Comparison of the Learning Outcomes in 12th Grade Biology Curriculum According to The Revised Bloom Taxonomy: 2013, 2017 and 2018 Curriculums

Year 2019, Volume: 7 Issue: 14, 464 - 479, 29.10.2019

Hülya Aslan Efe Rıfat Efe

https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.591450

Cited By: 2

Abstract

The outcomes were coded into dimensions based on descriptive analysis in the Revised Bloom Taxonomy. The study revealed that the outcomes framed for the 12th grade of 2013 biology curriculum were more diverse in comparison to the same grade of the 2017 and 2018 biology curriculums in terms of knowledge dimension.  There were number of outcomes were higher in the analysis and evaluation of cognitive dimensions in the 2013 biology curriculum compared to the 2017 and 2018 biology curriculum. While the 2018 biology curriculum for the 12^th grade have four outcomes for the creating level of the cognitive dimension, 2013 biology curriculum for the same grade did not include any outcome for the creating level of the cognitive dimension.In this study, the learning outcomes of 2013, 2017 and 2018 secondary biology programs were examined according to the revised Bloom Taxonomy and the distribution of the outcomes to the corresponding level was expressed in figures and graphics. A qualitative approach was employed through document analysis. 

Keywords

Biology curriculum, objectives, revised bloom taxonomy

Comparison of the Learning Outcomes in 12th Grade Biology Curriculum According to The Revised Bloom Taxonomy: 2013, 2017 and 2018 Curriculums

Abstract

The outcomes were coded
into dimensions based on descriptive analysis in the Revised Bloom Taxonomy.
The study revealed that the outcomes framed for the 12th grade of 2013 biology
curriculum were more diverse in comparison to the same grade of the 2017 and
2018 biology curriculums in terms of knowledge dimension.  There were number of outcomes were higher in
the analysis and evaluation of cognitive dimensions in the 2013 biology
curriculum compared to the 2017 and 2018 biology curriculum. While the 2018
biology curriculum for the 12^th grade have four outcomes for the
creating level of the cognitive dimension, 2013 biology curriculum for the same
grade did not include any outcome for the creating level of the cognitive
dimension.In this study, the learning outcomes of 2013,
2017 and 2018 secondary biology programs were examined according to the revised
Bloom Taxonomy and the distribution of the outcomes to the corresponding level
was expressed in figures and graphics. A qualitative approach was employed
through document analysis.

Keywords

biology curriculum, objectives, revised bloom taxonomy

References

• Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4 (1), 213-230.
• Anderson,L., Krathwohl, R., Airisian, P., Cruikshank, K. Mayer, R., Pintrich, P.,Raths, J.& Wittrock,M. (Ed.) (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy, NY:Longman, Newyork, USA.
• Ayas, A. (2006). Fen bilgisi öğretiminde laboratuvar kullanımı [The use of laboratory in science teaching] Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları retrieved from http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/bulent.cavas/ders/rapor2.pdf on 03.04.2018.
• Ayvacı, H. Ş., & Şahin, Ç. (2009). Fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin ders sürecinde ve yazılı sınavlarda sordukları soruların bilişsel seviyelerinin karşılaştırılması. [Comparison of Cognitive Levels of Science Teachers' Questions During the Course and Written Examinations]. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 441-455.
• Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: David McKay Co.
• Corlis, S.B. (2005). The effects of reflective prompts and collaborative learning in hypermedia problem-based learning environments on problem solving and metacognitive skills (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The University of Texas, Austin).
• Eke, C. (2015). Dalgalar ünitesindeki kazanımların yenilenmiş bloom taksonomisine göre incelenmesi [Determination of objectives of waves topics according to the revised bloom’s taxonomy], Eğitim ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 346-353.
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10), 906-911
• Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
• Hirst, P. (1973). Liberal education and the nature of knowledge. In R.S. Pete (Ed..), The philosophy of education (pp. 87-111). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview, Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-264.
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2000). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı Ortaöğretim Biyoloji Dersi Programı [Ministry of National Education Board of Education and Training Secondary biology curriculum] Ankara.
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2013). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı Ortaöğretim Biyoloji Dersi Programı [Ministry of National Education Board of Education and Training Secondary biology curriculum], Ankara
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2017). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı Ortaöğretim Biyoloji Dersi Programı [Ministry of National Education Board of Education and Training Secondary biology curriculum], Ankara
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı Ortaöğretim Biyoloji Dersi Programı [Ministry of National Education Board of Education and Training Secondary biology curriculum], Ankara
• Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. (2nd Edition). Calif: SAGE Publications.
• Pintrich, P. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing, Theory into Practice, 41, 4, 119-225.
• Sadiç, A & Çam, A. (2015). 8.sınıf öğrencilerinin epistemolojik inançlari ile pisa başarıları ve fen ve teknoloji okuryazarlığı [Eight grade students’ epistemological beliefs with pisa success and their scientific literacy]. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 3 (5), 18-49.
• Tanık, N. & Saraçoğlu, S. (2011). Fen ve teknoloji dersi yazılı sorularının yenilenmiş bloom taksonomisi’ne göre incelenmesi [An investigation of the social sciences courses exam questions according to revised bloom’s taxonomy]. TÜBAV Bilim Dergisi, 4(4), 235-246.
• Thamraksa, C. (2005). Metacognition: a key to success for EFL learners. Bangkok University Academic Review, 4 (1), 95-99.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.