Dace Bērtule, Dace Namsone


From OECD PISA Science test results presented in 2016 shows that in Latvia only 3,4% of students performance is in accordance to the 5th and 6th performance level (higher order cognitive skills (HOCS) measured), which is below OECD  average. In Latvia from 2016 started Curriculum Development and Implementation project, which one of the priorities is student’s ability to apply HOCS (higher order cognitive skills) to improve these results. The development of deeper thinking (cognitive activity) is one of the most advanced skills in all subjects, including biology. In order to reduce the risks, it is necessary to analyze introducing new reforms the opportunities for students to develop HOCS through biology lessons and textbooks in current teaching and learning process. In previous researches it was found out that all items with context of 9th grade biology in the Latvia’s National level Science test (period 2015-2017) were measuring only low and average depth and no one was in high cognitive level as opposed to the PISA framework. It is required to study reasons of that more deeply. The research goal is to analyze cognitive depth of given tasks that students have the opportunity to do in the lessons of biology, biology textbooks from 7th till 9th grade and with 9th grade biology tasks in Latvia’s National level Science tests from years 2015 till 2017 and to compare these three cognitive depth results to the PISA 2015 Science framework. To find out cognitive depth of given tasks, there were analysed 31 samples of biology lessons and 6 biology textbooks for grades 7th till 9th.



biology tasks; biology textbooks; higher order cognitive skills; student performance in National level Science test

Full Text:



Bertule, D., & Namsone, D. (2017). Cognitive depth in National level Science tests biology tasks from 2015 till 2017 year. ICERI 2017: 10th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation. Sevilla, Spain, 16-18.11.2017.

Biggs, J. B. (1995). “Assessing for learning: Some dimensions underlying new approaches to educational assessment,” The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, vol. 41, no.1, 1-17.

Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. (1982). “K.F. Evaluating the Quality of Learning - the SOLO Taxonomy”, New York: Academic Press, xii, 245.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,” Cognitive Domain. New York, McKay, vol. 1.

Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Retrieved from web. pdf

France, I., Namsone, D., Čakāne, L., Vilciņš, J., Dzērve, U., & Nikolajenko, A. (2017). Skolēnu prasmes darbā ar grafisku informāciju matemātikā un dabaszinātnēs. Society, Integration, Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Volume II, May 26th -27th, 2017, 81-92.

France, I., Namsone, D., Čakāne, L., Dzērve, U., & Vilciņš J. (2016). Teaching to use in science and mathematics previously asquired skills. Society, Integration, Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Volume II May 27th - 28th, 51-65.

Geske, A., Grīnfelds, A., A. Kangro, R. & Kiselova. (2016), “Latvija OECD Starptautiskajā skolēnu novērtēšanas programmā 2015 – pirmie rezultāti un secinājumi,” University of Latvia, Riga.

Harlen, W. (2010). Principles and big ideas of science education. Hatfield: ASE.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.

LR MK. (2016). Latvijas Republikas Ministru kabinets Nr. 670. “Darbības programmas "Izaugsme un nodarbinātība" 8.3.1. specifiskā atbalsta mērķa "Attīstīt kompetenču pieejā balstītu vispārējās izglītības saturu" pasākuma "Kompetenču pieejā balstīta vispārējās izglītības satura aprobācija un ieviešana" īstenošanas noteikumi,” Retrieved from

Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer V. D. (2012). “Learning 21st-Century Skills Requires 21st-Century Teaching,” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 94, no. 2, 8 - 13.

Tang, X., Coffey, J., & Levin D. M. (2015). Reconsidering the Use of Scoring Rubrics in Biology Instruction. The American Biology Teacher, 77(9), 669-675.

OECD (2016a). “PISA 2015 Technical Report”. Retrieved from Chapter-12- scaling.pdf

OECD (2016b). “PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematical and Financial Literacy,” OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2016c). “PISA 2015 Technical Report,” Retrieved from

VISC (2016). Diagnosticēsim dabaszinātņu mācību priekšmetu apguvi 9.klasē! Retrieved from

Zohar, A., & Schwartzer, N. (2012). Assessing Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge in the Context of Teaching Higher‐order Thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 1464-5289.



  • There are currently no refbacks.