Abstract
Learning objectives outline the knowledge and skills to be taught in a subject, thus signaling what is worth learning and what type of thinking is valued. The aim of this syllabus analysis is to determine the cognitive demand of learning objectives in the recently reformed Queensland physics, chemistry and biology syllabus and to analyse whether the development of students’ metacognitive and self-system thinking is embedded in the curriculum. Marzano and Kendall’s (2007) New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives was used as a theoretical framework for the analysis. Results show that cognitive levels of learning objectives are skewed towards the lower order thinking skills retrieval and comprehension in all three sciences, with less than 50% of learning objectives at analysis or knowledge utilisation level. Teaching metacognitive and self-system thinking were found to be implicit rather than explicit objectives of the new syllabi. There may be a mismatch between the policy goals of science education in Australia and the cognitive demands emphasised in the new syllabi, fuelling the debate about the right balance of lower order and higher order cognitive skills in secondary science. Implications for pedagogy and stakeholders in science education are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The full list of cognitive verbs can be accessed at https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/p_10/ac_categories_cognitive_verbs.pdf
This methodology was first published by Porter, A. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Abridged. New York: Longman.
Bayat, S., & Tarmizi, R. A. (2010). Assessing meta-cognitive strategies during algebra problem solving performance among university students. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 8, 403–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.056.
Beyer, B. K. (2008). What research tells us about teaching thinking skills. The Social Studies, 99(5), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.3200/TSSS.99.5.223-232.
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook I: cognitive domain. London: Longman Group LTD.
Booker, M. J. (2007). A roof without walls: Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy and the misdirection of American education. Academic Questions, 20(4), 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12129-007-9031-9.
Christensen, C. (1991). Instruction, practice, and children’s use of thinking strategies to solve basic addition facts. In G. Evans (Ed.), Learning and Teaching Cognitive Skills (pp. 51–69). Hawthorn, Vic: ACER.
de Acedo, S., Lizarraga, M. L., de Acedo, S., Baquedano, M. T. S., & Rufo, M. P. (2010). Effects of an instruction method in thinking skills with students from compulsory secondary education. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600003723.
DeCorte, E. (1990). Towards powerful learning environments for the acquisition of problem-solving skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 1, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172765.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266.
Fensham, P. J., & Bellocchi, A. (2013). Higher order thinking in chemistry curriculum and its assessment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.06.003.
Fenwick, L. (2018). Standards-based reform to senior-secondary curriculum and metacognition in the literacy domain. The Curriculum Journal, 29(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2018.1424643.
Firn, J. (2016). Science literature review. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/senior/snr_draft2_science_literature_review_addendum_16.pdf.
Fitzgerald, M., Danaia, L., & McKinnon, D. H. (2017). Barriers inhibiting inquiry-based science teaching and potential solutions: perceptions of positively inclined early adopters. Research in Science Education, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9623-5.
Gonski, D., Arcus, T., Boston, K., Gould, V., Johnson, W., O’Brian, L., … Roberts, M. (2018). Through growth to achievement: report of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www.dese.gov.au/uncategorised/resources/through-growth-achievement-report-review-achieve-educational-excellence-australian-schools.
Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L. J. (2007). Australian school science education national action plan 2008 – 2012. Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2007-09/apo-nid4048.pdf.
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
Hollins, M., & Reiss, M. J. (2016). A review of the school science curricula in eleven high achieving jurisdictions. Curriculum Journal, 27(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2016.1147968.
Irvine, J. (2017). A comparison of revised Bloom and Marzano’s new taxonomy of learning. Research in Higher Education Journal, 33, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9623-5.
Jane, G., Wilson, B., & Zbar, V. (2011). Curriculum mapping project phase 4a: Comparing international curricula against the Australian Curriculum final report. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/Curriculum_Mapping_Project-_Phase_4a_Report_v1.pdf.
Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth: teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2013.10784716.
Kruger, M., Won, M., & Treagust, D. F. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions on the changes in the curriculum and exit examinations for biology and human biology. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n3.5.
Lee, Y. J., Kim, M., & Yoon, H. G. (2015). The intellectual demands of the intended primary science curriculum in Korea and Singapore: an analysis based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2193–2213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1072290.
Lemons, P. P., & Lemons, J. D. (2013). Questions for assessing higher-order cognitive skills: it’s not just Bloom’s. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0024.
Liang, L. L., & Yuan, H. (2008). Examining the alignment of Chinese national physics curriculum guidelines and 12th-grade exit examinations: a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1823–1835. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701689766.
Liu, X., & Fulmer, G. (2008). Alignment between the science curriculum and assessment in selected NY state regents exams. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(4), 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9107-5.
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2008). Designing and assessing educational objectives: applying the new taxonomy. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Matters, G., & Masters, G. (2007). Year 12 Curriculum Content and Achievement Standards. Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from http://research.acer.edu.au/ar_misc/5/.
Matters, G., & Masters, G. (2014). Redesigning the secondary – tertiary interface. Queensland review of senior assessment and tertiary entrance. Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://research.acer.edu.au/qld_review/1/.
Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2017). What we educators get wrong about 21st-century learning: results of a survey. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2016.1242392.
Morris, A., & Burgess, C. (2018). The intellectual quality and inclusivity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content in the NSW Stage 5 History syllabus. Curriculum Perspectives, 38(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-018-0045-y.
Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Higgins, S., Lin, M., Newton, D., Robson, S., …, Gregson, M. (2004) Thinking skill frameworks for post-16 learners: an evaluation A research report for the learning and skills research centre https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90483-7.
Pekdağ, B., & Erol, H. (2013). The examination of secondary education chemistry curricula published between 1957–2007 in terms of the dimensions of rationale, goals, and subject-matter. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(1), 653–659.
Queensland Studies Authority. (2007). Senior syllabus physics 2007. Physics Senior Syllabus.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: the new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher Sciences, 40(3), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11405038.
QCAA. (2016). Science literature review — addendum. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/senior/snr_syll_redev_science_lit_review_addendum.pdf.
QCAA. (2018a). Biology 2019 v1.2 general senior syllabus. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/senior-subjects/sciences/biology/syllabus.
QCAA. (2018b). Cognitive verb toolkit release. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/memos/18/051-18.pdf.
QCAA. (2019). About us. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/about.
Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2010). Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies. Educational Researcher, 39(5), 406–412. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10374770.
Scogin, S. C., Cavlazoglu, B., LeBlanc, J., & Stuessy, C. L. (2018). Inspiring science achievement: a mixed methods examination of the practices and characteristics of successful science programs in diverse high schools. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(3), 649–670. https://doi.org/10.1017/s11422-016-9796-7.
Shalem, Y., Sapire, I., & Huntley, B. (2013). Mapping onto the mathematics curriculum - an opportunity for teachers to learn. Pythagoras, 34(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v34i1.195.
Toledo, S., & Dubas, J. M. (2015). Encouraging higher-order thinking in general chemistry by scaffolding student learning using Marzano’s taxonomy. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(1), 64–69. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00184.
Tytler, R. (2009). School innovation in science: Improving science teaching and learning in Australian schools. International Journal of Science Education, 31(13), 1777–1809. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802199889.
Venville, G., & Oliver, M. (2015). The impact of a cognitive acceleration programme in science on students in an academically selective high school. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 15, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.11.004.
Wei, B. (2020). The change in the intended senior high school chemistry curriculum in China: focus on intellectual demands. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2017, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00115h.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johnson, C., Boon, H. & Dinan Thompson, M. Cognitive Demands of the Reformed Queensland Physics, Chemistry and Biology Syllabus: An Analysis Framed by the New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Res Sci Educ 52, 1603–1622 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-09988-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-09988-4