Skip to main content

HOCS Problem Solving vs. LOCS Exercise Solving: What Do College Science Students Prefer?

  • Chapter
Science Education Research in the Knowledge-Based Society

Abstract

The acquisition of higher-order cognitive skills (HOCS) such as problem (not exercise) solving, decision making and critical thinking, by our students, constitutes a major instructional goal in contemporary science teaching. The driving force for this research has been to provide supporting research-based evidence that will encourage the use of HOC S-promoting science teaching strategies and examinations by science teachers at all levels. The main findings of two of our relevant studies were: (1) college science students consistently perform best on algorithmic (ALG), compared to their performance on lower order cognitive skills (LOCS) which, in turn, is higher than on HOCS exam questions; (2) given a free choice, LOCS questions are pragmatically preferred on HOCS questions by the students; (3) students’ “ideological” preference is HOCS, compared to ALG/LOCS which are referred to as ‘computational questions’. The implications concerning the current HOCS-oriented reform in science education will be critically discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Selected References

  • Ennis, R.H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D.L. & Bunce, D.M. (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry. In D.L. Gabel et al. (eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan Publishing, pp. 301–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M.B. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 70(1), 52–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (1995). Relationships between student performance on conceptual and computational problems of chemical equilibrium. Internationaljournal of Science Education, 77, 343–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M. (1990). Further studies on concept learning versus problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 254–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, F.J. & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, R.W. & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, R.W. & Zimmer, A.C. (eds.) (1997). Qualitative aspects of decision making. Lengerich. Pubst. Science Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, G. & Perkins, D. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U. (1987). The fostering of question-asking capability — A meaningful aspect of problem solving in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 510–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U. (1990). Environmental education at the university: The “Problem solving-decision making act” within a critical system-thinking framework. Higher Education in Europe, 75, 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U. (1993). Are lecturing and learning compatible? Maybe for LCOS: Unlikely for HOCS. Journal of Chemical Education, 7(3), 195–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U. (1999). Teaching tomorrow’s college science courses — Are we getting it right? Journal of College Science Teaching, 29(6), 409–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U. (2001). Alternative assessment as (critical) means of facilitating HOCS- promoting teaching and learning in chemistry education. Chemical Education Research and Practice in Europe, 2, 9–17 [http://www.uoi.gr/conf-sem/cerapie].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U., Lebezky, A., Nakhleh, M.B., Tessier, B. & Don, J. (1995). Success on algorithmic and LOCS vs. Conceptual chemistry exam questions. Journal of Chemical Education, 72, 987–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U., & Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Higher and lower cognitive skills: the case of chemistry. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 117–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U., Dori, Y.J., & Lubezky, A. (2002). Algorithmic, LCOS and HOCS (chemistry) exam question: Performance and attitudes of college students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(2), 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zoller, U. (2003). HOCS Problem Solving vs. LOCS Exercise Solving: What Do College Science Students Prefer?. In: Psillos, D., Kariotoglou, P., Tselfes, V., Hatzikraniotis, E., Fassoulopoulos, G., Kallery, M. (eds) Science Education Research in the Knowledge-Based Society. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0165-5_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0165-5_22

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6337-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0165-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics