264

Publisher-Based Science Activities of the 1980s and ThinkingSkills

Daniel P. Shepardson Department of Curriculum and InstructionPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, Indiana 47907

Introduction

Although the commitment to promoting higher-orderthinking is becoming a national concern (Chance, 1986), thedevelopment of student thinking is not an outcome of currentscience instruction (National Assessment of EducationalProgress [NAEP], 1981). NAEP data suggest that students areproficient in the knowledge of everyday science facts but thattheir proficiency declines when tasks require the application ofbasic scientific information, theanalysis ofscientificproceduresand data, andthe integration ofscientific information (Mullis&Jenkins, 1988). The progression in NAEP proficiency levelscan becharacterized as aprogression in the ability to do science(Mullis &Jenkins, 1988)-to think scientifically, to use thinkingskills to apply, analyze, and integrate scientific information.Thus, it appears that the students’ science education experienceis emphasizing knowledge (facts and principles) and ignoringhigher-order thinking.

Sciencetextbooksplay adominantrole in science instruction(Stake & Easley, 1978; Weiss, 1987) and determine the sciencecurriculum. Textbook questions are the dominant study aidused to assist students in understanding science content(Holliday, 1981; Leonard, 1987); however, the cognitive levelof elementary and middle school science textbooks overemphasizelow-level cognitivequestions(Shepardson &Pizzini,1991; Staver & Bay, 1989), simply requiring students to recallbasic scientific facts and information. This fails to stimulatehigher-order thinking concerning scientific information.

Justas the science textbookdominates theteaching-learningofscientific information,publishertextbooks andsupplementalactivity guides dominate activity-based science instruction(Hofstein & Lunetta, 1982; Welch, Klopfer, Aikenhead, &Robinson, 1981). While publisher-prepared activities may beutilized as a means for promoting inquiry (Tafoya, Sunal, &Knecht, 1980) and the application ofthinking skills, the inquirylevel of publisher-based middle school activities is at theconfirmation and structured inquiry level (Pizzini, Shepardson,& Abell; 1991). Thus, a verification of scientific informationis promoted. The product (facts and principles) of science isstressed (Elliott&Nagel, 1987). Theemphasisonconfirmationand structured inquiry activities wouldsuggestadeemphasis onscientific orhigher-orderthinking. BrophyandAlleman (1991)have indicated that curriculum emphasizing a parade-of-factswill mostly be comprised of low-level activities, activities

which may fail to engage students in higher-order cognitiveoperations. Thepotential ofscience activities toengage studentsin the application of thinking skills is unknown.

Problem Statement

Since publisher activities are the predominant activity-based instructional approach used to teach science, it becomesimperative to understandtheimplication ofsuchan instructionalapproach on the development of higher-order thinking. Thisunderstanding becomes more essential in light of the NAEPstudent proficiency results (Mullis & Jenkins, 1988). Thespecific questions of this study were:

1. Is there a difference between textbook and supplementalguide activities in the thinking skills emphasized?

2. Whatthinkingskillsareemphasizedintexfbook activities?3. What thinking skills are emphasized in supplemental

guide activities?

Method

Thinking Skills

Thinkingskills aretheactivitiesappliedtoaspecific learningtask, the building blocks of thinking (Beyer, 1988; Jones,Palincsar, Ogle, & Carr, 1987). While different individualspropose different thinking processes, what is significant is thatall are based on the student’s ability to perform the essentialthinking skills (Presseisen, 1985). Thinking skills then areprerequisites for higher-order performances. Marzano et al.(1988), in a synthesis of the thinking skills literature andresearch, identified 21 common thinking skills grouped intoeightcategories (see Figure 1). These eight categories form thebasis of the analysis scheme.

Coding, Coder Training, and Coder Reliability

Each task (question or statement) within an activity whichrequiredstudents torespondwasevaluatedbasedonthe thinkingskills needed to complete the task. Coders analyzed each taskand recorded all thinking skills they deemed necessary tocomplete the task. The chapter textual information was alsoutilized in determining the thinking skills needed to completethe task. This was essential for determining the context of the

School Science and Mathematics

Science Activities265

Figure 1. The thinking skills analysis scheme.

Specific Skillsthinking CategoryFocusing

Information Gathering

RememberingOrganizing

Defining problemsSetting goalsObservingFormulating questionsRecallingComparingClassifyingOrderingRepresentingIdentifying attributes andAnalyzing

componentsIdentifying ideasIdentifying errorsIdentifying patterns and

relationshipsInferringPredictingElaboratingSummarizingRestructuringEstablishing criteriaVerifying

Generating

Integrating

Evaluating

activities and for identifying textual information related to theactivities.

Two coders participated in two 3-hour training sessions,utilizing elementary and senior high school publisher-basedactivities. These materials were utilized to prevent coder bias inthe analysis of junior high/middle school publisher-basedactivities. Codertraininginvolvedtheexplanation anddiscussionofthe thinking skill categories andanalysis scheme, explanationand discussion of coded activity examples, and practice codingand discussion of practice examples.

Coder reliability was determined by conducting ageneralizability study (Cronbach,Gleser,Nanda,&Rajaratnam,1972) in which eachcoderanalyzed the samerandomly selectedchapter activities within a textbook of each of the 14 textbooks.Thus, the generalizability study was conducted using a sampleof 14 chapter activities. The procedure produced a correlationcoefficient which describes the reliability ofthe coders, r = .95.

This analysisrepresents the face value level ofthinking skillsneeded to complete the activities. The response value level, orthe actual thinking skills students use to complete the task, willvaryby student ability, desire, experience, priorknowledge, andmaturity.

Sample

The 14 science textbooks and their supplemental guidesselected for analysis were among those identified by Weiss(1987) as the most commonly used junior high/middle school

science textbooks. The science textbooks selected account forover 60% of the junior high/middle school science textbookmarket (Weiss, 1987).

The science textbooks were evenly divided into foursequential clusters by chapter. Dividing the textbooks intofourths was designed to account for possible variation instudent activities that may occur as oneprogresses through thetextbook. Two chapters were randomly sampled from eachcluster. Thus, eight chapters were sampled per textbook,accounting for between 30% and 34% of the chapters. Allactivities within the chapterandcorrespondingactivities withinthe supplemental guides were analyzed. The chapter analysiswere combined to provide a textbook and or supplementalguide score by thinking skills. The sampling unit was thetextbook (n == 14) or supplemental guide (n = 14).

Data Analysis

To test for thinking skills emphasis between textbook andsupplemental activity guide activities, a MANOVA wasemployed. AunivariateF-testfollowed todetermine statisticaldifferencebyeffect. Tukey’spair-wisecomparisonwas utilizedto determine difference among thinking skill means withineach effect. Statistical computations were conducted usingSYSTAT (Wilkinson. 1988).

It should be noted that the data analysis procedure is notintended to imply thathigher-order thinking involves the equaldistribution ofthinking skills. Whatthedataanalysisproceduredoes is allows inferences to be drawn about the level ofthinking required to complete publisher activities based onthinking skill means.

Results

The descriptive statistics for thinking skills are depicted inTables 1 (textbook activities) and 2 (supplemental guideactivities).

The multivariate effectwas significant,F(14,142) = 28.26,p < .001. The multivariate effect indicates a statisticaldifference in thinking skill emphasis between textbook andsupplemental guide activities. The univariateF-testswere alsosignificant for thinking skills by effect�textbook activities,F(7,72) = 40.99. p < .001; supplemental guide activities,F(7,72) = 75.95, p < .001. The univariate tests suggest adifference in thinking skill emphasis within textbook andsupplemental guide activities.

The difference among thinking skill means and their levelofsignificance within textbook activities is presented in Table3. Of the 13 significant differences among thinking skillmeans, information gathering accounts for seven, whileremembering accounts for four. Theremainingtwo significantdifferences are attributed to organizing skills. Thus, thedominant thinking skills in textbook activities are informationgatheringandremembering. Analyzing, integrating, focusing,

Volume 93(5), May/June 1993

266Science Activities

Table 1

Thinking Skills Emphasis Within Textbook Activities

Thinking Skill

FocusingInformation GatheringRememberingOrganizingAnalyzingGeneratingIntegratingEvaluating

n

1414141414141414

Mean

0.0927.729.026.990.863.810.190.01

SD

0.2614.007.613.570.892.480.300.05

and evaluating thinking skills are subordinate in need. The 11significant differences among thinking skill means withinsupplemental guide activities are attributed to informationgathering (7) and remembering (4) skills (see Table 4).

Discussion

Table 2

Thinking Skills Emphasis Within Supplemental Activity Guides

ThinkingSkillMean SD

FocusingInformation GatheringRememberingOrganizingAnalyzingGeneratingIntegratingEvaluating

Table 3

Thinking Skills Mean Differences/or Textbook Activities

Focusing Information Gathering

IG 27.6***Rem 8.9***Or 6.9*An 0.8Gen 3.7In 0.1Ev 0.1

1414141414141414

18.7***20.7***26.9***23.9***27.5***27.7***

0.2982.0626.8813.482.0511.290.460.05

Remembering

2.08.1**5.28.8**9.0**

0.5412.1216.8811.342.757.530.630.09

think about, they appear to be over emphasized. That is,

publisher-based activities emphasize the collection ofinformation andrecalling ofscience content but require limitedthinking about the information collected or science contentrecalled.

The emphasis on information gathering, remembering, andorganizing skillspromotesscience experiencescenteredaroundscientific facts. Publisher-based activities simply requirestudents to make observations (information gathering), recall

Organizing Analyzing Generalyzing Integrating

6.13.2 3.06.8 0.7 3.67.0* 0.8 3.8 0.2

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 4

Thinking Skills Mean Differences for Supplemental Activity Guides

IGRemOrAnGenInEv

Focusing

81.8***26.6**13.21.8

11.00.20.2

Information Gathering

55.2***68.6***80.0***70.8***81.6***82.0***

Remembering

13.024.8**15.626.4**26.8**

Organizing

11.42.213.013.4

Analyzing

9.21.62.0

Generalyzing

10.811.2

Integrating

0.5

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

School Science and Mathematics

Science Activities267

previously learned scientific information (remembering), and tosome degree arrange data and information (organizing) asspecified. Based on Costa’s (1985) model of scientific thinking(see Figure 2), publisher activities focus on the data generatingand organizing processes of science. While these processes arenecessary, their over emphasis restricts students’ thinking withand about scientific information. Thus, the textbook andsupplemental activities students are exposed to emphasize low-level thinking. If science activities are to promote students’higher-order thinking, science activities mustengage students indata using and theory applying.

Figure 2, Aspects ofCosta’s (1985) modelof scientific thinking.

Data Generating ProcessesObservingMeasuringExperimentingResearching

Data Organizing ProcessesRecordingCompaingSequencingClassifying

Data Using ProcessesInferringTheorizingMaking analogiesGeneralizing

Theory Applying ProcessesHypothesizingPredictingDefining operationallyModel building

If science activities are to emphasize higher-order thinking,they mustbe viewed as more than an end in themselves but as ameans for providing students opportunities to interact withscience content (Brophy & Alleman, 1991). To improve thenature ofscience activities and thus the quality of thinking, firstrequires a curricular shift in content emphasis from facts togeneralizations (Brophy & Alleman, 1991). A curricularemphasis on scientific generalizations enable students toengagein activities that use and apply scientific processes and data.Further, according to Chuska (1986), science activities mustmeet four conditions in order to promote students’ higher-orderthinking: (a) somethingtothinkabout�scientific ideas.principals,theories; (b) something to think with-scientific data,observations, information; (c) some ways in which to think-thinking skills; and (d) something to think for-resolvingcontroversy, solving problems, making decisions, testinghypothesis, and evaluating conditions.

Although one can not generalize the limited use of higher-order thinking in science activities directly to the NAEP

proficiency data (Mullis & Jenkins, 1988), it is worth notingthe potential relationship. If the science activities that studentsengage fail topromotetheapplication, analysis,andintegrationof scientific information, it can not be expected that studentproficiency at such NAEP levels would be obtained. Mullisand Jenkins (1988) alluded to this relationship in theircomparison ofinstructional activities and student proficiency.They suggested that instruction that emphasized hypothesis-testing. hands-on activities, anddiscussingexperimentalresults,improved student proficiency; however, the results of thisstudy indicate that not any hands-on activity can engagestudents in higher-order thinking.

Based on the results of this study and the findings ofShepardson and Pizzini (1991) and Staver and Bay (1989) onthe cognitive level of textbook questions and Pizzini et al.(1991) on the inquiry level of publisher activities, it wouldappear that publisher-based programs promote learning ofscientific facts and principles at the expense of higher-orderthinking. While there may be a national commitment topromote higher-order thinking (Chance, 1986), publisher-based programs are not among the vanguard in scienceeducation.

Conclusion

While it could be debated as to what constitutes aneducationally sound mix of thinking skills to be used whencompleting science activities, the need to improve the use ofhigher-order thinking skills is nondebatable. Publishers’ mustbegin to analyze and develop products that emphasize higher-order thinking. Publisher-prepared materials often fail toclearly define the thinking operations (skills) inherent in theinstructional process (materials), inhibiting the developmentof thinking skills (Beyer, 1988). Further, the results of thisstudy support the notion that when the product of thinking(scientific facts and principles) is emphasized, the process ofthinking (thinking skills) that led to the product is ignored ordownplayed (Chuska, 1986). The point is that publisheractivitieswhichpromotethelearning (verification) ofscientificknowledge (Pizzini et al.. 1991) mustbe restructured to engagestudentsin higherlevelsofthinking aboutscientific information.The key to effective science activities is cognitiveengagement�the degree to which students think about andapply content�not just the completion of physical activities(Brophy & Alleman, 1991).

Recommendations for Further Research

This study investigated thepotential forpopular,publisher-based activities ofthe 1980s to engage students in higher-orderthinking. Additional research is needed on the new,contemporary publisher programs of the 1990s. Do thecontemporary publisherprograms reach a greater potential forengaging students in higher-order thinking? Further research

Volume 93(5), May/June 1993

Science Activities268

is also need on the relationship among the inquiry-level ofactivities andstudent thinking. Do open-inquiry level activitiesprovide a greater potential for engaging students in higher-orderthinking than confirmationand/or structured inquiry levelactivities? Finally, whatthinking skills areexhibitedby studentsengaged in publisher activities? Is there a relationship betweenthe thinking skills emphasized in publisher-based activities andthe thinking skills exhibited by students?

References

Beyer, B. K. (1988). Developing a thinking skills program.Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Brophy, J., & AUeman, J. (1991). Activities as instructionaltools: Aframeworkforanalysisandevaluation. EducationalResearcher, 20,9-23.

Chance, P. (1986). Thinking in the classroom. New York:Teachers College Press.

Chuska, K. (1986). Teaching the process of thinking, K-12.Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.

Costa. A. (1985). The behaviors of intelligence. In A. Costa(Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teachingthinking (pp. 66-68). Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.

Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N.(1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements:Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Elliott, D. L., & Nagel, K. C. (1987). School science and thepursuit of knowledge�Deadends and all. Science andChildren, 24,9-12.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (1982). The role of the laboratoryin science teaching: Neglected aspects ofresearch. Review

of Educational Research, 52,201-217.HoUiday, W. G. (1981). Selective attentional effects of

textbook study questions on student learning in science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18,283-289.

Jones, B., Palincsar, A., Ogle, D., & Carr, E. (1987). Strategicteaching and learning: Cognitive instruction in the contentareas. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

Leonard,W. H. (1987). Does thepresentation styleofquestionsinserted into text influence understanding and retention of

scienceconcepts? JournalofResearchin Science Teaching,24,27-37.

Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, B. F.,Presseisen. B. Z., Rankin, S. C., & Schor, C. (1988).Dimensions of thinking: Aframeworkfor curriculum andinstruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development.

Mullis, I., & Jenkins, L. (1988). The science report card:Elements of risk and recovery. Princeton,NJ: EducationalTesting Service.

NationalAssessmentofEducationalProgress. (1981). Reading,thinking, andwriting: The resultsfromthe 1979-80NationalAssessment of Reading and Literature. Denver, CO:Education Commission of the States.

Pizzini,E.L.,Shepardson,D.P.,&Abell,S.K. (1991). Theinquiry level of junior high activities: Implications toscience teaching. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching,28.111-121.

Presseisen, B. (1985). Thinking skills: Meanings and models.In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource bookforteaching thinking (pp. 43-53). Alexandria,VA: Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development

Shepardson, D. P., & Pizzini, E. L. (1991). Questioning levelsofjuniorhigh school sciencetextbooksandtheirimplicationsfor learning textual information. Science Education, 75,673-682.

Stake, R.E., & Easley. J.A. (1978). Case studies in scienceeducation. Urbana.EL: Center for Instructional Researchand Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois.

Staver, J.R., & Bay, M. (1989). Analysis of the conceptualstructure and reasoning demands of elementary sciencetexts at the primary (K-3) level. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 26,329-349.

Tafoya, E., Sunal. D., & Knecht, P. (1980). Assessing inquirypotential: A tool for curriculum decision makers. SchoolScience and Mathematics, 80,43-48.

Weiss, I.R. (1987). Report of the 1985-86 national survey ofscience and mathematics education. Research TrianglePark, NC: Research Triangle Institute.

Welch. W., Klopfer, L., Aikenhead, G., & Robinson. J. (1981).The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis andrecommendations. Science Education, 65,33-50.

Wilkinson, L. (1988). SYSTAT: The system for statistics[Computer program]. Evanston.IL: SYSTAT, Inc.

School Science and Mathematics