Do you have the HOTS for science? Part 3

Making change in teaching and assessment
In my role as Year 11 curriculum leader this year, one of the projects I am involved in was an action research project into developing higher order thinking skills and assessment tasks for the Year 11 science curricula. This post is part of a series (See Part 1 and Part 2)

Over the course of this project it has become clear that teachers at my school are not very clear on what higher order thinking skills in science look like. They are not clearly defined. Without this, it is difficult to teach and assess such skills.

This project has shifted from trying to directly change what is occurring in the science classroom, to developing teacher awareness of such skills.

So what are higher order thinking skills?
There is a vast literature around higher order skills, yet they are not adequately defined. What are the higher order thinking skills needed in the science classroom? What do they look like? If we are to assess them, what is the standard against which we are assessing?

I have developed the table below to provide answers to teachers who are looking to develop their pedagogical skills in science, particularly in knowing how to teach and assess some of the key higher order thinking skills (HOTs) in science.

Science Pedagogy at my school

I have been asked along with another colleague to develop a pedagogical model for science.

This is a presentation that I am giving tomorrow with said colleague on what we have come up with following quite a bit of research, professional reading, twitter conversations, LinkedIn dicussions, staff surveys and informal chats.

Any feedback would be gratefully received!

Trying to get traction with my change project on HOTS

I have found that in my action research for this project, that often times I am coming back to what feels like square one with my project, rather than majestically changing the educational experience of a whole host of students. I feel as though trying to get traction for the ideas and changes I am bringing is difficult. One of the things that stuck with me from the seminar days with Emerging Leaders was that as soon as you are not leading a change, you can have no control over it.

I feel that whilst I can effectively control what happens in my classroom, I am getting stuck trying to develop this change for other teachers. I feel that these teachers are weighed down by the expectations placed on them, and that adding more to their plates, no matter how much they think it is a good idea, is not possible.

Juxtaposed against this feeling of failure is the sense that I am changing and developing both as an educator and a leader. I feel that in my classroom, everything, from the language I use with my students (including describing the types of knowledge), the time I give students to attempt challenging tasks that require thinking, and my expectations that they do think (often), is developing through my project.

My personal development is gratifying, and I see the results in my students and how they respond to the learning environment in a positive way, as a success. Where I struggle is to know how to adequately translate my wins into wins for the other Year 11 science teachers, as per my goals with my project.

There is not a lot of time left!

Do you have the HOTS for science? Part 2

So what are higher order thinking skills?
Defining higher order thinking skills in the context of science education was a relatively tricky. Whilst much of the literature refers to higher order skills, it is not always clearly defined. We know from Bloom's taxonomy that more complex thinking skills include: evaluation, synthesis and creation or in the revised taxonomy: creating, evaluating, analysing. Yet what do these mean necessarily, in the science classroom? What do they look like? If we are to assess them, what is the standard against which we are assessing?


Key Higher Order Thinking Skills
With these questions in mind, I went through the relevant curricula for my state, for the VCE (Victoria Certificate of Education) and pulled out the key skills they focused on, for the areas of physics, chemistry, biology and psychology.

These are the terms I collected (I have highlighted key terms):

Psychology

analyse and interpret data, and draw conclusions consistent with the research question

evaluate the validity and reliability of research investigations including potential confounding variables and sources of error and bias

apply understandings to both familiar and new contexts

evaluate the validity and reliability of psychology-related information and opinions presented in the public domain

Biology

evaluate experimental procedures and reliability of data

collect, process and record information systematically; analyse and synthesise data; draw conclusions consistent with the question under investigation and the evidence obtained

apply understandings to familiar and new contexts; make connections between concepts; solve problems

analyse and evaluate the reliability of information and opinions presented in the public domain

Physics

collecting, processing, recording, analysing, synthesising and evaluating qualitative and quantitative data

draw conclusions consistent with the question under investigation and the information collected, identifying errors and evaluating investigative procedures and reliability and accuracy of data

select first-hand and second-hand data and evidence to demonstrate how physics concepts, theories and models have developed and been modified over time

Chemistry

draw conclusions consistent with the question under investigation and the information collected; evaluate procedures and reliability of data

identify and address possible sources of uncertainty

make connections between concepts; process information; apply understandings to familiar and new contexts

use first and second-hand data and evidence to demonstrate how chemical concepts and theories have developed and been modified over time


An emerging picture
The common theme that emerges from these curricula is that students need to be taught the higher order thinking skills of analysing and interpreting scientific information to draw logical, valid conclusions; synthesising and processing data in a sensical way; and applying understanding to both familiar and new contexts.

What has become apparent to me over the course of this change project, is that it is not necessarily clear to teachers how they are to set about teaching and assessing such skills in their students. We do not have a coherent, regular process to incorporate the formal teaching of these skills to students. Part of this, in my opinion, stems from teachers not having these skills clearly defined. That is now a major focus of this project, to enable teaching and learning. The conversations with my peers about these skills have been useful professional development. Just by reflecting on how we teach and assess higher order thinking, we are starting to make our actions align with our intentions.

That we do not have a formal plan for teaching these skills reminds me of this blog post by Grant Wiggins, author of Understanding by Design (UbD). He refers to inferencing, a higher order skill, of drawing reasoned conclusions from evidence, with a quote that suggests that it cannot be taught, when of course it can. This is a particular skill that needs to be taught in the science classroom. The other skills mentioned above also need to be taught.

I have attached a table below - that begins to define what these higher order skills are, and how they can be taught and assessed. Let me know what you think!

HOTS	Explanation	Teaching activities	Assessment
Analysing  and interpreting information	Students being exposed to quantitative data and being asked to draw conclusions Students being exposed to qualitative data and being asked to draw conclusions Students drawing valid, logical, reasoned conclusions	Students regular handling data; from practice questions and from experiments Students being asked to observe patterns or trends in quantitative data Students practicing drawing rational conclusions Students being provided with explicit examples of illogical and irrational conclusions and having these explained	Test questions that provide scenarios for students to interpret Students being given experimental results where errors have been made during the experiment and they have to interpret the effect on the outcome Students being asked about a range of possible conclusions drawn about an experiment and needing to describe them as valid/invalid and provide a rational explanation

Do you have the HOTS for science? Part 1

Do your students have the higher order thinking skills required for success in science?

What are such skills?

Do you teach these skills regularly and actively?

Do you assess these skills regularly and validly?

I am currently investigating all of these questions in an ongoing project at my school. I am trying to change what happens in terms of the teaching and learning at senior school science to allow for development of higher order thinking skills in students. I believe that they will experience more success in this way as they are able to tackle more advanced problems.

What I have found through surveying staff attitudes at my school is that teachers do not feel as though higher-order thinking skills is something that is appropriately and regularly taught at our school. In particular, they feel as though their assessments lack demanding, unfamiliar contexts; open-ended or complex tasks and instead seem to focus on basic testing of surface level understanding or knowledge. They also felt that students lacked sufficient higher-order thinking skills for success in science, but that this was something they were grappling with, or trying to achieve.

Survey questions regarding HOTs 

(adapted from https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/publications/research_qbssss_assess_hots_01.pdf)

Does the schools approach to assessment encourage students to apply knowledge in demanding, unfamiliar situations?

Does the school’s approach to assessment give students sound opportunities to complete complex, open ended, multifaceted tasks?

Does the school’s approach to assessment allow students to be rewarded for demonstrating higher order thinking skills?

In terms of assessing higher order thinking in science, describe how you think the school does this:

In terms of assessing higher order thinking in science, describe how you think the school could do this better:

Provide an example of how you recently assessed higher order thinking skills in science:

Do you feel your students have sufficient higher order thinking skills?

Do you feel that your explicitly teach students how to develop these thinking skills?

My ambition is to change how:

We define higher order thinking skills

We assess higher order thinking skills

We teach higher order thinking skills

In doing this, I feel that more students will find success in their science education. Lower level ability students will be able to tackle more difficult problem solving, and higher ability students will be able to be challenged by rigorous and unfamiliar content. I want my science teachers to feel that they know how to adequately plan for and teach these skills too.

Self-assessment in education

Over the last few weeks a lot of things have been happening at my school. Year 12s finished their studies with end of year exams; Year 11s have had their final assessments and are beginning Head Start classes for next year; Year 10s have had final assessments; including their research presentations; Year 8s have had camp; I have been teaching Head Start; I have spoken at my first assembly for year 11 in my new role as curriculum leader; and I have begun moving office into the VCE centre.

Oh and reports and finishing marking.

So apart from feeling a little:

I am actually quite excited about teaching my Head Start classes. This week I have started teaching year 11 biology and chemistry. In my chemistry class today, one of the things I was doing was getting my students to self-assess a timeline that they had produced in groups in the previous class. The timeline illustrated development of atomic theory, hopefully showing understanding, content knowledge, and presentation skills (in order of relative importance).

What I found was that students were quite on the mark in terms of assigning 'grades', compared to what I assign. More importantly, the discussions that ensued were particularly revealing. Through a conversation I facilitated, they indicated why and why not they thought particular posters were well done- several students were corrected by peers for praising well-presented work that showed no understanding. They began to auto-correct and critique the work beyond a surface/superficial level. Some students misidentified information (dates/names etc) as understanding, and were able to be corrected by their peers, who explained that the posters did not in fact show the experimental evidence leading to the development of the different models.

I know that Hattie ranks student self-assessment as an important and powerful element of education, yet I do not think I had experienced just how powerful it could be in my classroom. To watch students reflect and change their thinking in front of me was really satisfying. Taking the time to think, to really slow down and look at a piece of work, was something that benefited my chemistry students. I will definitely be employing this more often in my classes, with the intention of developing self-correcting, deeply understanding students.

Contextual learning

We have just finished a semester long course at year 10 in advanced chemistry and physics, a subject we called Future Energies and Sustainability. The focus of this course was a research project into our local suburb, Ferntree Gully, to investigate different aspects of energy production, usage and sustainability that could be improved for the year 2040.

Josie Hopkins and I came up with the idea of contextual unit to teach science at St Joseph's College because we wanted to achieve several things:

1) We wanted to students to engage with science as an inquiry based subject, rather than a content based subject (although there is a need to teach content as part of science).

2) We wanted students to be involved in a learning process (the research project) that is authentic (solving real world problems, engaging with real people)

3) We wanted to use assessments (the research project, the student blog) that allow for deeper learning through reflection and collaboration in an ongoing process for students.

Last Monday we came to the end of the course, finishing on a high with student led presentations in our learning centre, Chieri. The students put on a science fair of sorts, presenting their research into future energies and sustainability for the suburb of Ferntree Gully. What they presented was of high quality, with deep understanding evident in many presentations. Some groups had made posters communicating their ideas, whilst others had conducted experiments to test and refine hypotheses. We provided the boys with an authentic audience - Lisa Loulier and Sam Sampanthar from Knox City Council's Community Sustainability Program; Kate Evans, Director of KIOSC at Swinburne University; as well as a member from Energy Australia; and a long serving member of the engineers' institute of Australia. These visitors were full of enthusiasm about the program after speaking with the boys, impressed by the level of their understanding and knowledge in their project areas. Several students have been asked to present at an Expo at KIOSC early next year.

What really hit me with this course finishing up was that it could work. Science education could be contextualised and allow for deeper understanding. Students could have a longer term exposure to the themes underlying a subject and move beyond surface or skill learning. It was by no means perfect, and I can already see ways to improve how we ran the course, including: how and why we use the student blogs, incorporating more practical work, building more links between students and the community. Yet the overall results of the project encourage me to think that we can positively engage students in science, and achieve better understanding of science through making it real in the classroom.

A cheeky demo!

Here is a little taster of something we have been working on at the ECCN... Enjoy!