promoting higher order thinking skills using inquiry-based learning

8
European Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 37, No. 2, May 2012, 117–123 Promoting higher order thinking skills using inquiry-based learning G.V. Madhuri a *, V.S.S.N Kantamreddi a and L.N.S. Prakash Goteti b a Department of Chemistry, GITAM University, Hyderabad Campus, Andhra Pradesh 502329, India; b Mahindra Satyam, Kompally, Hyderabad, India (Received 30 July 2011; final version received 1 December 2011) Active learning pedagogies play an important role in enhancing higher order cognitive skills among the student community. In this work, a laboratory course for first year engineering chemistry is designed and executed using an inquiry-based learning pedagogical approach. The goal of this module is to promote higher order thinking skills in chemistry. Laboratory exercises are designed based on Bloom’s taxonomy and a just-in-time facilitation approach is used. A pre-laboratory discussion outlining the theory of the experiment and its relevance is carried out to enable the students to analyse real-life problems. The perfor- mance of the students is assessed based on their ability to perform the experiment, design new experiments and correlate practical utility of the course module with real life. The novelty of the present approach lies in the fact that the learning outcomes of the existing experiments are achieved through establishing a relationship with real-world problems. Keywords: inquiry based learning; higher order thinking skills; Bloom’s taxonomy; experiment; real-life context 1. Introduction Active learning pedagogies that promote higher order thinking skills (HOTS) play an important role in the engineering education system. The students joining the colleges or universities come from diversified cultural and prior knowledge backgrounds. One of the challenges in imparting practical transferable skills pertaining to science subjects is that individuals adopt behavioural strategies to complete the tasks (or experiments) assigned. In the process, inquiry and HOTS are affected. This work focuses on a first year engineering chemistry laboratory course to address some of these challenges. In a traditional chemistry laboratory course, the students perform experiments with the help of a laboratory manual, wherein each step of the experimental procedure is described and is referred to as recipe lab (Domin 1999). The major limitation of this approach is the gap between the specific learning outcomes and their relevance to social knowledge construction. Another aspect of such a didactic approach is that it might not help in knowledge transfer in promoting HOTS among *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] ISSN 0304-3797 print/ISSN 1469-5898 online © 2012 SEFI http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2012.661701 http://www.tandfonline.com

Upload: afyudin

Post on 24-Nov-2015

29 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Madhuri, G.V., Kantamreddi, V.S.S.N & Goteti, L.N.S.P. 2011. Promoting Higher Order Thinking Skills Using Inquiry-BasedLearning. European Journal of Engineering Education 37(2): 117-123.

TRANSCRIPT

  • European Journal of Engineering EducationVol. 37, No. 2, May 2012, 117123

    Promoting higher order thinking skills using inquiry-basedlearning

    G.V. Madhuria*, V.S.S.N Kantamreddia and L.N.S. Prakash Gotetib

    aDepartment of Chemistry, GITAM University, Hyderabad Campus, Andhra Pradesh 502329, India;bMahindra Satyam, Kompally, Hyderabad, India

    (Received 30 July 2011; final version received 1 December 2011)

    Active learning pedagogies play an important role in enhancing higher order cognitive skills among thestudent community. In this work, a laboratory course for first year engineering chemistry is designed andexecuted using an inquiry-based learning pedagogical approach. The goal of this module is to promotehigher order thinking skills in chemistry. Laboratory exercises are designed based on Blooms taxonomyand a just-in-time facilitation approach is used. A pre-laboratory discussion outlining the theory of theexperiment and its relevance is carried out to enable the students to analyse real-life problems. The perfor-mance of the students is assessed based on their ability to perform the experiment, design new experimentsand correlate practical utility of the course module with real life. The novelty of the present approachlies in the fact that the learning outcomes of the existing experiments are achieved through establishing arelationship with real-world problems.

    Keywords: inquiry based learning; higher order thinking skills; Blooms taxonomy; experiment; real-lifecontext

    1. Introduction

    Active learning pedagogies that promote higher order thinking skills (HOTS) play an importantrole in the engineering education system. The students joining the colleges or universities comefrom diversified cultural and prior knowledge backgrounds. One of the challenges in impartingpractical transferable skills pertaining to science subjects is that individuals adopt behaviouralstrategies to complete the tasks (or experiments) assigned. In the process, inquiry and HOTS areaffected. This work focuses on a first year engineering chemistry laboratory course to addresssome of these challenges.

    In a traditional chemistry laboratory course, the students perform experiments with the help of alaboratory manual, wherein each step of the experimental procedure is described and is referred toas recipe lab (Domin 1999). The major limitation of this approach is the gap between the specificlearning outcomes and their relevance to social knowledge construction. Another aspect of sucha didactic approach is that it might not help in knowledge transfer in promoting HOTS among

    *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

    ISSN 0304-3797 print/ISSN 1469-5898 online 2012 SEFIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2012.661701http://www.tandfonline.com

  • 118 G.V. Madhuri et al.

    the student community. HOTS consists of three components, namely: meta-components; perfor-mance components; knowledge acquisition components (Sternberg 1995) Also, as Johnstone andcolleagues (Johnstone et al. 1998, Johnstone and Al-Shuaili 2001) commented: students can besuccessful in their laboratory class even with little understanding of what they are actually doing.In a conventional class room based environment, the scope might be little for the students to usetheir thought process and ingenuity. To overcome this and to initiate the process of inquiry inthe students mind, a pre-lab session is conducted in the class, where concepts pertaining to theexperiment are placed for an open discussion.

    Inquiry is the ability to think and work scientifically and is recommended by science andeducation leaders around the world (Miller and Osborne 1998, AAAS 2001, DEST 2002). Sci-entifically minded people are vital to science, technology and society because they are curious,forever trying to make sense of the world around them and they become lifelong learners. Hence,it is very important that education is taught in a way to impart HOTS, enabling students to makepersonal, social and economic decisions. The purpose of adapting inquiry-based learning in anundergraduate chemistry laboratory course is to impart HOTS by developing a students practicaland transferable skills, content knowledge and scientific understanding. The novelty of the presentapproach lies in the fact that the methodology has been implemented to the existing course modulewithout changing experiments by adapting the experience of faculty.

    Table 1. Example of questionnaire developed for inquiry-based learning

    Sl# Question description

    1 What is the difference between qualitative analysis and quantitative anaysis?2 What are the differences between normality, molarity, molality?3 What is the difference between end point and stoichiometric point?4 What is primary standard and secondary standard?5 What is the difference between reagents laboratory, general and analytical?6 What is the difference between the direct and indirect titrations?7 What are indicators and how do we know which indicator to be used in a given specific titration?8 What is the difference between macro, micro and semi micro scale?9 Oxidation and reduction how they are important for the titrations?

    10 Why is calibration needed for sceintific apparatus?

    Figure 1. Inquiry based unit of work flow chart. lab = laboratory; HOTS = higher order thinking skills.

  • European Journal of Engineering Education 119

    This paper reports how meaningful learning of chemistry has taken place by means of inquiry-based learning. The results reflect that the students develop critical thinking, problem-solvingability and integration of knowledge (Table 1 and Figure 1 illustrate this point). The transfer ofspecific skills and knowledge areas identified in the course is noticed through real-life problemssuch as measuring hardness of water, estimation of zinc in multi-vitamin tablets, estimation ofcalcium in cement, etc. The paper discusses how inquiry-based methodology is used for thechemistry laboratory course and the results are discussed in from perspective of imparting HOTSamong the student community.

    2. Methodology

    The present laboratory course deals with analytical chemistry. It focuses on quantitative analysisin general and volumetric analysis in particular. Due to paramount pressure on students at +2levels to enter into premier engineering institutions, they learn chemistry and physics by rote,in particular neglecting laboratory work. Hence, it may be fairly assumed that relevant priorknowledge of the students is minimal in terms of laboratory skills. Chemistry contains so muchinformation that students might experience difficulty in finding, understanding and assimilatingthe concepts that are vital.

    Inquiry can identify the relevant concepts that need to be understood, enabling the studentsto integrate knowledge-establishing patterns and thereby design new experiments. For the sameclass, the facilitator taught non-conventional sources of energy based on problem-based learning.(Madhuri and Goteti 2011). In this aspect the teachers and text books are important resources.There is an introductory discussion highlighting important concepts, namely: (i) units for con-centration; (ii) primary standard and secondary standard; (iii) apparatus needed; (iv) indicators;(v) oxidation; (vi) grades of chemicals available. These concepts are disseminated using a just-intime manner (Appleton 1993). Inquiry-based learning is based on student motivation and priorknowledge. Table 1 describes a sample inquiry form.

    2.1. Work flowIn order to (i) create curiosity and the motivation needed to perform the experiment, (ii) integratethe learning for social knowledge construction thereby enabling students to use the skills andknowledge gained in real life, the following work flow is used in conducting each experiment:

    A context for the experiment to be performed in the laboratory is developed with regard tophenomena, technical applications and their relevance to real life.

    There is a pre-laboratory discussion to assist the participants by posing relevant questions (suchas, for example, estimation of iron in a given material) and facilitating a thought process amongthe students to observe, plan, execute and interpret the results as part of their findings.

    There is a laboratory session to enable the students to develop the following: technical skills;observational skills; awareness of safety; recording data interpretation; report writing.

    An assessment based on both pre-laboratory and laboratory sessions.The individual steps of execution connected with the expected skills of higher order cognition

    (Boyeena et al. 2010, 2011, Vignan 2011) is shown in Figure 1. The conventional way of teachinga similar course is lacking, in terms of connecting the theory and its relevance to the experimentto be performed. To enable a meaningful execution of the experiments, an observation sheet isdesigned, which each student is instructed to fill in and use during practical sessions. This processfacilitates understanding of the relevant theoretical concepts to perform the experiment.

  • 120 G.V. Madhuri et al.

    2.2. Grading in laboratory sessions

    These experiments were primarily based on quantitative analysis. For example, the students hadto report the amount of a substance present in a given 100 ml of solution following the procedurediscussed in the pre-laboratory session. In the laboratory session, students perform the experi-ment and carry out the necessary calculations to arrive at a numerical value for the amount ofthe substance present in the given 100 ml solution. These results are presented in their reports.These were cross checked with exact given amounts and the students were asked to calculate thepercentage of error. Grades were awarded based on their % of error as given below:

    00.01% O grade. Above 0.01% and up to 0.1% A+ grade. Above 0.11% and up to 0.2% A grade. Above 0.2% and up to 0.3% B+ grade. Above 0.3% and up to 0.4% B grade. Above 0.4% C grade.

    The students who are absent for a given laboratory session are awarded an AB grade. Theperformance component of the students in five laboratory sessions is given in Figure 2. Grades ofthe students may be aligned to their ability to perform the experiment meaningfully and suggeststhat they could use the knowledge that was imparted to them during the pre-laboratory session.It also reflects that the present approach helps the participants to develop laboratory skills. Forexample, around 11% of the population attended the laboratories in experiment 1 and couldachieve accuracy up to 0.1%. The numbers are for the remaining four experiments and standaround 44%, 29%, 67% and 31% respectively. One of the challenges that was noticed in theprocess was during the execution of experiment 5. The students were not as involved and couldnot contribute much compared to the rest of the laboratory sessions as it was scheduled towardsthe end of the semester. The activities at the semester end also had a significant influence on thisaspect.

    Figure 2. Performance (in terms of grades) of students during laboratory sessions.

  • European Journal of Engineering Education 121

    2.3. Assessment mapping with HOTS

    The post-laboratory sessions are designed in such a way that there is a progressive develop-ment of the concepts, techniques and skills. This is to maximise the potential for learning andharness higher order cognition skills such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation. The masteryover the concepts learnt enables the students to build the ability of designing the experiments. Apost-laboratory session is conducted in the form of a questionnaire based on the pre-laboratoryand laboratory sessions for each experiment. Performance during the post-laboratory sessionreflects the fact that deep learning and the development of critical thinking has taken place,may be not in all the students but whoever has performed well both in the laboratory and post-laboratory sessions. Table 2 describes the mapping of specific questions to individual componentsof HOTS. Figure 3 depicts the marks obtained by the students in the post-laboratory session ofeach experiment.

    Table 2. Examples of questions contributing to higher order thinking skills (HOTS) components

    Category Question description HOTS component addressed

    Concept What is the type of reaction that takes place betweenFe2+ and KMnO4?

    Learning new information

    Analytical In Na2CO3 vs. HCl each mole of CO23 requires howmany moles of acid?

    Performance component; newanalytical skills are attained

    Understanding Why is H2SO4 added to the iron sample before titration? Planning, decision makingSocial knowledge I have a commercial soda ash sample with different

    percentages of Na2CO3, (90%, 80%, 99% and 75%).Give their rating from grade 1 to grade 4?

    Integration of knowledgeapplying and analysing

    Experimental design In a village the water in the well is hard. Can soda ashbe added to it? If yes, what is the precipitate that isformed?

    Evaluating, planning andexecution

    Figure 3. Performance of students in post-laboratory sessions.

  • 122 G.V. Madhuri et al.

    3. Discussion and conclusions

    In this work, inquiry-based learning of a chemistry laboratory course is executed. The processcomprises context, pre-laboratory, laboratory and post-laboratory sessions. All the pre-laboratorypost-laboratory sessions were designed and conducted successfully.

    Understanding scientific concepts and developing abilities of inquiry had taken place. Integration of scientific knowledge with regard to social perspective is emphasised. It can be noted from the grading process that most of the students are in the category of A+

    and B grades in most of the experiments, suggesting that the execution happened in an activeenvironment and the knowledge transfer from theory to practice.

    One of the challenges in the conduct of the students is significant absenteeism due to localdisturbances.

    Some of the students who secured O and A+ grades performed well, both in laboratory sessionsand post-laboratory assessments. Some of them have demonstrated interest in identifying theestimation of zinc in multi-vitamin tables. Most of the students performed the estimation ofhardness of ground water brought from their respective environment. This reflects the effec-tiveness of the current approach in enabling the students to construct social knowledge. Thestudents could also gain awareness on how analytical chemistry influences various walks oflife. For example, the students could assess which pathological laboratory is good in terms ofthe nature of reagents that are being used there.

    From the post-laboratory assessments, it was observed that constructivist learning had takenplace because most of the students were in the range of 69 marks on a 10-mark scale. Asshown in Figure 3, the percentage of people who scored above 7 marks stands at 90%, 30%,48%, 22% and 63% respectively.

    This study suggests that the present inquiry-based pedagogy has better proved outcomes com-pared to a conventional recipe lab approach. Some of the students lack motivation and this isparticularly attributed to the wrong notion that chemistry is not relevant to the engineering disci-pline as they study it for only two semesters out of eight. This experience can be more effective ifit is integrated with problem-based learning. These results are significant especially in terms of theperformance of participants to conduct systematic and accurate experiments. Enhancing the per-formance quotient of the class can be significantly influenced by such inquiry-based approaches.In addition, they enable participants to appreciate the importance and relevance of the concepts interms of real-life problems. Similar work needs to be carried out in other relevant disciplines, suchas mathematics and physics, to inculcate holistic thinking among participants to apply the conceptsthey learn in day-to-day real-life situations, thereby enabling them to become lifelong learners.

    References

    AAAS, 2001. Atlas of science and literacy. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Appleton, K., 1993. Using theory to guide practice: teaching science from a constructivist perspective. School, Science

    and Mathematics, 93, 269274,Boyeena, M. and Goteti, P., 2010. Promoting active learning through case driven approach: an empirical study on

    database course [online]. In: Proceedings of IEEE Student Technology Symposium, IIT, Kharagpur, India, 34 April2010. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5469181&isnumber=5469150[Accessed 15 July 2011].

    Boyeena, M. and Goteti, P., 2011.A blended approach to course design and pedagogy to impart soft skills: an IT companysexperiences from software engineering course [online]. In: Proceedings of IEEE Student Technology Symposium,IIT, Kharagpur, India, 1416 January 2011. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5783854&isnumber=5783792 [Accessed 1 June 2011].

  • European Journal of Engineering Education 123

    DEST, 2002. Review of teaching and teacher education strategies to attract and retain teachers of science, technology andmathematics [online]. Available from: http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/8C010E04-0076-433F-BF511A5B4EF10726/1658/DiscussionPaper.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2010].

    Domin, D.S., 1999. A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 543547.Johnstone, A.H. and Al-Shuaili, A., 2001. Learning in the laboratory: some thoughts from the literature. University

    Chemistry Education, 5, 4251.Johnstone, A.H., Watt, A. and Zerman, T.U., 1998. The students attitude and cognition change to a physics laboratory.

    Physics Education, 33, 2229.Madhuri, G.V. and Goteti, P., 2011. Imparting transferable skills and creating awareness among students on non-

    conventional energy sources using problem based learning. In: ICERI 2011 Proceedings, 1416 November 2011,Madrid, Spain, 69256929.

    Miller, R. and Osborne, J., 1998. Beyond 2000 [online]. Available from: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/32/03/b2000.pdf [Accessed on 5 February 2010].

    Sternberg, R.J., 1995. Conceptions of expertise in complex problem solving: a comparison of alternative conceptions. In:P.A. Frensch and J. Funke, eds. Complex problem solving: The European perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Mindbridge,295321.

    Vignan, S., et al., 2011. Integrating learning outcomes and blooms taxonomy in web application development course: expe-riences from corporate training [online]. In: Proceedings of IEEE Student Technology Symposium, IIT, Kharagpur,India, 1416 January 2011.Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5783855&isnumber=5783792 [Accessed 21 January 2011].

    About the authors

    G.V. Madhuri received her PhD in Chemistry from Osmania University. She has seven years of research experience andsix years of teaching experience at graduate and post graduate level. She is currently working as an Assistant Professor inchemistry at GITAM University, Hyderabad, where she is implementing inquiry-based learning, problem-based learningand activity-based learning methodologies.

    V.S.S.N. Kantamreddi received his PhD in Chemistry from University of Bradford, UK. He has seven years of researchand industrial experience and four years of teaching experience. He is currently working as an Assistant Professor inchemistry at GITAM University, Hyderabad.

    L.N.S. Prakash Goteti received his Ph.D. from the University of Hyderabad, India. His work is centered on the peripheralarea of computing and applied material science specific to Ion Solid Interactions. He has 15 years of combined experiencein terms of research, teaching and industry. He is also co-author of a book on Java Programming Language with PearsonEducation, New Delhi, along with Ken Arnold, Davis Holmes and Games Gosling. He is currently with TechnologyLearning Services, Mahindra Satyam, Hyderabad, India as Subject Matter ExpertTesting and Java Technologies. Hisresearch interests include curriculum innovation and outcome based education specific to Software Engineering andComputer Science.

  • Copyright of European Journal of Engineering Education is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its contentmay not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's expresswritten permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.