Science and Technology Education in the STES Contextin Primary Schools: What Should It Take?

Uri Zoller

Published online: 13 May 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract Striving for sustainability requires a paradigm

shift in conceptualization, thinking, research and education,

particularly concerning the science-technology-environ-

ment-society (STES) interfaces. Consequently, ‘STES lit-

eracy’ requires the development of students’ question

asking, critical, evaluative system thinking, decision mak-

ing and problem solving capabilities, in this context, via

innovative implementable higher-order cognitive skills

(HOCS)-promoting teaching, assessment and learning

strategies. The corresponding paradigms shift in science

and technology education, such as from algorithmic

teaching to HOCS-promoting learning is unavoidable,

since it reflects the social pressure, worldwide, towards

more accountable socially- and environmentally-respon-

sible sustainable development. Since most of the STES-

and, recently STEM (science-technology-engineering-

mathematics)-related research in science education has

been focused on secondary and tertiary education, it is vital

to demonstrate the relevance of this multifaceted research

to the science and technology teaching in primary schools.

Our longitudinal STES education-related research and

curriculum development point to the very little contribu-

tion, if any, of the traditional science teaching to ‘‘know’’,

to the development of students’ HOCS capabilities. On the

other hand, there appears to be a ‘general agreement’, that

the contemporary dominant lower-order cognitive skills

(LOCS) teaching and assessment strategies applied in sci-

ence and technology education are, in fact, restraining the

natural curiosity and creativity of primary school (and

younger?) pupils/children. Since creative thinking as well

as evaluative system thinking, decision making, problem

solving and … transfer constitute an integral part of the

HOCS conceptual framework, the appropriateness of

‘‘HOCS promoting’’ teaching, and the relevance of science

and technology, to elementary education in the STES con-

text, is apparent. Therefore, our overriding guiding purpose

was to provide any evidence-based research to the vital

LOCS-to-HOCS paradigm shift in STES education. The

findings of, and conclusions derived from our longitudinal

research on HOCS development within STES-oriented and

traditional education, suggest that both—science and tech-

nology education (STE) and STES education—are relevant

to primary school education. Based on this, what it should

take to insure success in this context, is thoroughly discussed.

Keywords Science and technology education �HOCS (Higher-order cognitive skills) �STES (Science-technology-environment-society) �Primay school

Introduction

Given the current striving for sustainability and the cor-

responding paradigms shift in science, technology, envi-

ronment, society (STES)-economy, policy (STESEP),

R&D, and the environment-anthropogenic activity inter-

relationships; e.g., from (a) unlimited/uncontrolled growth-

to-sustainable development; (b) correction-to-prevention;

and (c) passive consumption of ‘‘goods’’, science, culture

and education—to active contribution and participation in

the STESEP context, the corresponding paradigms shift of

science and technology teaching and learning, at all levels

of education, is unavoidable. In the context of education

this means a shift, within different multicultural contexts,

U. Zoller (&)

Faculty of Natural Sciences, Haifa University—Oranim,

Kiryat Tivon 36006, Israel

e-mail: uriz@research.haifa.ac.il

123

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:444–453

DOI 10.1007/s10956-011-9306-3

from the currently dominating lower-order cognitive skills

(LOCS) algorithmic teaching, to higher-order cognitive

skills (HOCS)-promoting learning. This implies a need for

paradigms shift in conceptualization, thinking, research,

science, and technology, as well as in STEM (science,

technology, engineering, mathematics) education, to be

consonant with interdisciplinary, transferable teaching

strategies and alternative, to the traditional, assessment

methodologies. It also implies an in accord, sustainable

action, ultimately leading students to ‘HOCS learning’

(Zoller, 1987, 1993, Zoller 2000a, b; Zoller and Pushkin

2007; Levy Nahum et al. 2010).

The ‘HOCS approach’ to teaching, learning and assess-

ment, constitutes a comprehensive educational ‘world out-

look’, the overarching conceptual model of which is

presented in Fig. 1 (Zoller and Levy Nahum 2011). Not

only the HOCS capabilities presented in the model are

context-, content- and related/resulted action taken-wise

overlapping, complementing and/or ‘interacting’ with one

another; their gain, by the learner, may be materialized,

applied, acted upon and assessed via the HOCS capability

of transfer. This model-based and research-evidenced

HOCS teaching practice was implemented in different set-

tings, in various modifications, at all levels of education—

primary, secondary and tertiary—worldwide, primarily in

science, technology and environmental education. This

includes novel teaching and learning strategies and proven

HOCS-promoting assessment methodologies, purposely

targeted at the development of students’ HOCS capabilities,

such as: question asking, critical evaluative system (lateral)

thinking, problem solving, decision making and transfer

(Zoller 1987; Dori and Herskovitz 1999; Barak et al. 2007;

Ben-Chaim et al. 2008; Levy Nahum et al. 2010).

All sciences are emerging as new multidimensional,

cross-, inter- and transdisciplinary disciplines (Mihelcic

et al. 2003). They draw on all the basic sciences for

explaining the workings of the complex, dynamic earth

system—the environment, which constantly changes as a

result of natural causes and anthropogenic impact (Glaze

2002). Thus, the sciences, technology and engineering are

undergoing a process of distancing themselves from spe-

cialized, compartmentalized, sub-disciplinary, uni-dimen-

sional enterprises. They focus, instead, on multidimensional,

cross-boundary complex systems in the STES-E-P interfaces

context (Zoller 2000a, 2001; Gibbons and Nowotny 2001).

The above process is, simultanouly, both the cause and the

result of the paradigms shift in science, technology and

engineering. The related paradigms shift in STES/STEM

education are to be expected and actually are occurring

(Table 1) (Zoller and Scholz 2004).

The guiding rationale of this paper is based on these

paradigms shift (Table 1), contemporarily occurring in

people’s/societies’ world outlook, national and interna-

tional policies, economic management, science, technol-

ogy/engineering and, consequently, in science and

technology education as well as, more recently, in STEM

education too (Zoller 2000a, b, 2004; Zoller and Scholz

2004).

Accordingly, a persistent implicit-to-explicit research-

based shift from teaching to ‘know’—to learning to ‘think’,

based on proven-to-work HOCS-promoting teaching

strategies and consistent assessment methodologies, is the

task ahead of contemporary STES/STEM education,

worldwide. The relevance of science and technology edu-

cation in the STES context to primary school pupils is

apparent. Less so clear is what should it—educationally,

strategically and systemically- take, in order to achieve the

pre-determined learning and educational objectives and

‘how to do it’.

Rationale, Conceptual Framework and Purpose

For years there is an ever increasing gap between the

reality of modern society, based on science, technology,

‘‘global village’’ competitive economies, high level of

knowledge and advanced, sophisticated networking sys-

tems and their perception by students, teachers, educational

systems, parents and society particularly concerning

schooling and education. The essence of this gap is the

common perception that the main task of the public edu-

cational systems is to advance students up the classes

ladder, based on their passing of disciplinary LOCS—

based, algorithmic knowledge tests (Zoller 1993; Zoller

et al. 1995). As a result, ‘‘Excellence’’ and/or ‘‘Excelling’’

is thus being measured and perceived according to the

pupils/students ‘‘grade achievement’’—as the exclusive

criterion.

Evaluative Thinking

Critical Thinking Question Asking

System Thinking Decision Making

Problem Solving

Transfer

Fig. 1 The HOCS conceptual model in the context of science

education

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:444–453 445

123

Such a state of affairs demands an alternative to the

existing educational practice, in order to prepare students

for an excellent personal and societal performance, as

motivated curious citizens, eager to learn and inquire;

being active and involved and capable of question asking

critical, creative and system evaluative thinking, analysis

of unfamiliar situations, making decisions, solving prob-

lems and, most important, take responsibility for their

consequent action and behavior, accordingly (Zoller, 1993,

1994, 1999, 2000a, b; Zoller and Levy Nahum 2011, Levy

Nahum et al. 2010).

This alternative means: No more ‘‘preparing’’ students

to become effective performing citizens in society by

imparting mainly, disciplinary knowledge, via ‘test wise-

ness’-oriented, lower-order cognitive skills (LOCS) level

algorithmic teaching- to- know’ instruction. Rather, the

development and fostering of ‘HOCS learning’ and trans-

fer, as the ‘‘king’s road’’ for empowering students toward

rational, effective, excellence and responsible active par-

ticipation in whatever role they will play in society, in the

future.

A major driving force in the current effort to reform

science, technology, STES and STEM education, world-

wide, is the conviction of many that it is vital for our

students to develop their HOCS capability, and conse-

quently ‘STES literacy’. This would empower them to

actively function and meaningfully participate in the rele-

vant decision making processes in the complex STES

interfaces context of our multicultural society (Zoller 1993,

Zoller 2000a, b; Zoabi and Zoller 2010; Zoller and Levy

Nahum 2011; Levy Nahum et al. 2010). Accordingly,

science, technology and STEM teachers, at all levels of

education, are requested to modify their teaching and

assessment strategies, by shifting the emphasis from the

traditional LOCS rote-teaching, to question asking,

evaluative system thinking and decision making-problem

solving ‘HOCS-learning’, situated in relevant real-world

phenomena, in STES interfaces contexts (Zoller 1996).

HOCS are conceptualized as non-algorithmic, non-lin-

ear, complex multi-component conceptual frameworks of

reflective, rational and critical-systemic evaluative think-

ing, focusing on deciding what to believe in and do, or not

to do, how to resolve problems, followed by responsible

actions, accordingly (Ben-Chaim et al. 2008; Zoller 1987,

1993, Zoller 2000a, b; Zoller and Levy Nahum 2011).

Thus, the HOCS model encompasses several interwoven

forms of overlapping and complementing cognitive capa-

bilities (Fig. 1).

Most important, the conceptual model of HOCS incor-

porates interrelated generic non-content-wise, but context-

wise cognitive capabilities. It is, thus, a non-directional

model, neither specifically ordered, nor linearly hierarchi-

cal. As such, it is (a) non linearly-ordered concerning the

various capabilities involved; (b) not demanding a partic-

ular ‘hierarchy’ in the development or acquirement of its

various components; and (c) an overlapping collection of

synergistic capabilities, where a linear progress should not,

necessarily, be maintained in an individual’s learning

process, nor should it be applied in a linear bottom-up

mode. The transfer capability, however, is conceptualized

as an overarching HOCS capability essential for ‘bringing

home’ the objectives of HOCS learning in different

learning situations and real-life problem solving contexts.

This suggests the need for designing science teaching,

assessment and learning within a challenging curriculum,

targetted at promoting learners’ capability of generating

ideas and alternatives, rather than just selecting among

already given/available alternatives (Zoller and Scholz

2004). Thus, the ever increasing demand for socially

responsible scientific and technological literacy, requires a

Table 1 Selected paradigms shifts in contemporary Science, technology, engineering R&D and STES/STEM oriented education

From To

• Technological and economical, growth at all cost… Sustainable development

• Correction (via Sci. and Technol.) of undesirable results Prevention- to begin with

• People’s ‘‘wants’’ People’s needs

• Dealing with in vitro isolated, highly controlled, components Dealing in vivo with complex systems

• Passive consumption of ‘‘goods’’, Culture and education Active and responsible participation in the real world STES

context

• Disciplinary approach Transdisciplinary approach

• Technological feasibility Economical-societal feasibility

• Decisions involving selection among available alternatives Decision making concerning alternatives to be generated

• Algorithmic lower-order cognitive skills (LOCS) teaching ‘‘HOCS Learning’’

• ‘‘Reductionist’’ thinking System/lateral thinking

• Disciplinary teaching (physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, etc.)—to

‘know’

Interdisciplinary learning to ‘think’ for transfer

446 J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:444–453

123

research-based HOCS-promoting curriculum development

and implementation, within which the related appropriate

teaching strategies and assessment methodologies will

ensure the attainment of these pre-determined goals.

Science and ‘‘STES literacy’’ in Primary Schools

The importance and vitality of teaching science and tech-

nology in primary schools, particularly in their STES

interface contexts, are accepted by all involved in educa-

tion. The justification and rationalization of supporting this,

‘‘should be taught’’, at the primary level, may be various

(Eshach 2006). However, all suggested reasons converge to

the paradigm shift applicable at all levels of science and

technology education: from teaching-to- know-to-learning

to ‘‘think’’ (Brady 2008; Bunce 2009; Orion and Trend

2009; Zoller 1993; Zoller and Levy Nahum 2011). Our

rationale for ‘‘STES literacy’’, at all educational levels, is:

Although science and technology may be useful in

establishing what we can do, neither of them (solely

or jointly can tell us what we should do. The latter

requires… the development of the (students’) ability

to be engaged in HOCS-based forms of inquiry, i.e.,

critical, creative (evaluative, system) thinking, dici-

sion making and problem solving, in dealing with

characteristically interdisciplinary, everyday life sit-

uations… (Zoller 1993).

An overwhelming number of recently published papers

deals—with (a) the need for developing our pupils’ and

students’ ‘scientific literacy’ with relevance to everyday

life problems and socio-scientific decisions (Eshach 2006;

Hoolbrook and Ranikmae 2009; Zoller and Levy Nahum

2011), and (b) the huge challenges of effective education

needed for ‘getting there’ (Connonly 2009). It is quite

surprising, therefore, that just with few exceptions, devel-

oped and implemented neither research- nor evidentially-

based underpinned by research. Thus, for example, neither

of two large-scale US national, inquiry-based learning and

scientific literacy-‘‘based’’ educational programs, recently

implemented, were either research- and/or evidentially-

based, ideated, developed, or actually implemented in

schools. The standards-driven progress that all students

should learn, as they make progress toward science literacy

(NSTA 2005), is supposed, and expected, to increase the

scientific literacy (AAAS 2010; Millar 2006) of the (US)

nation’s students. It was, ultimately, found disappointing:

Nearly one-third of states lowered their academic profi-

ciency standards in recent years (a step that helps schools

stay ahead of sanctions under the No Child Left Behind

Law) (New York Times, 2009). In a related recent letter

from Brown Center on education (Whitehurst and Croft

2009), the following statement was made:

Don’t forget Curriculum; we concluded that the

effects of curriculum on student achievement are

larger, more certain, and less expensive than the

effect of popular reforms such as common standards,

charter schools, and reconstituting the teacher work-

force. We recommenced that curriculum has a

prominent place in the education reform agenda.

What appears to be missing here is the research (or

evidentially)-based’ curriculum, on the summative evalu-

ation of the extent of its goals attainment, the curriculum—

to be implemented, is based on. The interest and relevance

to STEM education, at the elementary and secondary levels

is thus apparent. Selected related excerpts from Obama’s

Council of Advisors on science and technology (PCAST

2009) report are given below:

Despite our historical record of achievement, the

United States now lags behind other nations in STEM

education at elementary and secondary levels. The

problem is not just a lack of proficiency among

American students; there is also a lack of interest in

STEM fields among many students. Some of the

problem, is attributable to schools that failing sys-

temically; even schools that are generally successful

often fall short in STEM fields Schools often lack

teachers who know how to teach science and math-

ematics effectively, and who know and love their

subject well enough to inspire their students. Teach-

ers lack adequate support, including appropriate

professional development as well as interesting and

intriguing curricula. School system lack tools for

assessing progress and rewarding success. The nation

lack clear, shared standards for science and math that

would help all actors in the system set and achieve

goals. As a result, too many American students

conclude early in their education that STEM subjects

are boring, too difficult, or unwelcoming, leaving

them ill-prepared to meet the challenges that will face

their generation, their country, and the world.

Finally, a recently released report in the US asserts, that

education programs should more explicitly train teacher

candidates in the rudiments of developmental science,

based on our much more than before knowledge on the

skills progression that leads to confident literacy, or the

way making material relevant engages an adolescent.

Furthermore, developmental science incorporates cognitive

science -how children learn to think and process informa-

tion. Therefore a greater emphasis on developmental sci-

ence in the course of teacher preparation is especially

warranted as one way of boosting (cognitively?) academic

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:444–453 447

123

achievement (NCATE 2010). The relevance of this report

and its recommendations to ‘HOCS Learning’ in the STES

context, as well as to the ways for exposing pupils to sci-

ence and technology, so that they will develop their

HOCS—is apparent.

Finally, children are naturally curious, the extend of

which is, apparently, each individuals personality trait

dependant. They keep asking questions to others around

them and quite often come up with their own ‘solutions’ to

the ‘problems’ they are confronted with, occasionally fol-

lowing their turning their questions into a ‘‘mini quest’’.

The advancement of HOCS in primary science and tech-

nology education, is expected to meaningfully contribute to

a shift from—providing, by students, one correct answer,

to questions asked (by teachers, or in exams) and the

resolving of these (mainly) algorithmic exercises

(LOCS)—to question asking and problem solving, both

HOCS (Zoller 1987, 1993; Zoller et al. 2002; Zoller and

Levy Nahum 2011; Zoller et al. 1995).

Science and Technology Learning in the STES Context

A Guiding Model for Research-Based Curriculum

Development

Based on both our longitudinal HOCS-oriented research

and related teaching and assessment applied practice,

manly in secondary and tertiary education, the following

model for curriculum development is proposed particularly

for science and technology education in the STES context:

(1) What should be done? That is, what are the educa-

tional short- and long-term objectives/goals?

(2) What can be done, given the particular local (where

the curriculum is to be implemented) constraints?

(3) How to do what was agreed upon? That is, the

teaching, assessment, learning strategies and other

relevant components of HOCS-promoting science

education.

(4) What subject matter will best serve the pre-deter-

mined objectives/goals of the new curriculum to be

developed?

(5) What, in accord, formative and summative assess-

ment and methodologies should be applied in the

implementation stage in order to ensure the dynamic

sustainability of the new, being implemented,

curriculum?

Following creatively the above sequence provides the

potential for the successful implementation of a newly-

developed research-based science technology and STES

curricula.

The Case of the STES-Oriented STEMS Curriculum

Project

In 1992, the Israeli government adopted a proposed reform

on secondary education targeted at the design of a new

‘‘science for all’’ curriculum (‘‘Tomorrow 98’’, 1992). The

integration of the Science-Technology-Society (STS) ori-

entation in science education (Yager 1991, 1996) with

environmental education has yielded the STES orientation

in science teaching, learning and education at large, at all

levels (Zoller 1993, Zoller 2000a, b). Thus, within the

framework of this reform, seven HOCS promoting STES-

oriented modules, targeted at both science and non-science

high-school students (Tal et al. 2001); Levy Nahum et al.

2010), have been developed and implemented within the

framework of the curricular project—Science, Technology

and Environment in Modern Society (STEMS). Each of

these modules, developed by a different team of teachers,

from different schools, was also designed to serve as an

effective manageable STES-oriented curricular unit,

incorporating research-based HOCS-promoting teaching,

learning and assessment strategies. The entire project was

accompanied by a unified teachers’ and students’ guide

[‘‘Eshnav Le-MATAS’’ (A ‘window’ to STEMS), Zoller

1998], which focuses on all aspects of relevant theoretical,

pedagogical, teaching and learning strategies particularly

aimed at the promotion of HOCS and the conceptualization

and transfer of fundamental concepts.

The curricular modules were designated for 10th- and

11th-graders, not necessarily science students. These

modules were implemented in 10th grade classes with 264

students, divided into two groups: A (N = 142) science

oriented high achievers, and B (N = 122) non-science low

achievers. The modules were designed and have actually

been implemented in the ‘‘spirit’’ of science and technol-

ogy/STES for all—based on the following statement:

… Science and Technology may, at best, teach us

what can be done, but they cannot, solely or together,

tell us what should be done, particularly in the STES

interfaces context. Research-based STES education is

targeted at the development of students’ HOCS to

empower them—to capably dealing with ‘what

should be done? This is the task ahead for science and

technology education. (Zoller 1998, p. 4)

Selected modules of the STEMS project in terms of

contents, learning approaches, and conceptualization, by

students, of selected fundamental scientific concepts, e.g.,

reversible versus irreversible processes, systems, period-

icity, dynamic equilibrium and others, which are relevant

to any scientific technological and social science discipline

are presented below (Table 2).

448 J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:444–453

123

However, socially and environmentally responsible

behaviors will not, necessarily, evolve just from the

knowing or understanding of key STES-STEM, or science

and technology (S&T)-related fundamental concepts.

Therefore, the STEMS curriculum supported students in

formulating their own views on the issues in focus and in

their thinking concerning what it means to act wisely,

justly and responsibly in socio-environmental contexts

(Hodson 2003, 2004). All of this requires the shifting from

focusing on ‘what should our students know in order to

succeed in the final examination?’’—to ‘How should our

students be able to think, decide, solve/resolve, do and act

responsibly (Zoller 1993, 2000a, b; Zoller and Levy

Nahum 2011). This raises the issue of assessment of both—

students’ learning in day-to-day school practice and results/

findings of the related educational research.

The Crucial Role of Assessment

Given the current state of affairs, it is no wonder that class

or external examinations and tests, mostly on the LOCS-

level, have turned the assessment into the master, rather

than the servant, of teaching, learning, curriculum and

education, science education in particular. Since curricu-

lum development is instructional-educational goals-tar-

geted, the assessment methodology applied determines the

type, quality and level of their attainment.

The large-scale PISA of scientific literacy reflects a

progressive alternative to the traditionally favored assess-

ment of developing assessment of school-based science

knowledge (Bybee et al. 2009). Its success demonstrates

the possibility of developing assessment tools, centered on

real world science and technology contexts in secondary

science education (Fensham 2009).

The conceptualization of the crucial role of assessment in

STS, STES, STEM and, particularly, in the traditional sci-

ence and technology teaching and learning, at all levels, is

gaining momentum. Its importance as accountability

requirements intensify and is increasingly being recognized

as having the potential to improve teaching and learning.

Yet, the extent that science teachers use the variety of the

already developed and available HOCS-promoting assess-

ment strategies and examinations, is still limited (Zoller

1993, 1994, 1999; Zoller et al. 1995; Zoller 2004; Zoller

and Ben-Chaim 1997; Zoller 2001; Zoller and Pushkin

2007; Smith et al. 2010; Zoller and Levy Nahum 2011). The

author strongly believes that research-based development of

HOCS-promoting curricula, teaching and, most important,

learning, requires a HOCS-promoting assessment.

Results of science students’ performance in graduate

and undergraduate HOCS-oriented courses are given in

Table 3 (Zoller 1992), followed by two illustrative

Examples (1, 2) of HOCS-type examination questions in

higher education (Zoller 1990, 1991, 1993, 2004; Ben-

Chaim et al. 2008).

Each of the HOCS-oriented strategies applied (sepa-

rately, or in combination with others) in science and/or

STES courses, was accompanied by in-class, follow-up

research and formative-type evaluation. Regardless of the

particular strategy implemented and studied, the general

teaching style in the chemistry-classes taught by the author

was HOCS-oriented. The research methodology applied in

the 1992 study was accompanied by the implementation of

the eclectic examination (EE) and the individualized

Table 2 Selected STEMS modules—contents, learning approaches, fundamental concepts and skills

Stems module Contents/topics Teaching/learning approaches Student skills Fundamental scientific concepts

The white gold

in deep soil—

groundwater

Groundwater as a natural

ecological system, and a

resource, the impact of human

activity on groundwater

Mini-research, investigating lab

work, field work, data

analysis, simulation games

and self- and group learning,

model design

Question asking,

interdisciplinary

problem-solving,

evaluative thinking,

creative thinking

Dynamic equili-brium,

reversible and irreversible

process, systems, exponential

growth, sustainable

development

The brain behind

the power

The time-tunnel, human

physical limitations, simple

machines, the industrial

revolution, hi-tech industry,

the human brain versus the

computer, man and machines

Brain-storming, question asking,

class discussion, inquiry (lab),

visiting science museum and

industry, performance of an

engineering task, role playing

Technology

assessment,

evaluative thinking,

decision making,

value judgment

Sustainable development,

technology assessment,

reversible and irreversible

process, exponential growth,

optimization

The

metropolitan

animal,

develop-ment

and

preservation:

Tel-Aviv—

Jaffa

Science-technology-

environment

interrelationships,

construction and development

of transportation, business,

culture and entertainment

Working with data graphs, field

observations, teamwork,

decision making problem-

solving, question asking,

inquiry-based learning

Data analysis,

interdisciplinary

problem solving,

technologyassessment, inquiry-

based decision

making

Quantitative and qualitative

change, dynamic equil-brium,

reversible and irreversible

process, exponential growth,

sustainable management

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:444–453 449

123

eclectic examination (IEE) (Zoller, 1990, 1991) in two

college undergraduate (S-1 and S-2) and one graduate

(G-1) course. The most important results are the gains in

HOCS capability, 71.7 ? 78.0 and 77.0 ? 82.7 in

undergraduate and graduate courses, respectively, as a

result of the implementation of HOCS-oriented teaching

strategies. Whether or not these gains are, or are not,

statistically significant is not important; rather, the increase

in their students’ HOCS capability is the issue at point

Example 3.

Problem solving in ‘HOCS learning’ are very different

from the conventional dominant ‘exercise’ solving in the

dominant, traditional algorithmic ‘LOCS teaching’ and

assessment practice in science and technology education

Table 3 Mean scores and standard Deviations of Students’ ‘HOCS performance’ in HOCS-oriented courses (Zoller 1991, 1993)

Course Entrya Traditional home

assignments

IEE Project Course grade (SD) Db Final—entry

S-1 71.7

(9.7)

67.2

(11.1)

79.8

(7.2)

78.0

(9.7)

72.6

(7.8)

?6.3

S-2 79.8

(7.6)

75.7

(6.5)

79.0

(8.6)

78.4

(6.4)

78.8

(5.8)

-0.8

G-1 77.0

(4.0)

81.1

(6.2)

–c 82.7c

(5.5)

84.7

(3.2)

?5.7

a Scores are based on the assessment of the students’ first assignment in each course, using HOCS as criteria for the evaluationb Difference in mean scores between the final project and the first course assignmentc The final projects in this course were a ‘‘take-home’’ IEE-type assignments (Zoller 1990, 1991)

Example 1 A HOCS-type exam question/problem (freshman biology class)

An industrial plant is emitting combustion gases into the atmosphere as well as waste water containing acids, oils and fuels into a municipal

sewage system. In order to cope with the problems related to this and, hence, improving the quality of the environment, inside and outside the

plan, the following suggestions were brought before the factory management:

(a) Neutralization of the acidity in the factory waste effluents before their disposal into the municipal sewage system;

(b) Using kerosene, instead of water, as a solvent for the washing of the factory workers’ clothes;

(c) Heightening of the plant’s chimneys, in order to ensure a better dispersion of its emission gases in the atmosphere;

(d) Introduction of an alternative technology for fuel combustion in the plant, in order to obtain the energy required for production;

With respect to each of the above suggestions, think and explain briefly:

(1) In your opinion, which of the proposals, would it be reasonable to assume, will be accepted by the management and why?

(2) Which of the suggestions, if accepted and implemented, will indeed improve (or worsen) the quality of the environment inside and outside the

plant?

Example 2 A HOCS-type exam question/problem (primary school level)

Many of teh residents of a small town on a river bank work in a factory which produces paper. In the production process a strong disinfectant is

uesd, the residues of which, at the end of the process, are streamed, while being dissolved in water, into the nearby river and thus pollute it. In

order to overcome the pollution of the town’s river, the following suggestions were proposed to the factory’s management:

(a) Treatment/purification/removal of the residual disinfectant material inside the factory, before the residuals containing water are streamed into

reiver;

(b) To use andother disinfectant instead of the one currently being used in the production process;

(c) To dilute the polluted water before it is streamed into the river;

(d) To develop and apply a new/another disinfecting process in which the disinfectant curently being used will not be needed anymore;

(e) To reduce the quantity of the paper produced in the factorey and, in parallel the number of the workers; thus the river polllution (by the

disinfectant material would be decreased).

With respect to each of the above suggestions, think and explain briefly:

(1) In your opinion, which of the a–e proposals, do you think will be accepted by the factory’s management? Explain WHY?

(2) Which of the a–e suggestions, if accepted and are applied, will, in your opinion, reduce the river polllution meaningfullly? Justify your

opinion

(3) What, in your opinion is more important: Preventing the river’s polluation outside the factory, or inside the paper factrory, for the wellbeing

of its workers? Explain your opinion

450 J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:444–453

123

(Zoller, 1993; Johnstone 2001; Jones-Wilson 2005; Ben-

Chaim et al. 2008). Illustrative examples of HOCS evalu-

ative thinking/problem solving examination questions is

given below.

The above HOCS-type, multi-items/questions/problems

were applied in the framework of higher education. The

following exam question (2), is a modified version of

question 1, believed to be suitable for application in the

primary school level.

The essence of the messages conveyed by these 4

examples are (1) STES-oriented science education, pur-

posed at promoting students’ HOCS capabilities, via in

accord research-based teaching and assessment strategies,

is doable; (2) Appropriate primary school-oriented design

of HOCS-type examination questions is doable and should

be done; and (3) The development of HOCS capabilities in

primary education requires not only the development and

implementation of new HOCS-promoting curricula but also

a HOCS-promoting assessment methodology.

‘HOCS Learning’: What should it take?…and How

should it be done?

Although most of the HOCS-promoting STES education-

related studies and curriculum development has been done

in the context of secondary and freshman tertiary levels of

education, the relevance of ‘HOCS learning’ to the teach-

ing of science and technology—for ‘STES literacy’—in

primary schools is apparent (Eshach 2006). The essence of

longitudinal research studies, focusing on HOCS develop-

ment of science students, has been here presented and

discussed. Their main limitation, in the context of this

paper, is that they primarily relate to tertiary, not primary,

science education teaching and assessment, targeting at the

development of the HOCS capabilities of pupils in primary

education. However, since HOCS are generic content-wise

and ‘specific’ context-wise (Levy Nahum et al. 2010;

Zoller and Levy Nahum 2011), ‘HOCS Learning’ in the

STES context is applicable to primary education (see: Gatt

2000; Wardle 2004; Malamitsa et al. 2009).

The superordinate goal of this strategic approach is the

achieving of a person capable of the ‘Decision Making-

Problem Solving Act’ (Zoller 1990) in the STES context;

that is:

(1) Look at the problem and its implications, and

recognize it as a problem.

(2) Understand the factual core of knowledge and

concepts involved.

(3) Appreciate the significance and meaning of various

alternative possible solutions (resolutions).

(4) Exercise the problem-solving act:

• Recognize/select the relevant data information;

• Analyze it for its reasonableness, reliability and

validity;

• Devise/plan appropriate procedures/strategies for

future dealing with the problem(s).

(5) Apply value judgments (and be prepared to defend!).

(6) Apply the Decision Making act:

• Make a rational choice between available alter-

natives, or generate new options;

• Make a decision (or take a position).

(7) Act according to the decision made.

(8) Take responsibility!

Achieving that would require the

Example 3 Illustrative LOCS verus HOCS-requiring questions

Based on the paragraph below:

‘‘Bottled water was found to account for 12% of the cases studied, salad 21% and chicken 31% … The association with salad may be explained

by cross-contamination of food within the home, but the possibility that natural mineral water is a risk factor for campylobacter infection could

have wide public health implications. Scientists compared 213 campylobacter cases with 1,144 patients who went to their GP with stomach

problems but were not infected with the bug. Information was obtained on foods the patients had eaten, animal contact, foreign travel, medical

conditions and treatments… In Europe, legislation states that mineral water must be free from parasites and infectious organisms but, unlike tap

water, it cannot be treated in any way that may alter its chemical composition.’’ (Taken from a scientific journal, 2003)

LOCS HOCS

According to the article: Is the higher mineral content of the

bottled water (compared to ‘‘ordinary’’ tap water)

responsible for the higher health risk of the former?

Suggest a controlled experiment in the lab, via which you’ll

be able to unequivocally determine that the difference in

the mineral content between bottled and tap water is not

responsible for the difference in their relative health risk.

The disinfection of bottles used in the food industry is

being done by Cl2 (gas) in basic aqueous solution. Write

the reaction mechanism in this oxidation process. Which

is the active specie?

Assuming that the reported research has been conducted

properly and the presented data are reliable and valid;

What, in your opinion, is the reason for the poisonous

potential of bottled water? Justify your conclusion

Zoller (2004)

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:444–453 451

123

• Promoting an open and supportive atmosphere in the

S&T classrooms,

• Defining, explicitly, the course’s and lesson’s goals and

objectives,

• Providing students with opportunities to explore,

• Examining and considering different possible alterna-

tives for solutions/resolutions when confronted with

problems,

• Encouraging students to ask HOCS-type questions

concerning the issues involved by fostering of in-class

‘Question-Asking’ and critical (evaluative) thinking,

• No specific one course textbook to be assigned; rather,

teach, learn and assess beyond the formal textbooks/

frameworks,

• Students’ learning of material before, it is ‘covered’ by

the instructor in class,

• Lecture, recitation and lab sessions to be integrated

within the course,

• Administration of specially designed HOCS-oriented

examinations,

• Including students’ learning materials—textbooks,

notebooks, personal notes, etc., in all examinations,

take-home examination, oral or ‘paper and pencil’ tests

(i.e., open book exams).

• Administering open HOCS-type, rather than multiple-

choice, or true–false question exams,

• Encouraging explanations and fostering of argumenta-

tion skills rather than just relying on narrow-scope

clear-cut definitions,

• Focusing on problem-, rather than on exercise-solving,

• Encouraging of cooperative learning environments

which generate an ideal setting for developing HOCS.

There is available research-based literature which pro-

vides the guidance for how to do it (e.g., Zoller and Levy

Nahum 2011). Guidelines for the development of scientific

and technological literacy in primary science education are

also available (e.g., Chen and Novick 1996). Since ‘HOCS

Learning’ is attainable and can be done, it should be

done!!! and implemented—at all levels of science and

technology education, primary education included.

References

AAAS (2010) Project 2061’s. Using Atlas of Science Literacy. http://

www.project2061.org.atlas

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 Edu 37:353–369

Ben-Chaim D, Barak M, Lubezky A, Zoller U (2008) College science

students’ ability to resolve chemistry problems requiring higher-

order-cognitive skills. J Res Sci Teach (Submitted)

Brady M (2008) Cover the material—or teach students to think?

Teach Stud Think 65(5):64–67

Bunce DM (2009) Teaching is more than lecturing and learning is

more than more than memorizing. J Chem Edu 86(6):674–680

Bybee R, McCrae B, Laurie R (2009) PISA 2006: an assessment of

scientific literary. J Res Sci Edu 46(8):865–883

Chen D, Novick R (1996) MABAT: toward scientific and techno-

logical literacy: the national primary science curriculum in

Israel. In: Mioduser D, Zilberstein I (eds) The 2nd Jerusalem

international science and technology education conference

(JISTEC ‘96)—book of abstracts. CET, CP-19, Jerusalem

Connonly P (2009) The challenges and prospects for educational

effectiveness research. Effect Edu 1(1):1–12

Dori Y, Herskovitz O (1999) Question posing capability as an

alternative evaluation method; analysis of environmental case

study. J Res Sci Teach 36(4):411–430

Eshach H (2006) Science literacy in primary schools and pre-schools.

Springer, Dordrecht

Fensham PJ (2009) Real world contexts in PISA science: implications

for context-based science education. J Res Sci Teach 46(8):

884–896

Gatt S (2000) Problem solving in primary science. Primary Sci Rev.

8–10 Jan/Feb

Gibbons M, Nowotny HJT (2001) The potential of transdisciplinarity.

In: Thompson Klein J, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Haberli R,

Bill A, Scholz RM, Welti M (eds) Transdisciplinarity: joint

problem solving among science, technology, and society. An

effective way for managing complexity. Birkhauser, Basel,

pp 67–80

Glaze WH (2002) Drinking water treatment with ozone. Environ Sci

Technol 36(23):438A–439A

Hodson D (2003) Time for action: science education for the

alternative future. Int J Sci Edu 25:645–670

Hodson D (2004) Going beyond STS: towards a curriculum for

sociopolitical action. Sci Edu Rev 3(1):2–7

Hoolbrook J, Ranikmae M (2009) The meaning of scientific literacy.

Int J Environ Sci Edu 4(3):275–288

Johnstone AH (2001) Can problem solving be taught? Univ Chem

Edu 5:69–73

Jones-Wilson TM (2005) Teaching problem-solving skills without

sacrificing course content. J College Sci Teach 35(1):42–46

Levy Nahum T, Azaiza I, Ben-Chaim D, Herscovitz O, Zoller U

(2010) Does STES-oriented science education promote 10th-

grade students’ decision capability? Int J Sci Edu 32(10):

1315–1336

Malamitsa K, Kasoutas M, Kokkotas P (2009) Developing Greek

primary school students’ critical thinking through an approach of

teaching science which incorporates aspects of history of

science. Sci Educ 8(3–4):1–12

Mihelcic JR, Crittenden JC, Small MJ, Shonnard DR, Hokanson DR,

Zhang Q, Chen H, Sorby SA, James VV, Sutherland JW,

Schnoor JL (2003) Sustainability science and engineering: the

emergence of a new metadiscipline. Environ Sci Technol 37:

5314–5324

Millar R (2006) Twenty first century science: insights from the design

and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school

science. Int J Sci Edu 28(13):1499–1521

NCATE (2010) Panel says Ed. Schools overlook development science.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/10/05/07develope.h30.

html?tkn=SSKFEhn2HWN70yojMIFjyEuiq08s.Jh9pKZyo&cmp=

clp-edweek

New York Times (2009) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30educ.

html?-=1&emc=eta1

NSTA International Task Force (2005) Developing a worldview for

science education in North America and across the globe. Final

report. pp 1–9

Orion R, Trend D (2009) Thinking and learning in the geosciences.

Geosci Edu 57(4):222–223

452 J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:444–453

123

PCAST (2009) Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science,

technology, engineering and math (STEM) education for Amer-

icans’ future. Executive report. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-

press-office/2010/09/16/president-obama-annonce-major

Smith KC, Nakhleh MB, Bretz SL (2010) An expanded framework of

analyzing general chemistry exams. Chem Edu Res Pract

11:147–153

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 Edu 23(3):

247–262

Tomorrow 98 (1992) Report of the superior committee on science,

mathematics and technology education in Israel–harari report.

Ministry of Education (in Hebrew), Jerusalem

Wardle C (2004) Asking the right questions: developing children’s

questioning skills and knowing how to answer!. Primary Sci Rev

83:11–13

Whitehurst GJ, Croft M (2009) Brown center of education policy. The

Brookings Institution. http://www.brokings.edu/opinions/2009/

1029_standards_whitehurts.aspx

Yager RE (1991) The constructivist learning model: towards real

reform in science education. Sci Teach 58(6):52–57

Yager RE (1996) Science/technology/society as reform in science

education. State University of New York Press, Albany

Zoabi M, Zoller U (2010) The relevance of science and technology

teaching to primary school education. The ‘‘Design Process’’

case in Israel. J Sci Edu Technol (submitted)

Zoller U (1987) The fostering of question-asking capability—a

meaningful aspect of problem-solving in chemistry. J Chem Edu

64(6):510–512

Zoller U (1990) The IEE—an STS approach. J College Sci Teach

19(5):289–291

Zoller U (1991) Teaching/learning styles, performance and students’

teaching evaluation in STES-focused science education. A quasi-

quantitative probe of a case study. J Res Sci Teach 28(7):

593–607

Zoller U (1992) Faculty teaching performance evaluation in higher

science education: issues and implications (a ‘cross-cultural’

case study). Sci Edu 76(6):673–684

Zoller U (1993) Lecture and learning: are they compatible? Maybe for

LOCS; unlikely for HOCS. J Chem Edu 70(3):195–197

Zoller U (1994) The examination where the student asks the

questions. School Sci Math 94(7):347–349

Zoller U (1996) The development of students HOCS—the key to

progress in STES education. Bull Sci Technol Soci 16(5–6):

268–272

Zoller U (1998) Eshnav Le-Matas. University of Haifa, Oranim (in

Hebrew)

Zoller U (1999) Scaling-up of higher order cognitive skill oriented

college chemistry teaching: an action-oriented research. J Res

Sci Teach 36(5):583–596

Zoller U (2000a) Teaching tomorrow’s college science courses—are

we getting it right? J College Sci Teach 29(6):409–414

Zoller U (2000b) Environmental chemistry: the disciplinary/correc-

tion-transdisciplinary prevention paradigm shift. Environ Sci

Pollut Res 7(2):63–65

Zoller U (2001) The challenge for environmental chemistry educa-

tors. Environ Sci Pollut Res 8(1):1–4

Zoller U (2004) From algorithmic LOCS teaching to HOCS learning

paradigm shift: What does/should it take in practice-oriented

research in STES education. In: Ralle B, Eilks I (eds) Proceed-

ings of the 17th symposium on chemical education: quality in

practice-oriented research in science education. Dortmund.

pp 125–135

Zoller U, Ben-Chaim D (1997) Students’ self-assessment in HOCS

science examina-tions; is there a problem? J Sci Educ Technol

7(2):135–147

Zoller U, Levy Nahum T (2011) From teaching to ‘know’-to learning

to ‘think’ in science education. The LOCS- to-HOCS paradigm

shift: ‘how to do it’? In: Fraser B, Tobin K, Mcrobbie CD (eds)

Handbook of science education, 2nd edn. Springer (In Press)

Zoller U, Pushkin D (2007) Matching higher order cognitive skills

(HOCS)-promoting goal with problem-based laboratory practice

in a freshman organic chemistry course. Chem Edu Res Pract

8(2):153–171

Zoller U, Scholz RW (2004) The HOCS paradigm shift from

disciplinary knowledge (LOCS) to interdisciplinary evaluative

system thinking (HOCS): what should it take in science-

technology-environment-society-oriented courses, curricula and

assessment? Water Sci Technol 49(8):27–36

Zoller U, Nakhleh MB, Dori J, Lubezki A, Tessier B (1995) Success

on algorithmic and LOCS versus conceptual chemistry exam

questions. J Chem Edu 72(11):987–989

Zoller U, Dori Y, Lubezky A (2002) Algorithmic, LOCS and HOCS

(chemistry) exam questions: performance and attitudes of

college students. Int J Sci Edu 24(2):185–203

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:444–453 453

123