International Journal of Progressive Education
ISSN (Print): 2834-7919 - ISSN (Online): 1554-5210

Research article    |    Open Access
International Journal of Progressive Education 2021, Vol. 17(1) 277-293

Pre-Service Teachers' Skills in Analysing Achievements in Regard to the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy

Gülcan Öztürk

pp. 277 - 293   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.329.18

Publish Date: February 01, 2021  |   Single/Total View: 223/786   |   Single/Total Download: 310/1.304

PDF Download

Abstract

This study examined the development of pre-service teachers' skills in analysing the achievements of secondary school sixth grade Information Technologies and Software Course curriculum in regard to the revised Bloom's taxonomy at a western Anatolian university in Turkey. A single group pre-test, post-test experimental design was used, and 99 pre-service teachers participated in the study. The sample was determined according to the purposive sampling method. The pre-test presented achievements for the pre-service teachers to analyse in regard to the revised Bloom's taxonomy, after which the revised Bloom's taxonomy's analysis was taught. The achievements were given as the post-test for pre-service teachers to re-analyse. The pre-service teachers' total scores were calculated based on their accuracy. The pre- and post-test total scores were compared, and the total scores of the post-test were higher than those of the pre-test. Suggestions were made regarding future research on the revised Bloom's taxonomy and achievements analysis teaching.

Keywords: Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, Information Technologies and Software Course, Curriculum, Achievements, Pre-Service Teachers

How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Ozturk, G. (2021). Pre-Service Teachers’ Skills in Analysing Achievements in Regard to the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(1), 277-293. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.329.18

Harvard
Ozturk, G. (2021). Pre-Service Teachers’ Skills in Analysing Achievements in Regard to the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(1), pp. 277-293.

Chicago 16th edition
Ozturk, Gulcan (2021). "Pre-Service Teachers’ Skills in Analysing Achievements in Regard to the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy". International Journal of Progressive Education 17 (1):277-293. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.329.18

References
  1. Akbulut Taş, M., & Karabay, A. (2019). Examining pre-service teachers’ analysis skills of instructional objectives according to revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, Advance online publication. doi: 10.16986/HUJE.2019050097 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2. Aktan, O. (2020). Investigation of primary school mathematics curriculum lesson acquisitions according to renewed Bloom taxonomy. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 48, 15-36. doi: 10.9779/pauefd.523545 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  3. Alpar, R. (2016). Spor, sağlık ve eğitim bilimlerinden örneklerle uygulamalı istatistik ve geçerlik-güvenirlik [Applied statistics and validity-reliability with examples from sports, health and educational sciences] (revised 4th ed.). Ankara, Turkey: Detay. [Google Scholar]
  4. Altıntaş, Y. D., & Yanpar Yelken, T. (2016, May 30-June 2). İlköğretim 8. sınıf matematik dersi kazanımlarının yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisi’ne göre analiz edilmesi ve ilköğretim matematik öğretmenliği lisans ve yüksek lisans öğrencilerinin kazanımları analiz edebilme düzeyleri [Analyzing Primary 8th Grade Mathematics Course Acquisitions According to the Revised Bloom Taxonomy and Analyzing the Achievements of Undergraduate and Graduate Students in Primary Mathematics Teaching]. Paper presented at the XVIII Congress AMSE-AMCE-WAER Teaching and Training Today for Tomorrow, Eskişehir, Turkey. Retrieved from https://www.amse-amce-waer.org/copie-de-xviiie-congres-eskisehir-2 [Google Scholar]
  5. Aminu, I. M., & Shariff, M. N. M. (2014). Strategic orientation, access to finance, business environment and SMEs performance in Nigeria: Data screening and preliminary analysis. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(35), 124–132. Retrieved from https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/EJBM/article/view/17186 [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson, L. W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D. R. (Ed.), Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, … Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (abridged edition). New York: Longman. [Google Scholar]
  7. Arı, A. (2008). Finding acceptance of Bloom’s revised cognitive taxonomy on the international stage and in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(2), 767-772. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ927376.pdf [Google Scholar]
  8. Arseven, A., Şimşek, U., & Güden, M. (2016). The analysis of geography course written exam questions according to revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Sivas Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Literature Journal of Social Sciences, 40(1), 244-257. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cumusosbil/issue/24366/258293 [Google Scholar]
  9. Avşar, G., & Mete, F. (2018). Classification of actions used in Turkish teaching programs according to the revised Bloom taxonomy. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(1), 75-87. Retrieved from http://ebd.beun.edu.tr/index.php/KEBD/article/view/151 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ayvacı, H. Ş., & Türkdoğan, A. (2010). Analyzing “science and technology course exam questions” according to revised Bloom taxonomy. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(1), 13-25. Retrieved from http://tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/500 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ayvacı, H. Ş., Yamak, S., & Duru, M. K. (2018). Analysis of 2016 LYS and YGS physics questions according to Bloom taxonomy and outcomes in the curriculum. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 47(2), 798-832. doi: 10.14812/cuefd.272368 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  12. Başbay, M. (2007). The effect of project based instruction on learning outcomes designed according to the revised taxonomy in the instructional design course. Ege Journal of Education, 8(1), 65-88. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/egeefd/issue/4914/67274 [Google Scholar]
  13. Başol, G., Balgalmış, E., Karlı, M. G., & Öz, F. B. (2016) Content analysis of TEOG mathematics items based on MONE attainments, TIMSS levels, and reformed Bloom taxonomy. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(3), 5945–5967. doi: 10.14687/jhs.v13i3.4326 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Bekdemir, M., & Selim, Y. (2008). Revised Bloom taxonomy and its application in algebra area. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty (EUJEF), 10(2), 185-196. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/erziefd/issue/5997/79903 [Google Scholar]
  15. Beyreli, L., & Sönmez, H. (2017). Research issues focused on studies concerning Bloom taxonomy and the revised Bloom taxonomy in Turkey. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, 5(2), 213-229. doi: 10.18298/ijlet.1738 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. London: Longmans, Green and Co Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bozdemir, H., Ezberci Çevik, E., Kurnaz, M. A., & Yaz, Ö. V. (2019). A comparative examination of science achievements in life studies course curricula of 2009, 2015 and 2018 according to the revised bloom’s taxonomy: the case of Turkey. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 11(2), 17-32. doi: 10.24193/adn.12.1.2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Bümen, N. T. (2006). A Revision of the Bloom’s taxonomy: A turning point in curriculum development. Education and Science, 31(142), 3-14. Retrieved from http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/837 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bümen, N. T. (2007). Effects of the original versus revised Bloom’s taxonomy on lesson planning skills: A Turkish study among pre-service teachers. Review of Education, 53, 439-455. doi: 10.1007/s11159-007-9052-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods] (17th ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  22. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (2008). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Ohio: Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar]
  23. Çalık, B., & Aksu, M. (2018). A systematic review of teachers’ questioning in Turkey between 2000-2018. Elementary Education Online, 17(3), 1548-1565. doi: 10.17051/ilkonline.2018.466389 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Çelik, S., Kul, Ü., & Çalık Uzun, S. (2018). Using Bloom’s revised taxonomy to analyze learning outcomes in mathematics curriculum. Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 18(2), 775-795. doi: 10.17240/aibuefd.2018.18.37322-431437 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Çintaş Yıldız, D. (2015). The analysis of Turkish course exam questions according to re-constructed Bloom’s taxonomy. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 14(2), 479-497. doi: 10.21547/jss.256771 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik, SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Multivariate statistics, SPSS and LISREL applications for social sciences]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  27. Doğan, Y., & Burak, D. (2018). An investigation of the 4th grade science course’s acquisitions according to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 12(23), 34-56. doi: 10.29329/mjer.2018.138.3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Durmuş, B. (2017). The evaluation of the 4th grade religious culture and moral knowledge course’s teaching program outcomes according to Bloom’s and the revised Bloom’s taxonomies. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 11(21), 44-58. Retrieved from http://mjer.penpublishing.net/makale_indir/365 [Google Scholar]
  29. Efe, H. A., & Efe, R. (2018). Comparison of the 9th grade biology course curriculum objectives according to the revised Bloom taxonomy: Years of 2013, 2017 and 2018. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education, 7(3), 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.ijtase.net/ojs/index.php/IJTASE/article/view/828/770 [Google Scholar]
  30. Eke, C. (2015). Determination of objectives of waves topics according to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 4(2), 345-353. Retrieved from http://www.jret.org/FileUpload/ks281142/File/35.canel_eke.pdf [Google Scholar]
  31. Erdoğan, T. (2017). The view of primary school fourth grade students and teachers’ questions about Turkish language lessons in the terms of the revised Bloom taxonomy. Education and Science, 42(192), 173-191. doi: 10.15390/EB.2017.7407 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Eroğlu, D., & Sarar Kuzu, T. (2014). The evaluation of the grammar acquisitions and questions in Turkish course books with respect to new Bloom taxonomy. Başkent University Journal of Education, 1(1), 72-80. Retrieved from http://buje.baskent.edu.tr/index.php/buje/article/view/12/13 [Google Scholar]
  33. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  34. Gezer, M., Şahin, İ. F., Öner Sünkür, M., & Meral, E. (2014). An evaluation of the outcomes of the 8th grade history of Turkish revolution and Kemalism lesson according to revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 3(1), 433-455. doi: 10.14686/BUEFAD.201416226 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. İlhan, A., & Gülersoy, A. E. (2019). Evaluation of the achievements of 10th grade geography course curriculum according to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. International Journal of Geography and Geography Education, 39, 10-28. doi: 10.32003/iggei.474132 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Kablan, Z., Baran, T., & Hazer, Ö. (2013). A study of the target behaviors in the math curriculum for sixth to eighth grades in reference to cognitive processes. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 14(1), 347-366. Retrieved from http://kefad.ahievran.edu.tr/Kefad/ArchiveIssues/PDF/c9916a52-3753-e711-80ef-00224d68272d [Google Scholar]
  37. Kala, A., & Çakır, M. (2016). Analysis of 2013 civil servant selection examination biology test questions according to teacher content knowledge competencies and revised Bloom taxonomy. International Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 243-260. doi: 10.14687/ijhs.v13i1.3398 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Kara, H. E. (2016). Students’ cognitive levels in science subtest of undergraduate placement examination in Turkey (Master’s thesis). The program of curriculum and instruction, Ihsan Doğramaci Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kara, K., Karakoç, K., Yıldırım, İ., & Bay, E. (2017). Examination of “curriculum alignment” in the context of theory and practice for the 8th grade mathematics teaching. Harran Education Journal, 2(1), 26-40. doi: 10.22596/2017.0201.26.40 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Keleş, T., & Hacısalihoğlu Karadeniz, M. (2015). An analysis of mathematics and geometry questions in OSS, YGS and LYS according to the revised Bloom taxonomy between 2006-2012 years. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 532-552. doi: 10.16949/turcomat.48130 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  41. Kocakaya, S., & Kotluk, N. (2016). Classifying the standards via revised Bloom’s taxonomy: A comparison of pre-service and in-service teachers. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(18), 11297-11318. Retrieved from http://www.ijese.net/makale/1503 [Google Scholar]
  42. Korkmaz, F., & Ünsal, S. (2016). Analyzing a test based on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Turkish Journal of Education, 5(3), 170-183. doi: 10.19128/turje.97805 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  44. Kurtuluş, A., & Ada, T. (2017). Evaluation of mathematics teacher candidates’ the ellipse knowledge according to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(10), 1782-1794. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2017.051017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Lenhard, W., & Lenhard, A. (2016). Calculation of effect sizes. Retrieved from: https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html. Dettelbach, Germany: Psychometrica. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17823.92329 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). London: SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018). Bilişim teknolojileri ve yazılım dersi öğretim programı (ortaokul 5 ve 6. sınıflar) [Information technologies and software course [ITSC] curriculum (secondary school fifth and sixth grade)]. Ankara, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  48. Mizbani, M., & Chalak, A. (2017). Analyzing listening and speaking activities of Iranian EFL textbook prospect 3 through Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(3), 38-43. doi: 10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.3p.38 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  49. Motlhabane, A. (2017). Unpacking the South African physics examination questions according to Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(6), 919-931. Retrieved from http://oaji.net/articles/2017/987-1513971062.pdf [Google Scholar]
  50. Näsström, G. (2009). Interpretation of standards with Bloom’s revised taxonomy: a comparison of teachers and assessment experts. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(1), 39-51. doi: 10.1080/17437270902749262 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  51. Näsström, G. & Henriksson, W.(2008). Alignment of standards and assessment: A theoretical and empirical study of methods for alignment. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6(3), 667-690. Retrieved from http://www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.org/revista/new/english/ContadorArticulo.php?216 [Google Scholar]
  52. Nkhoma, M., Lam, T., Sriratanaviriyakul, N., Richardson, J., Kam, B. & Lau, K. (2017). Unpacking the revised Bloom’s taxonomy: Developing case-based learning activities. Education + Training, 59(3), 250-264. doi: 10.1108/ET-03-2016-0061 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  53. Orhaner, E., & Tunç, A. (2003). Ticaret ve turizm eğitiminde özel öğretim yöntemleri [Special teaching methods in trade and tourism education]. Ankara, Turkey: Gazi Kitabevi. [Google Scholar]
  54. Özdemir, S. M., Altıok, S., & Baki, N. (2015). The examination of social studies curriculum objectives based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 4(3), 363-375. Retrieved from http://www.jret.org/FileUpload/ks281142/File/40.soner_mehmet_ozdemir.pdf [Google Scholar]
  55. Özer Keskin, M., & Aydın, S. (2011). A study of the biology questions in the 6th grade science and technology test of the level assessment examination based on the revised taxonomy. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty (GUJGUF), 31(3), 727-742. Retrieved from http://www.gefad.gazi.edu.tr/tr/issue/6737/90570 [Google Scholar]
  56. Rahpeyma, A., & Khoshnood, A. (2015). The analysis of learning objectives in Iranian junior high school English text books based on Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 3(2), 44-55. doi: 10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.3n.2p.44 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  57. Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparison of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21–33. Retrieved from http://www.de.ufpb.br/~ulisses/disciplinas/normality_tests_comparison.pdf [Google Scholar]
  58. Riedler, M. & Eryaman M.Y. (2016). Complexity, Diversity and Ambiguity in Teaching and Teacher Education: Practical Wisdom, Pedagogical Fitness and Tact of Teaching. International Journal of Progressive Education. 12(3): 172-186 [Google Scholar]
  59. Ruggiero, D., & Mong, C. (2013). Improving understanding of pre-service teacher experience with technology integration. The International Journal of Multimedia & Its Applications (IJMA) 5(5), 1-14. doi: 10.5121/ijma.2013.5501 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  60. Şanlı, C., & Pınar, A. (2017). An investigation of the social sciences courses exam questions according to revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Elementary Education Online, 16(3), 949-959. doi: 10.17051/ilkonline.2017.330234 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  61. Tanık, N., & Saraçoğlu, S. (2011). Analysis of the exam questions for the science and technology course based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Journal of TUBAV Science, 4(4), 235-246. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tubav/issue/21525/615008 [Google Scholar]
  62. Taşlıdere, Y., & Eryılmaz, D. (2015). Assessment of pre-service teachers’ misconceptions in geometrical optics via a three-tier misconception test. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 4(1), 269-289. doi: 10.14686/BUEFAD.2015111057 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  63. Taşpınar, M. (2005). Kuramdan uygulamaya öğretim yöntemleri [Teaching methods from theory to practice]. Elazığ, Turkey: Üniversite Kitabevi. [Google Scholar]
  64. Uğur, F. (2019). Evaluation of activities in secondary school level Turkish workbooks according to types of memory and revised Bloom’s taxonomy. International Education Studies, 12(4), 185-197. doi: 10.5539/ies.v12n4p185 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  65. Vick, M., & Garvey, M. P. (2011). Levels of cognitive processes in a non-formal science education program: Scouting’s science merit badges and the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 6(2), 173-190. Retrieved from http://www.ijese.net/makale/1435 [Google Scholar]
  66. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences] (6th ed.) Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin. [Google Scholar]
  67. Zorluoğlu, S. L., & Kızılaslan, A. (2019). Analysis of 10th chemistry curriculum according to revised Bloom taxonomy. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 6(2), 88-95. doi: 10.20448/journal.509.2019.62.88.95 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  68. Zorluoğlu, S. L., Bağrıyanık, K. E., & Şahintürk, A. (2019). Analyze of the science and technology course TEOG questions based on the revised Bloom taxonomy and their relation between the learning outcomes of the curriculum. International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(2), 104-117. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2019.189.8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  69. Zorluoğlu, S. L., Güven, Ç., & Korkmaz, Z. S. (2017). Analysis of a sample according to the revised Bloom taxonomy: The draft line curriculum of secondary school chemistry 2017. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 7(2), 467-479. doi: 10.13114/MJH.2017.378 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  70. Zorluoğlu, S. L., Kızılaslan, A., & Sözbilir, M. (2016). School chemistry curriculum according to revised Bloom taxonomy. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 260-279. doi: 10.17522/nefefmed.22297 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
Meta
Vol. 17 (1)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 17 Issue 1

February 2021

All Manuscript

International Journal of Progressive Education

Copyright © 2025 International Journal of Progressive Education.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website were created using the BOQ™ - Intelligent Webverse System.