Study of the cognitive levels of chemistry questions of the final exam of 1398-1402 based on the model of Smith, Nakhleh, and Bretz with the integrated method of Shannon and Topsis entropy

Document Type : Original research

Authors

1 Department of Chemistry Education, Farhangian University, P.O. Box 14665-889, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Educational Sciences, Farhangian University, P.O. Box 14665-889, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Chemistry Education, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Analyzing exam questions through a framework specific to chemistry is essential and has rarely been examined. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the level of application of Smith, Nakhleh, and Bratz cognitive framework in the final exams of 2019 to 2023, given the importance of evaluation in the twelfth grade of high school. This framework is a brief analysis of chemistry and has a superficial and secondary appearance. Methods: The research method was descriptive and based on the analysis of all questions. The statistical population included all questions from the final exams of June, September, and December of the textbook, and according to the purpose of the present study, all questions from 2019 to 2023 were selected. The data collection tool was the Smith, Nakhleh, and Bartz index question analysis List. Descriptive statistical indices and inferential statistical method of Shannon-Topsis entropy were used to analyze the data. Findings: Regarding data analysis, in each exam round, the secondary level, image analysis followed by data analysis, has the highest amount. In some rounds, macroscopic-microscopic, macroscopic-analytical and prediction of survey results levels had not been taken into account. Conclusion: Considering the role of the final exam in the career life of students, it is suggested to use them in specialized design questions in a balanced manner.

Keywords

References

Akrami, Z. (2024). Identification and prioritization of basic competencies for chemistry major student-Teachers. Quarterly Journal of Education, 40(1), 49-66.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, New York: Longman.
Askari Robati, Gh., Khalili Kalaki, Z. (2019). Content analysis of the ninth-grade mathematics textbook using the William Rumi technique and Bloom's taxonomy. Progress in Basic Science Education, 6(19), 30-39.
Barari, N., Alami, F., Rezaeizadeh, M., Khorasani, A. (2019). Evaluating the goals of high levels of learning in E-learning environments. Journal of Instruction and Evaluation, 12(45), 111-132.
Barbier, K., Struyf, E., Verschueren, K., Donche, V. (2023). Fostering cognitive and affective-motivational learning outcomes for high-ability students in mixed-ability elementary classrooms: a systematic review. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 38(1), 83-107.
Baseri, S. (2022). Frameworks for classifying educational goals in chemistry. Research In Chemistry Education, 4(3), 158-171.
Biggs, J. B., Collis, K. F. (2014). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press.
Boroujeni, H., Shabani, M., Taghipour, A. (2022). An active student has a better understanding of chemistry. Research In Chemistry Education, 4(3), 458-466.
 Bruck, A. D.,  Towns, M. H. (2009). Analysis of classroom response system questions via four lenses in a general chemistry course. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(4), 291-295.
Dutta, A., Chatterjee, P., Dey, N., Moreno, P.,  Sen, S. (2024). Cognitive evaluation of examinees by dynamic question set generation based on bloom’s taxonomy. IETE Journal of Research, 70(3), 2570-2582.
Fardanesh, H. (2003). Theoretical foundations of educational technology. Tehran: Publishing: samt.
Ghalkhani, M., Karami, A.R., Soleimanzadeh, Gh. (2016). Study and comparison of chemistry exam questions in high schools in Bukan city and national university entrance exam questions according to Bloom's cognitive levels. Progress in Basic Science Education, 2(3), 7-11.
Hassan, I. Y. (2024). Linguistic opinions according to Al-rawasi in the interpretations of Ibn Atiyya Al-Andalusi, Al-Qurtubi, And Abu Hayyan Al-Andalusi. Zanco Journal of Human Sciences, 28(2), 206-216.
Hazarkhani, H., Kamyabi, Sh., Abedin, A., Abdullah, R., Samiei, D. M. (2019). Chemistry teacher's guide (3) - 12th grade of the second cycle of secondary education. Educational Research and Planning Organization,  10, 22-35.
Hooser, A., McClain, J. (2022). Curriculum, assessment, and instruction. EESE 2010 Introduction to Education.
Irvine, J. (2020). Marzano's new taxonomy as a framework for investigating student affect. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 24.‏
Jadidi Mohammadabadi, A., Ahmadi Deh Ghotbaddini, M. (2023). Effect of gagne’s learning hierarchy on cognitive and metacognitive skills of high school students. Iranian Journal of Learning and Memory, 6(22), 67-74.
Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry-logical or psychological?. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 9-15.
Kaçar, T., Terzi, R., Arıkan, İ., Kırıkçı, A. C. (2021). The effect of inquiry-based learning on academic success: A meta-analysis study. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 9(2), 15-23.‏
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Maleki, P., Zohrabi, C., Sadafi, Z. Jahangiri, A. (2022). Sociological factors affecting the attitude towards the development performance of government officials in Iran (From the Perspective of the students of Islamic Azad University and State University - Zanjan). Strategic Studies on Youth and Sports, 21(56), 369-393.
Nurmatova, S., Altun, M. (2023). A Comprehensive review of Bloom’s taxonomy integration to enhancing novice EFL educators’ pedagogical impact. Arab World English Journals, 14(3).
Oo, C. Z., Alonzo, D., Asih, R., Pelobillo, G., Lim, R., San, N. M. H., O’Neill, S. (2024). Implementing school-based assessment reforms to enhance student learning: a systematic review. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 36(1), 7-30.
Pasandidehkar, M. S., Isaabadi, M. and Noruzi, M. (2023). The effectiveness of training and development methods to develop digital competencies using thematic analysis techniques, Shannon Entropy and Topsis. Strategic Management Thought, 17(1), 167-196.
Rahman, M. M., Watanobe, Y., Kiran, R. U., Thang, T. C., Paik, I. (2021). Impact of practical skills on academic performance: A data-driven analysis. IEEE Access, 9, 139975-139993.
Saeed Sabaee, M., Pourrajab, A., Sedigh, M. and Saeed Sabaee, E. (2021). Training course assessment with Shannon Entropy and Fuzzy TOPSIS. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies, 11(34), 7-25.
Sarbaz molan, A.,  Azamat, J. (2023). Investigating chemistry teaching topics in Iranian and Finnish schools in order to achieve sustainable development and improve the chemistry education system. Research in Chemistry Education, 4(2), 146-162.
Seif, A.A. (2023). Modern educational psychology (Psychology and Education) (1st ed.). Duran.
Smith, K. C., Nakhleh, M. B., Bretz, S. L. (2010). An expanded framework for analyzing general chemistry exams. Chemistry Education Research and Practice journal, 11(3), 147–153.
Sotoudeh, M. R., Modarresi, M. (2022). Providing an entrepreneurship education program for preschool children in Iran based on Bloom's Taxonomy. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 14(4), 639-655.
Stamovlasis, D., Tsaparlis, G., Kamilatos, C., Papaoikonomou, D., Zarotiadou, E. (2005). Conceptual understanding versus algorithmic problem solving: Further evidence from a national chemistry examination. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(2), 104-118.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Bearman, M., Boud, D., Dawson, P., Jorre de St Jorre, T. (2023). Assessment for inclusion: Rethinking contemporary strategies in assessment design. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(2), 483-497.
Zoller, U., Lubezky, A., Nakhleh, M. B., Tessier, B., Dori, Y. J. (1995). Success on algorithmic and LOCS vs. conceptual chemistry exam questions. Journal of Chemical Education, 72(11), 987-989.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics