Cognitive Domains

Yes, I agree that we (the professionals in the field) consider memorized information (like naming and defining) to all fit into cognitive level 1, but are these “skills” typical of Bloom’s intentions when he described the lower levels (1)? No! Take for example memorizing that SO₄^2- is a sulfate ion. This example is beyond the “name the ion” knowledge level; it requires students to combine and integrate their knowledge of elements, ions, oxidation states, and so on, and to combine this foundational knowledge into rearranged new knowledge, an aspect of higher-cognitive levels (e.g., synthesis). Is learning the definition of compound lower level? Again, no! Compound is a noun, adjective, or verb depending on its context with multiple meanings adding to the complexity well beyond what Bloom intended by defining as a representative example of the lower-level cognitive domain. As Nakiboglu and Tekin note, vernacular misconceptions result from scientific contexts of words being confused with the more common usages of a word. What we, the “experts”, consider simple cognitive-domain levels of Bloom are not equivalent to how they are seen by our novice students.

Physics First; Biology Last

How do we expect to teach our students chemistry before they have the foundational background needed especially when it comes to required algebraic fluency? The placement of the introduction to the complex subject of chemistry has been batted around for more than 100 years and the debate continues. Where do we place each year of science (let’s just stick with physics, chemistry, and biology) at the high school level? Which subject should be taught first? Which last? Should each subject be taught for only one year? We’ve been “studying” this conundrum for many years. The last formal and serious discussion of the specifics happened many years ago and now it is time to formally re-visit the issues. You will find in this issue an excellent analysis of data collected over four years from more than 100 introductory college science courses combining responses from 3521 student surveys. The most powerful of the predictors of these typical chemistry college students’ background was the level of high school mathematics completed. Also, as far as content-specific coverage goes, the students who reported frequently visiting stoichiometric relationships had their course performance more positively influenced than other students who reported spending minimal time studying stoichiometry.

Success in chemistry, or the lack thereof, will determine your future career choice (article 1, 2). We owe it to our students to present the science curriculum in the best possible light. We can add summer enrichment courses and we can institute various course orderings. It is interesting to note that the “original intent of early curriculum writers was to position chemistry as the terminal [course]” in high school (physics followed by chemistry order was true until the turn of the 20th century) (Sheppard and Robbins). In most of today’s high schools, one would see the study of chemistry be “central” to the curriculum. In today’s world the logic of “physics first” is insightful and you have to acknowledge that today’s biology (a “capstone” course) must make use of a substantial background in chemistry (Sheppard and Robbins). With all this being said, I would like to call for the formation of a committee composed of teaching professionals who want to see a system established that is doable and advantageous for the future success of our students. A perfect place for this to happen is at the upcoming ChemEd 07 conference (accessed Sep 2006). Is anyone game to initiate the formation of this committee? Registration is open!

Literature Cited

1. Bloom, B.; Englehart, M.; Furst, E.; Hill, W.; Krathwohl, D. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain; Longmans, Green: New York, 1956.