Bilişim Teknolojileri ve Yazılım Dersi Öğretim Programı Kazanımlarının Yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisine Göre İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de ortaokullardaki Bilişim Teknolojileri ve Yazılım Dersi Öğretim Programı kazanımlarının yenilenmiş Bloom taksonomisine göre analiz edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden doküman incelemesi yöntemine göre yürütülmüştür. Çalışmada 75’i beşinci sınıf, 77’si altıncı sınıf düzeyinde toplam 152 kazanım, bilgi ve bilişsel süreç şeklinde iki boyutlu olarak tanımlanan yenilenmiş Bloom taksonomisine göre incelenmiştir. Veriler betimsel analiz yöntemi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda, incelenen kazanımların çoğunlukla yenilenmiş Bloom taksonomisinin bilgi boyutu açısından işlemsel bilgi kategorisinde olduğu; bilişsel süreç boyutu açısından ise anla(mak) ve uygula(mak) kategorisinde olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bilgi boyutuna göre yapılan analizler sınıf düzeyine göre karşılaştırıldığında, altıncı sınıf programındaki kazanımlarda beşinci sınıf kazanımlarına kıyasla olgusal bilgi kategorisine daha az vurgu yapıldığı, üstbilişsel bilgi kategorisine göre ise daha fazla vurgu yapıldığı görülmüştür. Bilgi boyutunun kavramsal bilgi ve işlemsel bilgi kategorilerine, sınıf düzeyi düzeyine göre farklı vurgu yapılmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bilişsel süreç boyutuna göre yapılan analizler sınıf düzeyine göre karşılaştırıldığında, sınıf düzeyi arttıkça değerlendir(mek) kategorisine daha fazla vurgu yapıldığı, hatırla(mak) kategorisine daha az vurgu yapıldığı; anla(mak), uygula(mak), çözümle(mek) ve yarat(mak) kategorilerine ise sınıf düzeyine göre farklı vurgu yapılmadığı sonuçlarına ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• Yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisi
• Bilişim Teknolojileri ve Yazılım Dersi
• Program
• Kazanım

An Analysis of Learning Outcomes in Information Technologies and Software Curriculum based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze the learning outcomes within the Information Technologies and Software curriculum of middle schools in Turkey on the basis of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. The study was conducted through document analysis being a method of qualitative research. In the study, a total of 152 learning outcomes - 75 from the fifth grade and 77 from the sixth grade - were examined based on the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy which is depicted as a two-dimensional categorization representing the knowledge and the cognitive process. The data were analyzed using descriptive analysis method. The general results of the analyzes indicated that the learning outcomes examined in this study were usually related to the procedural knowledge category of the knowledge dimension and the understand and apply categories of the cognitive process dimension. When the analyses done within the knowledge dimension were compared with respect to the grade level, it was recorded that the fifth-grade learning outcomes placed more emphasis on the factual knowledge category than the sixth-grade learning outcomes did. On the other hand, the metacognitive knowledge category received more emphasis from the sixth-grade learning outcomes than those of the fifth grade. It was also seen that the emphasis placed on the conceptual and procedural knowledge categories did not differ by the grade level. When the analyses done within the cognitive process dimension were compared with respect to the grade level, it was discovered that the higher the grade level was, the more emphasis was placed on the evaluate category while the less emphasis was placed on the remember category. However, there were no differences in the understand, apply, analyze, and create categories by the grade level.

Keywords

• Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
• Information Technologies and Software course
• Curriculum
• Learning outcomes

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
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
3. 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
4. Anderson, L. W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D. R. (Ed.), Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & 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.
5. 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.
6. Aslan Efe, H., & 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
7. 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
8. 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

9. 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
10. Barut, E., & Kuzu, A. (2017). The comparison of Turkey and UK’s information technologies curriculum in the context of objectives, acquisition, activities, measurement and evaluation. Trakya Journal of Education, 7(2), 721-745. doi:10.24315/trkefd.303156
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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.
16. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (Fifth edition). Boston: Pearson Allen & Bacon.
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
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
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
20. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30. Graham, M., Milanowski, A., & Miller, J. (2012). Measuring and promoting inter-rater agreement of teacher and principal performance ratings. Center for Educator Compensation Reform. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532068.pdf
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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.
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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
38. 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
39. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
40. 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
41. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (Second Edition). London: SAGE.
42. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [Ministry of National Education] [MEB] (2018). Bilişim teknolojileri ve yazılım dersi öğretim programı (ortaokul 5 ve 6. sınıflar) [Information technologies and software [ITS] curriculum (secondary school fifth and sixth grade)]. Ankara, Turkey: Author.
43. 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
44. 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
45. 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
46. 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
47. 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
48. 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
49. 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
50. Rahpeyma, A., & Khoshnood, A. (2015). The analysis of learning objectives in Iranian junior high school English textbooks 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
51. 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
52. 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
53. 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
54. Taşpınar, M. (2005). Kuramdan uygulamaya öğretim yöntemleri [Teaching methods from theory to practice]. Elazığ, Turkey: Üniversite Kitabevi.
55. Türk Dil Kurumu [Turkish Language Association] [TDK] (2019). Güncel Türkçe sözlük [Current Turkish dictionary]. Retrieved from http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_gts&arama=gts&guid=TDK.GTS.5ca207937a1f36.07554169
56. 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
57. 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
58. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences] (6th ed.). Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin.
59. 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
60. 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
61. 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