taste

of Chemistry module from the teachers’ point of view. Its

objectives were (a) to identify the challenges and difficul-

ties chemistry teachers faced, as well as the advantages

they found, while teaching and assessing the Taste of

Chemistry module; and (b) to investigate how they coped

with teaching and assessing thinking skills that include

analyzing data from graphs and tables, transferring

between multiple representations, and transferring between

chemistry understanding levels.

The three research questions were the following.

(a) What are teachers’ views towards advantages and dif-

ficulties they experienced while teaching chemistry in the

context of food? (b) To what extent and in what ways did

teachers implement thinking skills in their classrooms?

(c) In what ways did teachers design students’ assignments

to be aligned with the module goals?

In the second research question we refer to the following

thinking skills: analyzing data from graphs and tables,

transferring between multiple representations, and trans-

ferring between chemistry understanding levels.

Research Setting and Participants

Since the early 1950s, Israeli chemistry teachers focused on

students’ memorization of scientific facts and algorithms

that could support them while solving textbook exercises

and problems (Barnea et al. 2010; Kaberman and Dori

2009). The reform in the Israeli chemistry curriculum

included changes in the content of chemistry syllabus, such

as reducing the number of mandatory topics, providing

teachers with more flexibility, and designing new way for

assessing students regarding their progress and achieve-

ments (Dori 2003). The chemical education committee,

was appointed by the Ministry of Education (Ministry of

Education, Department of Curriculum Development 2003),

described the fundamental criteria of the chemistry cur-

riculum by emphasizing the role of chemistry with regard

to (a) individual and societal benefits, (b) its connection to

technological aspects, and (c) its application in health,

energy, environmental, and community issues. Altogether,

the aim of the reform was to enhance students’ chemical

literacy and thinking skills.

Since the reform started, ten new modules have been

developed in a collaborative effort between two academic

institutions—Technion, Israel Institute of Technology and

Weizmann Institute of Science. The modules, designed for

11th and 12th chemistry majors, emphasize real-world

issues, relations between the macroscopic and microscopic

levels of chemistry phenomena, and a variety of higher

order thinking skills. These skills are required in order to

develop chemical literacy (Dori and Sasson 2008; Levy

Nahum et al. 2010; Shwartz et al. 2005).

This study examines the implementation of the Taste of

Chemistry module from the teachers’ point of view in the

context of the wider process of chemical education reform

in Israel.

The Taste of Chemistry Module

The Taste of Chemistry module integrates chemical con-

cepts and processes of food chemistry with focus on

nutritional, health and social aspects, as well as higher

order thinking skills. This was an important part of the

radical reform in the way chemistry is taught and learned in

Israel (Barnea et al. 2010). The Taste of Chemistry module,

which was developed at the Technion (Herscovitz et al.

2007), is aimed at teaching 11th grade chemistry majors;

those who are expected to become thoughtful citizens in a

scientific- and technology-oriented society, and those who

are likely to choose a science or engineering career. As

citizens, they will be required to ask critical questions, read

papers, analyze data, and seek answers to science-based

societal questions which would form the basis for making

judicious decisions.

The context-based approach was the central pillar of the

module. For example, in the Lipids topic, the importance of

omega 3 and 6 unsaturated fatty acids, trans fatty acids,

their role in our diet, and the dilemma ‘butter versus

margarine’ provided the basis for teaching chemical

structure and types of fatty acids and triglycerides. The

related traditional chemistry topics in this module are

carbon compounds, and molecular structure and bonding.

This context-based approach presented an opportunity for

both teachers and students to study chemistry in the context

of everyday life while implementing the four chemistry

understanding levels that are essential for meaningful

learning in chemistry (Dori et al. 2003; Dori and Hameiri

2003; Dori and Sasson 2008). The four chemistry under-

standing levels include (a) the macroscopic level that

pertains to the observable/tangible phenomena; (b) the

microscopic level, in which the explanations are at the


123

particle level; (c) the symbol level which comprises for-

mulae, equations, and graphs; and (d) the process level, at

which substances react with each other, and can be

explained in terms of one or more of the first three levels.

As recommended by Schraw (1998), teachers need to teach

strategies, and help students construct explicit knowledge

about when and where to use these strategies. The teachers

in our study were directed to instruct the module with

emphasis on the four chemistry understanding levels while

solving various context-based assignments.

Teaching the module included a variety of interdisci-

plinary content and activities aimed at promoting higher

order thinking skills. The module was taught for about

30 hours (h) during two months.

The module focuses on teaching concepts, processes,

and different thinking skills along with context-based

chemistry topics, such as lipids, carbohydrates and pro-

teins. The students are exposed to the chemical aspect of

food and nutrition, and each topic is designed to promote

the three main thinking skills embedded in the module: (1)

information analysis and bidirectional transfer1 between

tables and graphs; (2) molecular representations which

include understanding and transfer between various

molecular models; (3) understanding concepts and pro-

cesses at four chemistry understanding levels (Dori and

Hameiri 2003; Dori and Sasson 2008).

These thinking skills were integrated into the module’s

content aspects of food chemistry and the appropriate

assignments. For example, in the lipids topic we integrated

assignments that emphasize analysis of tables containing

information about fatty acids and triglycerides: percentages

of various food oils, melting temperature, etc. We also

integrated assignments that engage teachers and students in

practicing modeling skills and transferring between

molecular structures presented in two dimensional struc-

ture formula (linear) and three dimensional models, such as

ball-and-stick and space-filling.

Table 1 demonstrates examples from the Lipids topic

which emphasize a variety of interdisciplinary content,

thinking skills, and activities.

Since the module integrates thinking skills with chem-

ical understanding and with connection to everyday life,

the assessment of students’ learning outcomes was spe-

cifically adapted to this approach.

From now on, we will use the term assessment when we

discuss evaluating students’ performance and achieve-

ments, and the term assignment when we refer to a specific

task. Some of the assignments in the module focus on

visualization integrated with content aspects. For example,

in several assignments, the students were asked to analyze

chemical information given in a table with various sym-

bols, to connect this information to several types of

molecular model representations, and to explain the

information at the microscopic and process levels.

An example of a chemistry matriculation examination

assignment for students who studied the Taste of Chemistry

module is presented in Fig. 1 along with explanation of the

thinking skills required. The assignment starts with a short

introduction on chocolate and its properties in order to set

the context for the following four chemistry-oriented

questions.

Research Participants

The research followed a focus group of eight teachers, out

of a group of fourteen experimental chemistry teachers

who participated in the larger project of the implementation

of the Taste of Chemistry module. These eight teachers

were selected based on the diversity of their teaching

experience, academic degrees, and willingness to be

interviewed and observed. These teachers chose to imple-

ment the Taste of Chemistry module in their classrooms.

Seven of the eight teachers (described in detail in Table 2)

taught at large urban schools in the northern part of Israel

and each had about 25 students in her or his class.

All the teachers had formal teaching diploma and seven

(out of eight) of them were females.2 Several teachers had

previous experience in teaching other modules in the new

chemistry curriculum.

The teachers participated in a 28 h summer training

program and four 7 h meetings during the year. This total

of 56 h of training qualified the teachers to receive a cer-

tificate that slightly increased their monthly salary. The

training program included sessions with expert lecturers in

the field of food-chemistry and health, since this topic was

not included in the traditional chemistry curriculum. In

those sessions, the teachers were exposed to chemical

aspects of science research in food-chemistry topics, such

as oils, fats, and proteins. Furthermore, the teachers were

exposed to the pedagogies of teaching through case studies

and inquiry-based learning, and they practiced different

thinking skills (see Table 1). For example, the teachers

experienced the inquiry process of determining the per-

centage of free fatty acids in different types of olive oils.

Such teaching strategies were novel for teachers who had

taught the traditional curriculum.

1 Kozma (2003) used the term ‘‘moving across multiple representa-

tions’’ (p. 244) when referring to the skill of altering one represen-

tation to another. In our study we use the term ‘‘bidirectional transfer’’

to emphasize the ability of transferring one representation to another

and vice versa (Dori and Sasson 2008).

2 To ensure anominity of both female and male teachers who

participated in the study, gender will be represented by the feminine

forms ’she’ and ’hers’.


123

Table 1 Goals, thinking skills, and activities for the lipids topic

Chemical aspects Nutritional, health and social aspects

Goals Understanding the relations between molecular structure of fatty

acids (symbol level) and the substance properties (microscopic

level)

Understanding the importance of fatty acids and lipids to our diet

and increasing our awareness to the existence of fats in common

foods

Thinking

skills

Analyzing graphs and tables with information on fatty acids and

triglycerides

Transferring between multiple representations of molecular

models of fatty acids

Case study on chocolate and antioxidants

Transferring between chemistry understanding levels

Activities Investigating the double bond in fatty acids using plastic and

computerized molecular models

Web guided activity on cholesterol

Investigating free fatty acids in olive oil via an inquiry-based

experiment

O

O

O

O

O

O

Chocolate is one of the most favorite foods in world. The main component of chocolate is cocoa butter, which is extracted from the big cocoa trees in Africa. The triglycerides in the cocoa butter are composed of three types of fatty acids, usually in the ratio shown in the table below.

Triglyceride The fatty acid in

the triglyceride

Name of fatty

acid

Short sign of the

fatty acid

PPP C16:0 Palmitic acid P

SSS C18:0 Stearic acid S

OOO C18:1ω9 Oleic acid O

gnirewsnarofderiuqerlliksgniknihTsnoitseuQthe question

1. Draw structural formulas for cis and trans isomers of the fatty acid C18:1ω9

Transferring between multiple representations at the symbol chemistry understanding level from a short molecular formula to a structural formula.

2. Which of the triglycerides in the table above is represented by the following structural formula:

Transferring between multiple representations at the chemistry symbol understanding level from structural formula to a condensed molecular formula.

3. In the manufacturing process of chocolate, it is necessary to melt the cocoa butter. Which one of the triglycerides in the cocoa butter has a higher melting point? Explain your answer using the microscopic level, while referring to the three triglycerides.

Analyzing information on fatty acids and triglyceridesTransferring between three chemistry understanding levels: symbol level (molecular formula), macroscopic level (melting point), and microscopic level (molecular bonds)

4. One of the food factories is considering the possibility of adding Linolenic acid, C18:3ω3, to the fatty acids in

Transferring between three chemistry understanding levels of Linolenic acid – substance properties: symbol (molecular the chocolate in order to raise its nutrition value since

this fatty acid is essential. Indicate two differences between the Linolenic acid and the Oleic acid and explain the meaning of these differences.

formula), macroscopic level (essential fatty acid), and microscopic level (molecular structures). If the student describes the process of hydrogenation as part of the comparison between the two fatty acids, then the transfer includes a fourth level of chemistry understanding – the process level.

Fig. 1 An example of a

context-based assignment from

the matriculation examination


123

During the summer training, the teachers were also

exposed to different assignments that had been categorized

by the level of thinking skills and chemistry understanding

levels required to respond to the assignments. First, they

experienced solving the problems in the assignments like

their students would, and then, towards the end of the

summer training, they worked in groups in order to design

and compose new ones. However, not all the teachers felt

comfortable composing new context-based assignments on

their own.

During the teaching period of the module, the module

developers were in close contact with the teachers while

they were teaching the module, held personal meetings

with some of them, and co-taught the first class or two with

half of them. Various challenges and difficulties of teach-

ing and assessing the module were discussed at these

meetings between the teachers and the developers as well

as the academic experts.

During the 2-month teaching period, information

between teachers and the module developers was exchan-

ged through e-mails and clarification calls. We also

developed a website that contains a complete teacher

guide, additional assignments, and test options.

Method and Research Tools

We applied a naturalistic method that is based on the

grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin 1990), while keeping

in mind the aspects of pedagogical content knowledge and

assessment knowledge. The research tools included inter-

views, classroom observations, teachers-designed students’

assignments, and developers-designed students’ assign-

ments. The main categories in developing and analyzing

the research tools, drawn from the module’s goals, inclu-

ded: (a) teaching in context—advantages and difficulties,

(b) fostering higher order thinking skills—analyzing

information, transferring among molecular representa-

tions, and the four chemistry understanding levels, and

(c) students’ assessment. We used these categories as

guidelines as we interviewed the teachers, observed them

in their classes, and analyzed their teachers-designed stu-

dents’ assignments. The interviews and classroom obser-

vations were coded into different sub-categories that

emerged from the data. For example, in the category of

Teaching in context—Advantages, the sub-categories were

professional development and motivation. In the category

of Teaching in context—Difficulties, the sub-categories

were background knowledge, classroom discussions, and

text complementation.

Interviews

The guided interview (Patton 1990) included a pre-pre-

pared set of questions for comparing the teachers’ views to

the module goals. All the questions were open-ended and

teachers could express themselves freely about any topic of

their choice.

The main guided-interview questions were the following.

(1) What advantages did you find and what difficulties did

you encounter while teaching in context? (2) How did you

cope with teaching the following thinking skills embedded in

the module: transferring between chemistry understanding

levels, analyzing tables and graphs, and transferring between

multiple representations of molecular structures? (3) How

did you assess students’ learning outcomes?

Classroom Observations

Classroom observations helped us gain insight into the

learning and teaching processes of the module. We carried

out two to three observations in each teacher’s classroom.

During the observations we looked for situations where

teachers explained issues at the core of the module and

raised discussions about them. We documented context-

based discussions, transfer between multiple representa-

tions, working with different models, and conceptual

understanding based on the four levels of chemical

understanding. The first two observations were carried out

by two of the researchers while they observed the same

classroom together. The observation sheet was divided into

the predetermined categories that were derived from the

module goals. Comparing between the observation sheets

of the two researchers revealed an 85% inter-judge agree-

ment. Following a post-observational session, in which the

researchers compared their analysis and discussed the

choice of sub-categories, the agreement level rose to 90%.

Teachers-Designed Students’ Assignments

The teachers were asked to design and compose assign-

ments towards the end of the training and the end of the

Table 2 Teachers’ profile

Teacher

initial

Formal

education

Chemistry teaching

experience (years)

Experience in teaching

new chemistry modules

T B.Sc. Less than 5 2

L B.Sc. 10–15 ?

K B.Sc. Over 30 2

N M.Sc. Less than 5 ?

H M.Sc. 10–15 ?

R M.Sc. 10–15 ?

I Ph.D. 10–15 ?

Y Ph.D. 16–25 2


123

implementation in order to share them with their peers and

with the developers. These assignments were later uploa-

ded to the module’s website for the purpose of creating a

pool of assignments, quizzes, and tests. The assignments

served also for analyzing the level of professional growth

each teacher had gone through.

Developers-Designed Students’ Assignments

In order to achieve additional insight and test the effec-

tiveness of the new teaching and assessment approach, we

used the students’ average scores of the food chemistry

assignment that was part of the matriculation examination.

This portion of the exam was designed especially for the

curriculum reform. During the research, this specially

designed exam was given only to the students who were

taught the new curriculum, while the rest of the students

received the traditional matriculation exam. In both

examinations students have the choice of three among six

possible questions.

The matriculation assignment in Fig. 1 presents the

context-based approach used while teaching the Taste of

Chemistry module. As mentioned above, the related

chemistry topics in the module and in this specific

assignment were carbon compounds, and molecular struc-

ture and bonding. Therefore, we compared the students

who studied the Taste of Chemistry module with the stu-

dents in the traditional chemistry teaching. To this end, we

used both groups’ average scores of the matriculation

examination. The average score of the Taste of Chemistry

module assignment was compared to the average scores in

the traditional carbon compounds and structure and bond-

ing assignments.

Findings

We analyzed teachers’ interviews and classroom observa-

tions with respect to the three aspects of the research:

teaching in context, fostering higher order thinking skills,

and teachers’ views towards designing and carrying out

students’ assignments. Teachers’ statements in the inter-

views, the observation, and the actual teachers-designed

students’ assignments served as the basis for determining

teachers’ professional growth. In addition, the results of the

students who responded to the developers-designed

assignments indicated the effect of teachers’ knowledge

and pedagogy on their students learning outcomes.

Teaching in Context

The aspect of learning through case studies was a new

theme that was emphasized by the policy makers as an

important element in the new curriculum. Teaching stu-

dents the skill of understanding a text that is based on a

scientific article was new to the teachers and the students

alike. Teaching chemistry in context was new for all the

teachers. The teachers referred to several aspects con-

cerning this issue while describing the advantages and

difficulties of teaching in context. The categories we have

found in teachers’ answers and examples from the inter-

views are presented in Table 3.

At the pedagogical knowledge level, some of the

teachers found the need to conduct discussions on everyday

issues quite difficult, as they had no prior experience

conducting this kind of discussions. We found some dif-

ferences among teachers’ approaches to coping with this

difficulty. Teacher R did not know how to handle this

difficulty, while teacher I conducted class discussions and

enjoyed them, although this was new to both.

The lack of background knowledge was noted by

teachers as a difficulty. The challenge of dealing with a

short text through case studies, narratives, or stories (Dori

and Herscovitz 2005; Herscovitz et al. 2011) was raised

almost in each interview.

The following discussion excerpt presents a situation

from a classroom observation, in which teacher K had to

face teaching the lipids topic in the context of nutrition.

Student A: I heard that there is good fat and bad fat.

What is the meaning of good and bad?

Teacher K: Well, there is an explanation in the module.

You can read it later on

Student B: I think that it is better not to eat lipids at all,

don’t you think so?

Teacher K: I do not think so, and we will learn why our

body needs lipids.

…

Teacher K, who had over 30 years of chemistry teaching

experience, had difficulty conducting a long and mean-

ingful discussion. She dismissed the student by referring

him to the module and recommending reading it during his

spare time. We believe that the lack of sufficient food

chemistry background knowledge and experience in con-

text-based classroom discussions can explain her behavior.

Based on analyzing the interviews and the observations,

we conclude that context-based chemistry teaching

required the teachers to develop unorthodox teaching

methods. The teacher is no longer the expert, and some of

the knowledge has to be built through self-generated

questions and discussions with the students.

Fostering Higher Order Thinking Skills

Analyzing the responses of teachers to the interview

questions and the transcripts of class observations we found


123

several categories in each thinking skill that the module

aims to foster.

Table 4 presents examples of teachers’ views regarding

teaching thinking skills in the categories we gleaned from

the interviews.

Table 4 indicates that analyzing information from

tables and graphs is new in chemistry teaching, so the

teachers had to develop adequate strategies to teach it

in class. Teachers raised the difficulty of how much

time to spend on practicing it and to what extent.

Table 4 shows differences between teachers’ approaches

to this issue. For example, teacher H said she had

composed new assignments for practicing this skill,

while teacher K did not feel any need or confidence to

compose assignments.

Based on our class observations, teacher H realized she

had to emphasize this skill in her teaching and she was

successful, as can be seen in the following discussion

excerpt from a class we observed.

Teacher H: In the table you have information about

different triglycerides. You have to explain

the differences between their boiling

temperatures. Which column do you have

to look at in the table?

Student A: How can I tell? I don’t know even how to

look at it…Teacher H: Let’s see what information we have on each

column [explains to student A how to read

the table]

Student B: So if this is the case, we need to look at the

column that represents the number of

carbons in the chain of each fatty acid in

the triglycerides and the column that

represents the number of the carbon–

carbon double bonds

Teacher H: That’s right, and after you have this

information from the table, how can you

explain the differences between boiling

temperatures?

Student C: I know! There is a connection between the

structure of the molecule and the bonding

interaction between molecules

Teacher H: Very good. So how is this related to boiling

point?

The discussion demonstrates the strategy teacher H

used to direct the students step by step to analyze

information from a table using their previous chemical

knowledge.

Table 3 Teaches’ views towards teaching chemistry in context

Category Examples

Teaching in context—advantages

Professional

development

Teacher R: Teaching the Taste of Chemistry module gave me the opportunity to teach with a variety of learning materials.I learned new topics and I feel I have improved my teaching and knowledge

Teacher Y: I felt like a pioneer and it is a great feeling to be able to teach a new curriculum. Personally, I was interestedin nutrition and it was an opportunity to broaden my knowledge

Interest and

motivation

Teacher N: I am a young teacher and I am interested in trying new teaching methods. I liked the approach that connectschemistry to everyday life

Teacher H: I learned new facts about nutrition and its chemical aspects. It was new and interesting

Teacher I: My students and I enjoyed talking about chemistry that directly influences our daily life

Teaching in context—difficulties

Background

knowledge

Teacher L: I was insecure about my background in the food topic. I was afraid the students would ask questions beyondthe information given in the book and I wouldn’t be able to answer… I tried to read more about every subject beforecoming to class, but I don’t have resources other than the internet

Teacher I: I had to learn a lot, and taking a part in the summer training program helped me

Teacher Y: I told my students, I am a student like you and I do not have enough information to answer your questions

Classroom

discussions

Teacher R: There are many texts and ‘‘stories’’ in the module and I did not know how to discuss them—tell them to thestudents? Ask them to read at home and then ask questions? Read them in class?… I haven’t done this before whileteaching chemistry, so I wasn’t sure how to handle these kinds of discussions in class and how much time to spend onthem…

Teacher I: Though it was not easy to control the discussions, I was glad that I could teach differently from how I taught inthe past

Text comprehension Teacher H: Students don’t like to read and some of them have language difficulties. I had to guide them in order for themto find the important issues in the text

Teacher K: The students were used to equations and mathematical calculations, but now they also have to deal with alarge amount of text


123

Table 4 shows that transfer between molecular repre-

sentations and transfer from the symbol (condensed

structural formula) to the micro (intra- and inter-molec-

ular bonds) and macro (boiling point) chemistry under-

standing levels is a difficult task. Therefore we asked the

teachers at the end of the implementation process what

are their recommendations for their colleagues regarding

teaching the module. Some of their tips are presented in

the Appendix.

While teaching the module for the first time, the teachers

requested to add more assignments to the ones found in the

module. Teacher N was one of the teachers who composed

new assignments for the students to practice this skill. The

following discussion excerpt is an example from a class

observation of teacher N, in which the focus was on

modeling skills using the teacher’s own question.

Teacher N: In the last session we learned that we can

represent a single molecule in different

representations, and from each represen-

tation we can draw different information.

For example, we can tell a lot about the

molecule from this simple representation:

What can you tell me about this molecule?

Student A: All of its atoms are carbon

Student B: This is not true. We can also know that if

there are no other atoms in the

representation, it means that the carbons

are bonded to hydrogen atoms

Teacher N: Good. What else? What can you say about

the zigzag shape?

Student B: It is a tetrahedral shape

Teacher N: I don’t see here a tetrahedral shape

Student B: No, but this representation reminds us of the

model you built from the balls and sticks and

it had the same zigzag as this one. In the

model we saw the tetrahedral shape

…

The class discourse developed into discussion on how to

interpret condensed structural formulae, find the functional

group, and draw conclusions at the micro and macro levels.

Table 4 Teachers’ views about teaching thinking skills

Thinking skill Category and examples

Analyzing information Category: teaching strategies

Teacher L: I had a lot of difficulties; I wasn’t sure how to teach the different skills, and especially how to guide mystudents to read tables and graphs

Teacher H: Together with my colleague, I wrote some new assignments that helped me and my students to practicethinking skills

Teacher K: I did not know how to test thinking skills; I practiced the assignments in the module with my students, butdid not compose new assignments or test students’ thinking skills

Category: practice time

Teacher R: I did not have enough time and examples, and did not practice it enough with my students

Teacher I: There is not enough time to practice table analysis. However, it will be a shame to go back to traditionalteaching because of this reason, so I tried to practice it as much as I could

Molecular

representations

Category: identifying students’ difficulties

Teacher R: I felt that transferring between the different models was difficult for my students. Reading their answers inthe test, I realized that they had not gotten it

Teacher N: The students have difficulties in transferring among different representations of molecules, but still Iinsisted that they do it and composed assignments that required this skill

Chemistry understanding

levels

Category: teacher explanations

Teacher L: I think that teaching with the four chemistry understanding levels is a good strategy, but I found it hard toexplain it in the classroom, so I asked you [The developers] to teach it together with me

Teacher I: I explained to my students that they needed to stop and think about their answer before writing it; I toldthem that the four chemistry levels were like an intermediate ‘station’ that would help them understand and explaina concept or a chemistry phenomenon

Category: teacher’s own understanding and confidence

Teacher R: After working a lot on chemical understanding levels, I felt more confident about my knowledge. I alsoapplied it to other topics in chemistry

Teacher H: I think that now, as I teach chemistry according to the four levels of understanding, my teaching is moreorganized and precise


123

Teaching chemistry using the chemistry understanding lev-

els is a testimony to the process the teachers went through

from focusing on their own understanding of the meaning of

these levels to self-confidence in their knowledge, which

enabled them to apply it to other topics in chemistry.

Next is an example of a discussion from an observation

on teacher L’s class. The class learned about triglyceride

formation, and this discussion also involves chemistry

understanding levels. Teacher L successfully integrated the

chemistry understanding levels into the class discussion by

providing her students with scaffolds while they were

monitoring their understanding of triglyceride formation.

Teacher L: Mixing alcohol molecules with carboxylic

acid molecules, under the appropriate

conditions, will produce a new molecule

called ester and a water molecule [writing

the equation of the reaction on the board]. This

process is reversible. Most of the ester

molecules have a pleasant smell that we

recognize from fruits and perfumes [infor-

mation added from the teacher’ previous

chemistry knowledge]. Based on the symbol

level of the ester molecule, what other

information on the molecule can you tell me?

Student A: It’s a big molecule

Teacher L: What is the meaning of ‘‘big’’ in the

chemistry language?

Student A: It will have a high boiling point

Teacher L: Do you mean that a substance composed of

ester molecules will have a high melting

point? You connected the symbol level to the

macroscopic level. Why would the melting

point be high? Who can explain this at the

microscopic level?

Student B: The bigger the molecule, the more atoms it

has, so the van-der-valls interactions among

the molecules are stronger

Teacher L: The same process occurs when mixing

alcohol such as glycerol with three fatty

acid molecules. In the proper conditions,

they produce a triglyceride and three water

molecules [writing the reaction equation on

the board]. Based on the symbol level of this

process, who can describe the process at the

macroscopic level? …imagine you are doing

it in the laboratory

Student C: In one test tube we put the glycerol and in

another one—the fatty acid. After mixing

them together we will see two layers because

they don’t mix

Teacher L: Excellent! And why don’t they mix? Explain

it at the microscopic level

The ‘‘think aloud’’ approach of Teacher L regarding the

chemistry understanding levels helped the students develop

a metacognitive process of monitoring their answers.

Designing and Carrying out Students’ Assessment

In this section we refer to assessment as an overall

assessment approach in the Taste of Chemistry module and

to assignments as specific tasks that were designed by the

teachers in order to assess their students while they were

learning the module.

All the teachers who took part in the research were

aware of the need to implement a suitable assessment

approach while teaching the module. This is expressed in

the following statement of teacher N: In order to assess

students, I must test thinking skills, such as transferring

among different molecular representations and analyzing

information in tables. The assignments have to be in the

context of nutrition, not theoretical ones.

Teachers’ approach to students’ assessment was the

issue in which differences among the teachers were the

largest. Teacher K, who did not feel any need to compose

new assignments, noted: There were a lot of assignments in

the module’s book, so I didn’t feel any need to prepare new

ones, especially since I didn’t have the time or the proper

resources to do this.

Teacher Y said that she had not composed new assign-

ments, but she had thought there was a need to create a

pool of assignments that would help assess not only

knowledge, but also thinking skills. She said that now that

the module was published, the developers and the teachers

should make an effort to build that kind of resource. Tea-

cher L indeed composed new assignments, but only for

testing chemistry content knowledge, as she had always

done for traditional chemistry teaching. She said: I pre-

pared assignments for a short test, but focused only on

chemistry aspects. I couldn’t prepare assignments that

involve thinking skills. In an email to one of the developers,

she wrote: How should I build the final test? Should I focus

on the content or the skills? Please help me, my students

told me that they knew the content but they were afraid of

assignments that involve thinking skills. Maybe you could

send me more examples?

Teachers N and H were teaching in the same school, so

they consulted with each other in order to prepare new

assignments for the final test of the module. Teacher N

noted that it was easier for us to prepare new assignments

by combining elements from several existing assignments

or changing data in some assignments in order to create

new assignments. Teacher I, who developed new assign-

ments for the module, said: It is important to assess stu-

dents’ thinking skills as much as it is important to assess


123

their content knowledge. I like this kind of assessment,

because finally students need to think and not only mem-

orize the content.

Composing new assignments was an ongoing process

from the teachers’ and the developers’ viewpoints. Initially,

some of the teachers composed assignments based only on

their content knowledge. Others developed and used their

pedagogical content knowledge and the assessment knowl-

edge they had gained while teaching the module as scaffolds

to develop and design new assignments.

Following are four examples of assignments from the

Lipids topic that demonstrate how the content knowledge

(CK) of teacher T and the assessment knowledge (AK) of

teacher H developed during the course of teaching the

module.

Each teacher, T and H, designed two assignments, one at

the end of the summer training and the other at the end of

the implementation phase (see Table 5). The assignments

from the summer training served as a source for setting the

base line for teachers’ professional stage and the ones from

the end of the implementation as a source for analyzing the

teachers’ professional growth as a result of the whole

process in their classrooms.

The two assignments that teacher T designed focused on

the symbol level (structural formulas) only, relating to the

content (in two topics: structure and bonding and carbon

compounds) that the student should know. The only devel-

opment in teacher T’s assessment knowledge, as expressed

by the second assignment, was the integration of the process

understanding level in addition to the symbol level. Teacher

T neither added any context-based chemistry nor analysis of

graphs or tables. Teacher T remained CK-oriented at the end

of implementation of the module. Prior to teaching the

module, teacher H’s assignment 1 (see Table 5) dealt with

the symbol level (structural formulas) only.

Similar to teacher T, toward the end of the summer

workshop, teacher H focused just on the chemical content.

However, unlike teacher T, teacher H demonstrated a

major change in her professional growth in respect to

assessment knowledge, by including in assignment 2 both

the context and the thinking skills.

Teacher H’s assignment 2 required the students to

integrate context-based chemistry knowledge at different

chemistry understanding levels while applying their

graphing skills, which are taught as an integral part of the

module. Part a. of this assignment represents graph com-

prehension as well as transfer between several chemistry

understanding levels. The student is required to explain the

differences between olive oil and margarine at the mac-

roscopic and microscopic levels. Part b. expresses everyday

context-based chemistry and reasoning/making choices.

The progress between these two assignments indicates that

Teacher H became AK-oriented after she taught the

module.

Students’ Average Scores in the National Matriculation

Examination

Figure 2 presents students’ average scores in compatible

assignments. The Taste of Chemistry assignment (see Fig. 1)

was part of the matriculation examination presented to stu-

dents who study the reformed curriculum. The other two

assignments in Fig. 2 were part of the traditional matricu-

lation examination and were given to students who studied

the curriculum before the reform. In the matriculation exam,

the reformed and the traditional, student had the opportunity

to choose from a pool of assignments presented to them. 88%

of the students chose to answer the Taste of Chemistry

assignment in the reformed matriculation exam, 86% of the

students answered the Molecular Bonding and Structure

assignment in the traditional matriculation exam, and 50% of

the students answered the Carbon Compounds assignment in

the traditional matriculation exam.

As can be seen from Fig. 2 the highest score was gained

in the Taste of Chemistry assignment.

Taste of Chemistry students achieved higher scores than

the traditional chemistry students that studied similar

chemistry content, but without the daily life context and

thinking skills focus.

Discussion

Our discussion followed the challenges teachers faced

which emerged from the difficulties and advantages they

reported, and the design and implementation of students’

assessment while teaching the Taste of Chemistry module.

The discussion also relates to teachers’ assessment

knowledge as part of their professional growth.

Fig. 2 Average scores of the matriculation exams and assignments

from the reformed and traditional curricula


123

Teachers’ Challenges

The challenges teachers faced were related to context-

based teaching, applying the four chemistry understanding

levels, developing students’ thinking skills, and assessing

students’ content knowledge and thinking skills. In what

follows we discuss these challenges.

Context-based teaching required the teachers to discuss

with their students issues beyond pure chemical subject

matter (Gilbert 2006). While the teachers’ answers to stu-

dents’ chemical-related questions were extensive, their

answers to nutrition-related questions were short and

sometime fuzzy. However, in spite of some difficulties the

teachers faced in conducting context-based discussions, the

students and the teachers enjoyed this mode of learning.

Applying the four chemistry understanding levels,

macroscopic, microscopic, symbol, and process (Dori and

Hameiri 2003; Barak and Dori 2005), into the module was

pivotal. It created opportunities for the teachers to use the

chemistry levels as scaffolds for explaining concepts,

structures, and processes. Most of the teachers (six out of

eight in the focus group) managed to successfully integrate

these levels into their context-based teaching which was a

new pedagogy that was not part of the traditional curricu-

lum and/or traditional teacher guide. The other two

teachers (for example teacher T, see Table 5), who were

classified as CK-oriented, emphasized in their teaching

only the chemicals aspects, made little effort to link the

content to everyday life, composed knowledge-testing

assignments or asked for developers’ help in designing new

Table 5 Assessment

knowledge development of

teacher T and teacher H

Teacher T Teacher H

Assignment 1 - developed towards the end of the summer workshop

Consider the ball and stick models of

the two fatty acids below:

a. Which model represents an

unsaturated fatty acid and which

one represents a saturated fatty

acid?

b. What are the differences between

the two structures?

Consider a process in which the fatty acid C16:1ω9 is converted into

the fatty acid C16:0.

a. Write down the process by using structural formulas for the fatty

acids.

b. What is the name of the process you formulated?

Assignment 2 - developed towards the end of teaching the module

Below is the molecular structure of the

Palmitoleic acid:

a. Write down the equation of the

chemical reaction of Palmitoleic

fatty acid with glycerol

(CH2(OH)CH2(OH)CH2(OH)) to

form triglyceride.

b. Explain the process that occurs

during the reaction described in

part.

Below is a graph describing the composition of fatty acids in olive oil

and in margarine.

a. Based on the graph, draw at least two conclusions about the

differences between olive oil and margarine. Explain your

conclusions based on the microscopic and macroscopic levels.

b. Is olive oil or margarine better for your everyday nutrition? Refer

to the explanation you gave in part a.

OH

O

Percentage of fatty acids


123

assignments. Since the module was new, there was no test-

related pool of assignments at the time of the research.

Therefore, these CK-oriented teachers found it difficult to

‘‘teach to the test’’ the way they had been used to.

Teaching thinking skills was another challenge. It

required the teachers to teach for transferring between

multiple representations, which included text, tables,

graphs, 2D, and 3D models. About half of the teachers

indicated the need for practicing thinking skills. Teaching

thinking skills was rarely required in teaching chemistry

the traditional way, where emphasis was placed on algo-

rithmic chemistry. However, as a result of the reform

teachers in our study realized that these thinking skills were

helpful for their students’ future studies at 12th grade as

well as higher education.

Teachers viewed the assessment of their students’ content

knowledge and thinking skills as the greatest challenge they

had to face. Some teachers did not even attempt to compose

assignments to test their students for thinking skills, and

asked the module developers for help in designing the final

test. Others composed assignments that tested chemical

knowledge in the traditional way. Such assignments were not

aligned with the new curriculum goals.

Other teachers taught context-based chemistry and

thinking skills, but did not feel secure enough to design

new relevant assignment that would provide for appropri-

ate assessment. We have classified these teachers as PCK-

oriented.

Yet, other teachers successfully confronted this chal-

lenge and came up with adequate assignments that pro-

vided for assessing both content knowledge and thinking

skills in the context of food chemistry. These teachers were

classified as AK (assessment knowledge)-oriented (for

example teacher H, see Table 5). We discuss these teachers

and their professional growth next.

Teachers’ Assessment Knowledge: The Highest Stage

of Professional Growth

In the course of their career path, teachers are bound to

encounter different obstacles (Fessler 1985; Fuller 1969;

Huberman 1993). Any profound reform in a curriculum

may cause even experienced teachers to revert to a survival

stage as if they were beginners. The eight teachers that

served as the focus group in our research differed in the

ways they had coped with the module challenges. Some

exhibited insecurity regarding their ability to apply con-

text-based teaching and thinking skills and some were

more secure.

We assert that teachers who start to teach a curriculum

with new pedagogical elements, such as the ones included

in the Taste of Chemistry module, need to go through

several professional growth stages almost as if they were

starting to teach as novices. Therefore, Crippen et al.

(2004) suggested objectives for teacher trainings that pro-

vide necessary teaching methods and content knowledge.

This is required for implementation of content-driven

curriculum with the use of new teaching methods that

eventually will impact student achievements.

Our findings strengthen the claims of Abell (2008) that

being able to teach is being able to develop multiple

sources of knowledge and apply them to specific practices.

We have found that only teachers who passed the pro-

fessional growth stages of CK, PK, and PCK were able to

develop also AK.

Teachers do not always change their assessment strate-

gies in their classroom even while they teach a reformed

curriculum. Reasons for such resistance may be their

beliefs that the workload in developing alternative and/or

open-ended assessment requires the challenge of analyzing

students’ textual and visual answers is much more time

consuming than scoring traditional tests (Lin 2006).

Our classification of teachers as AK-oriented elaborates

on previous studies. Magnusson et al. (1999) proposed a

broad view of PCK by defining it as consisting of five

components, including science assessment, namely,

knowledge of what to assess and methods for assessing. In

a position paper, Friedrichsen et al. (2010) raised the need

for assessing scientific literacy as part of holistic view of

teachers’ PCK. In this study we propose the use of

assignments designed by teachers as an instrument for

determining the professional growth stage of these

teachers.

Figure 3 presents these stages. Some of the teachers

focused on teaching the chemistry content in the module

and much less on teaching thinking skills and food chem-

istry. Teacher K and teacher T were mainly CK-oriented.

They hardly developed any debate on food and social

issues, as recommended in the instructions for teaching the

module. They simply asked the students to read the

information regarding the nutrition and the social aspects in

the module at home. These teachers held on to their per-

ceptions that STS issues are irrelevant to chemistry. We are

in agreement with Sadler et al. (2006), who referred to the

unwillingness of some of the science teachers to incorpo-

rate different aspects of STS into their teaching and their

difficulties in leading class discussions on these topics.

Other than the CK-oriented teachers mentioned above,

the rest of the teachers were either PCK- or AK-oriented.

For example, Teacher Y, L, and R were classified as PCK-

oriented, since they integrated discussions and case studies

with the four chemistry understanding levels into their

teaching. These teachers had a higher level of professional

growth than the CK-oriented teachers. Teachers H, N, and I

demonstrated the highest level of professional growth, as

they successfully combined teaching in context, teaching


123

thinking skills, and composing adequate assignments.

These are the AK-oriented teachers. As a result of the

module design, we could not identify PK-oriented teachers

since the classroom discussions and thinking skills were

content- and context-bound.

These stages are presented in Fig. 3. We are in agree-

ment with Harrison et al. (2008) that the support environ-

ment for continuing teacher professional development can

promote teachers’ learning and their professional growth.

Some of the teachers focused on teaching the chemistry

content in the module and much less on teaching thinking

skills and food chemistry. Teacher K and teacher T were

mainly CK-oriented. They hardly discussed or promoted

any debate on food and social issues, as recommended in

the instructions for teaching the module. They simply

asked the students to read the information regarding these

aspects at home. These teachers held on to their percep-

tions that STS issues are irrelevant to chemistry. This

finding is in line with that of Sadler et al. (2006), who

referred to the unwillingness of some science teachers to

incorporate STS aspects into their teaching and to their

difficulties in leading class discussions on these topics.

It is likely that at least some of the PCK-oriented

teachers need more time and support in order for them to

become AK-oriented. This conjecture should be put to test

in a future research.

Building on the PCK framework of Shulman (1986) and

its extensions (Magnusson et al. 1999; Abell 2008), we

identified several stages in teachers’ professional growth,

as illustrated in Fig. 3. The first stage is content knowl-

edge—CK, the basic knowledge teachers need to possess,

which, in our case, includes general chemistry and nutri-

tion-related chemistry knowledge. Teaching nutrition-

related chemistry required teaching in context, leading to

the second stage of teachers’ professional growth. In par-

allel teachers were required to develop pedagogical

knowledge that enables teachers to teach effectively

through case-studies and active classroom discussions.

The next stage, involves the addition of teachers’ qual-

ifications to teach thinking skills while teaching in context,

defined as pedagogical-content knowledge—PCK. PCK

involves knowledge of how to combine content with ped-

agogy in order to foster their students’ thinking skills with

emphasis on chemistry understanding levels.

With the new target of developing students’ thinking

skills, a new developmental stage was raised along with the

need to assess the level of these skills. Hence, the final

stage, assessment knowledge—AK, concerns assessment of

students’ thinking skills in a context-based environment. In

our study, three teachers who demonstrated high levels of

CK, PK, and PCK reached the level that can be classified as

AK. The highest stage of teachers’ professional growth,

AK was the most difficult challenge the teachers had to

confront. Magnusson et al. (1999) claimed that teachers’

knowledge about assessment is an important aspect in their

PCK. Morrison et al. (2005) found that even while

emphasizing the development of pre-service assessment

knowledge in a teaching method university course, the

teachers managed to design adequate tasks, but it was

challenging, and in some features the improvement was not

satisfactory.

While it is certainly true that AK is a logical extension

of PCK, we propose AK as a distinct and higher stage. AK

requires a higher professional level than PCK since it

requires not only teaching a new, integrative approach, but

to be able to design and apply assignments that serve for

assessing students’ learning outcomes.

Implications and Recommendations

Continuous support of the teachers was found as a critical

success factor of the chemistry curriculum reform. The

importance of supporting the teachers is aligned with the

recommendations of Friedrichsen et al. (2009). They noted

that, in order for different components of PCK to evolve in

teachers’ professionalism, the teaching experience must be

accompanied with professional development support.

Morrison et al. (2005) recommended the use of adequate

assessment, such as performance tasks, even during early

stages, such as pre-service programs rather than just in

professional development in-service programs.

The ongoing relationships between the teachers and the

developers of the Taste of Chemistry module, as well as the

support the teachers received from experts in pedagogy on

one hand and food-chemistry and health on the other hand,

were critical in the content, pedagogical, and emotional

aspects.

A teachers’ support framework is crucial not only for

maintaining the productive relationships between the mod-

ule developers and the teachers, but also for establishing an

Fig. 3 Stages in teachers’ professional growth while teaching and

assessing thinking skills in a context-based module


123

active learning community of teachers and their academic

counterparts.

In view of the centrality of maintaining a teachers’

support framework, we recommend that teachers partici-

pate in a long-term training program, which is not only

vital and necessary for learning new content but also fos-

ters the teachers’ PCK- and AK-orientation. This recom-

mendation is in line with that of Lee and Luft (2008), who

also described experienced teachers’ professional growth

and raised the issue of the importance of the pedagogy and

assessment components in teachers’ knowledge.

Characterizing the teachers’ orientation as CK, PCK, or

AK, we found the teachers’ AK to be the pinnacle of their

professional growth. Assessment knowledge is a higher

professional development stage than PCK. Indeed, AK

was the most difficult challenge the teachers had to face.

We mapped ways in which teachers cope with changes in

teaching a new curriculum by extending their capabilities

beyond content knowledge to pedagogy and assessment

issues. We propose the use of assignments designed by

teachers as an instrument for determining their profes-

sional growth stage. This fairly new framework in edu-

cational research can be generalized for science teachers

in other disciplines and settings and one may serve as a

valid proxy to impacting teacher effectiveness and ulti-

mately student achievement. More research is needed to

establish whether this pattern of progression is consistent

in larger populations of science teachers and various

learning environments and how it affects students learning

outcomes.

Acknowledgments The authors thank Julie Luft, Patricia Fried-

richsen, and Allan Feldman and the late Sandra Abell, for their

contribution to the research described in this paper while serving as

mentors of the first author at the NARST SRI 2009 for doctoral

students.

Appendix: Teachers’ tips

Concept- or content-related tips:

• Enter the class, understanding that this unit is an

interdisciplinary unit and don’t try to keep teaching it in

the familiar disciplinary teaching format.

• Understand the importance of this unit to promote

students’ higher order thinking skills as a way to

deepen your students’ chemistry understanding.

• Get use to reading information on nutrition and related

societal issues from various sources in order to broaden

your knowledge base. It will enable you to conduct

better discussions in class, integrating chemistry con-

cepts and processes with social and personal issues.

Pedagogical tips:

• Don’t assume that your students are familiar with

certain thinking skills since they studied them in other

disciplines, i.e., that they have graphing skills because

they used graphs in mathematics. Integrate assignments

which promote these skills in your teaching as much as

you can.

• Integrate small group activities instead of lecturing.

This encourages the students to discuss the meaning of

the concepts involved in the subject matter and by

doing so, it builds and deeper their chemistry

understanding.

• Use molecular modeling tools as much as possible.

Don’t enter the class without them…

References

Abell SK (2007) Research on science teacher knowledge. In: Abell

SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science

education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 1105–1149

Abell SK (2008) Twenty years later: does pedagogical content

knowledge remain a useful idea? Int J Sci Educ 30:1405–1416

Abell SK, Lee MH (2008) Making the most of professional

development. Sci Child 45:62–63

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990)

Science for all Americans, project 2061. Oxford University

Press, New York

American Association for the Advancement of Science—AAAS

(1993) Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University

Press, New York

Baartman LKJ, Bastiaens TJ, Kirschner PA, van der Vleuten CPM

(2007) Evaluating assessment quality in competence-based

education: a qualitative comparison of two frameworks. Educ

Res Rev 2:114–129

Baker DR, Piburn MD (1990) Teachers’ perceptions of the effects of

a scientific literary course on subsequent learning in biology.

J Res Sci Teach 27:447–491

Barak M, Dori YJ (2005) Enhancing undergraduate students’

chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an

IT environment. Sci Educ 89:117–139

Barak M, Shakhman L (2008) Fostering higher-order thinking in

science class: teachers’ reflections. Teach Teach Theory Pract

14:191–208

Barak M, Ben-Chaim D, Zoller U (2007) Purposely teaching for the

promotion of higher-order thinking skills: a case of critical

thinking. Res Sci Educ 37:353–369

Barnea N, Dori YJ, Hofstein A (2010) Development and implemen-

tation of inquiry-based and computerized-based laboratories:

reforming high school chemistry in Israel. Chem Educ Res Pract

11:218–228

Barnett J, Hodson D (2001) Pedagogical context knowledge: toward a

fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Sci

Educ 89:426–453

Bell B, Gilbert J (1996) Teacher development: a model from science

education. Falmer Press, London, UK. http://www.eric.ed.gov/

PDFS/ED395763.pdf

Bennett J, Grasel C, Parchmann I, Waddington D (2005) Context-

based and conventional approaches to teaching chemistry:

Comparing teachers’ views. Int J Sci Educ 27:1521–1547

Bennett J, Lubben F, Hogarth S (2007) Bringing science to life: a

synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based

and STS approaches to science teaching. Sci Educ 91:347–370


123

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED395763.pdf

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED395763.pdf

Birenbaum M (2003) New insights into learning and teaching and

their implications for assessment. In: Segers M, Dochy F,

Cascallar E (eds) Optimizing new modes of assessment: in

search of quality and standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers,

Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 13–36

Briscoe C (1993) Using cognitive referents in making sense of

teaching: a chemistry teacher’s struggle to change assessment

practices. J Res Sci Teach 30:971–987

Clarke D, Hollingsworth H (2002) Elaborating a model of teacher

professional growth. Teach Teach Educ 18:947–967

Crippen KJ, Archambault L, Ford MS, Levitt GA (2004) Curriculum

carts and collaboration: a model for training secondary science

teachers. J Sci Educ Technol 13:325–331

Davis EA, Krajcik J (2005) Designing educative curriculum materials

to promote teacher learning. Educ Res 34:3–14

Dori YJ (2003) From nationwide standardized testing to school-based

alternative embedded assessment in Israel: students’ perfor-

mance in the ‘‘Matriculation 2000’’ project. J Res Sci Teach

40:34–52

Dori YJ (2007) Educational reform at MIT: advancing and evaluating

technology-based projects on- and off-campus. J Sci Educ

Technol 16:279–281

Dori YJ, Barak M, Adir N (2003) A web-based chemistry course as a

means to foster freshmen learning. J Chem Educ 80:1084–1092

Dori YJ, Hameiri M (2003) Multidimensional analysis system for

quantitative chemistry problems: symbol, macro, micro, and

process aspects. J Res Sci Teach 40:278–302

Dori YJ, Herscovitz O (1999) Question-posing capability as an

alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental

case study. J Res Sci Teach 36:411–430

Dori YJ, Herscovitz O (2005) Case-based long-term professional

development of science teachers. Int J Sci Educ 27:1413–1446

Dori YJ, Sasson I (2008) Chemical understanding and graphing skills

in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory

environment: the value of bidirectional visual and textual

representations. J Res Sci Teach 45:219–250

Dori YJ, Tal RT, Peled Y (2002) Characteristics of science teachers

who incorporate web-based teaching. Res Sci Educ 32:511–547

Duschl R (2008) Science education in three-part harmony: balancing

conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Rev Res Educ

32:268–291

Feldman A (1996) Enhancing the practice of physics teachers:

Mechanisms for the generation and sharing of knowledge and

understanding in collaborative action research. J Res Sci Teach

33:513–540

Fessler R (1985) Teacher career stages. In: Burke PJ, Heideman R

(eds) Career long teacher education. Springfield, Thomas

Friedrichsen PJ, Abell SK, Pareja EM, Brown PL, Lankford DM,

Volkmann MJ (2009) Does teaching experience matter? Exam-

ining biology teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in an

alternative certification program. J Res Sci Teach 46:357–383

Friedrichsen P, Van Driel JH, Abell SK (2010) Taking a closer look at

science teaching orientations. Science Education, Article first

published online. doi:10.1002/sce.20428

Fullan M (2002) The change leader. Educ Leadersh 59:16–20

Fullan M, Hargreaves A (1992) Teachers development and educational

change. In: Fullan M, Hargreaves A (eds) Teachers development

and educational change. Falmer, Washington, pp 1–9

Fuller FF (1969) Concerns of teachers: a developmental conceptu-

alization. Am Educ Res J 6:207–226

Gabel D (1999) Improving teaching and learning through chemistry

education research: a look to the future. J Chem Educ

76:548–554

Gilbert JK (2006) On the nature of ‘‘Context’’ in chemical education.

Int J Sci Educ 28:957–976

Harris JB, Grandgenett N (1999) Correlates with use of telecomputing

tools: K-12 teachers’ beliefs and demographics. J Res Comput

Educ 31:327–341

Harrison C, Hofstein A, Eylon B, Simon S (2008) Evidence-based

professional development of science teachers in two countries.

Int J Sci Educ 30:577–591

Henze I, van Driel JH (2007) Science teachers’ knowledge about

teaching models and modeling in the context of a new syllabus

on public understanding of science. Res Sci Educ 37:99–122

Herscovitz O, Kaberman Z, Dori YJ (2007) Taste of chemistry.

Yessod Publishing House, Holon, Israel (in Hebrew)

Herscovitz O, Kaberman Z, Saar L, Dori YJ (2011) The relationship

between metacognition and the ability to pose questions in

chemical education. In: Zohar A, Dori YJ (eds) Metacognition in

science education. Springer, NY

Hofstein A, Kesner M (2006) Industrial chemistry and school

chemistry: making chemistry studies more relevant. Int J Sci

Educ 28:1017–1039

Hofstein A, Lazarowitz R (1986) A comparison of the actual and

preferred classroom learning environment in biology and

chemistry as perceived by high school students. J Res Sci Teac

23:189–199

Hofstein A, Navon O, Kipnis M, Mamlok-Naaman R (2005)

Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions

resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. J Res Sci

Teach 42:791–806

Huberman M (1993) Steps toward a developmental model of the

teaching career. In: Kremer-Hayon L, Vonk HC, Fessler R (eds)

Teacher professional development: a multiple perspective

approach. Swets and Zeitlinger B.V, Amsterdam, The Nether-

land, pp 93–118

Huffman D, Goldberg F, Michlin M (2003) Using computers to create

constructivist learning environments: impact on pedagogy and

student achievement. J Comput Math Sci Teach 22:153–170

Kaberman Z, Dori YJ (2009) Question posing, inquiry and modeling

skills of chemistry students in the case-based computerized

laboratory environment. Int J Sci Math Educ 7:597–625

Kamen M (1996) A Teacher’s implementation of authentic assess-

ment in an elementary science classroom. J Res Sci Teach

33:859–877

Kesner M, Hofstein A, Ben-Zvi R (1997) The development and

implementation of two industrial chemistry case studies for the

Israeli high school chemistry curriculum. Int J Sci Educ

19:565–576

Kozma R (2003) The material features of multiple representations and

their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding.

Learn Instruct 13:205–226

Krajcik J, McNeill KL, Reiser BJ (2008) Learning-goals-driven

design model: developing curriculum materials that align with

national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Sci

Educ 92:1–32

Lawrenz F (1990) Science teaching techniques associated with

higher-order thinking skills. J Res Sci Teach 27:835–847

Lee E, Luft JA (2008) Experienced secondary science teachers’

representation of pedagogical content knowledge. Int J Sci Educ

30:1343–1363

Leoul M, Abder P, Riordan M, Zoller U (2006) Using ‘HOCS-

centered learning as a pathway to promote science teachers’

metacognitive development. Res Sci Educ 36:69–84

Levy Nahum T, Mamlok-Naaman R, Hofstein A, Taber KS (2010)

Teaching and learning the concept of chemical bonding. Studies

Sci Educ 46:179–207

Lin PJ (2006) Conceptualizing teachers’ understanding of students’

mathematical learning by using assessment tasks. Int J Sci Math

Educ 4:545–580


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20428

Lustick D (2010) The priority of the question: focus questions for

sustained reasoning in science. J Sci Teach Educ 21:495–511

Magnusson S, Krajcik J, Borko H (1999) Nature, sources, and

development of pedagogical content knowledge for science

teaching. In: Gess-Newsome J, Lederman NG (eds) Examining

pedagogical content knowledge. Kluwer Academic Publishers,

Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 95–144

Marbach-Ad G, Rotbain Y, Stavy R (2008) Using computer

animation and illustration activities to improve high school

students’ achievement in molecular genetics. J Res Sci Teach

45:273–292

McBroom R, Oliver-Hoyo MT (2007) Food enzymes. Sci Teach

74:58–63

Mertler CA (2009) Teachers’ assessment knowledge and their

perceptions of the impact of classroom assessment professional

development. Improv Sch 12:101–113

Mintzes JJ, James H, Wandersee J, Novak D (2005) Assessing science

understanding: a human constructivist view. Elsevier Academic

Press, MA, USA

Morrison J, McDuffie AR, Akerson VL (2005) Preservice teachers’

development and implementation of science performance assess-

ment. Int J Sci Math Educ 3:379–406

National Research Council (1996) National science education standards.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962&page=1

Osborne J, Millar R (1998) Science education for the future: which

way now? Prim Sci Rev 52:21–23

Osborne J, Collins S, Ratcliffe M, Millar R, Duschl R (2003) What

‘‘Ideas-about-Science’’ should be taught in school science?

A Delphi study of the expert community. J Res Sci Teach

40:692–720

Osborne J, Erduran S, Simon S (2004) Enhancing the quality of

argumentation in school science. J Res Sci Teach 41:994–1020

Parchmann I, Grasel C, Baer A, Nentwig P, Demuth R, Ralle B, The

ChiK Project Group (2006) ‘‘Chemie im Kontext’’: a symbiotic

implementation of a context-based teaching and learning

approach. Int J Sci Educ 28:1041–1062

Parke HM, Coble CR (1997) Teachers designing curriculum as

professional development: a model for transformational science

teaching. J Res Sci Teach 34:773–789

Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage,

Newbury Park, CA

Phillips LM, Norris SP (2009) Bridging the gap between the language

of science and the language of school science through the use of

adapted primary literature. Res Sci Educ 39:313–319

Pilot A, Bulte AMW (2006) The use of ‘‘contexts’’ as a challenge for

the chemistry curriculum: its successes and the need for further

development and understanding. Int J Sci Educ 28:1087–1112

Porter LA (2007) Chemical nanotechnology: a liberal arts approach to

a basic course in emerging interdisciplinary science and

technology. J Chem Educ 84:259–264

Resnick LB (2010) 2009 Wallace foundation distinguished lecture:

nested learning systems for the thinking curriculum. Educ Res

39:183–197

Rivet AE, Krajcik JS (2004) Achieving standards in urban system

reform: an example of a sixth grade project-based science

curriculum. J Res Sci Teach 41:669–692

Sadler TD, Zeidler DL (2009) Scientific literacy, PISA, and

socioscientific discourse: assessment for progressive aims of

science education. J Res Sci Teach 46:909–921

Sadler TD, Amirshokoohi A, Kazempour M, Allspaw KM (2006)

Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: teacher perspec-

tives and strategies. J Res Sci Teach 43:353–376

Schraw G (1998) Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instr

Sci 26:113–125

Schwartz AT (2006) Contextualized chemistry education: the Amer-

ican experience. Int J Sci Educ 28:977–998

Schwartz RS, Lederman NG, Abd-El-Khalick F (2000) Achieving the

reforms vision: the effectiveness of a specialists-led elementary

science program. Sch Sci Math 100:181–193

Shulman LS (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in

teaching. Educ Res 15:4–14

Shulman LS (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new

reform. Harv Educ Rev 57:1–22

Shwartz Y, Ben-Zvi R, Hofstein A (2005) The importance of

involving high-school chemistry teachers in the process of

defining the operational meaning of ‘‘Chemical Literacy’’. Int J

Sci Educ 27:323–344

Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded

theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Newbury

Park, California

Taitelbaum D, Mamlok-Naaman R, Carmeli M, Hofstein A (2008)

Evidence for teachers’ change while participating in a contin-

uous professional development programme and implementing

the inquiry approach in the chemistry laboratory. Int J Sci Educ

30:593–617

Tal RT, Dori YJ, Keiny S, Zoller U (2001) Assessing conceptual

change of teachers involved in STES education and curriculum

development—the STEMS project approach. Int J Sci Educ

23:247–262

van Braak JV (2001) Factors influencing the use of computer

mediated communication by teachers in secondary schools.

Comput Educ 36:41–57

van Driel JH, Beijaard D, Verloop N (2002) Professional develop-

ment and reform in science education: the role of teachers’

practical knowledge. J Res Sci Teach 38:137–158

van Driel JH, Bulte AMW, Verloop N (2008) Using the curriculum

emphasis concept to investigate teachers’ curricular beliefs in the

context of educational reform. J Curric Stud 40:107–122

Walker KA, Zeidler DL (2007) Promoting discourse about sociosci-

entific issues through scaffolded inquiry. Int J Sci Educ

29:1387–1410

Watanabe M, Nunes N, Mebane S, Scalise K, Claesgens J (2007)

‘‘Chemistry for all, instead of chemistry just for the elite’’:

lessons learned from detracted chemistry classrooms. Sci Educ

91:683–709

Wood KE (2001) Interdisciplinary instruction, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall,

Inc., New Jersey

Zohar A (1999) Teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and the instruc-

tion of higher order thinking. Teach Teach Educ 15:413–429

Zohar A, Dori YJ (2003) Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving

students: are they mutually exclusive? J Learn Sci 12:145–181

Zoller U (1993) Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe for

LOCS: unlikely for HOCS. J Chem Educ 70:193–195


123

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962&page=1

Documents

Teaching Thinking Skills in Context-Based Learning: Teachers’ Challenges and Assessment Knowledge