Investigation of the Science Individualized Education Programs’ Learning Outcomes According to the Revised Bloom Taxonomy

Abstract

This study aims to determine whether the LO in individualized education programs (IEP) have any learning outcome value, whether they are included in the science education curriculum, and how the LO are distributed according to the RBT knowledge and cognitive process dimension levels. The IEPs from 49 science teachers working in 7 different regions of Turkey, which they prepared at the secondary school levels, were requested, and IEPs were analyzed using the document analysis method. It was concluded from the analysis that 6% of the LO in the IEPs did not have any learning outcome value and that 55% of the 2883 LO that had a learning outcome value consisted of those included in the science education curriculum. It was determined that the LO in the IEPs were at the level of conceptual at the most and at the level of meta-cognitive at the least from the knowledge dimension levels of RBT additionally, they were at the understanding at the most and at the creating and evaluating at the least from cognitive process dimension levels of RBT.

Keywords

• Individualized education program
• learning outcomes
• revised Bloom taxonomy
• science course.

References

1. Akyürek, G. (2019). Examination of LGS and TEOG exams according to science course curriculum and revised Bloom taxonomy. (Unpublished Master Thesis). Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey.
2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.). (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. http://eduq.info/xmlui/handle/11515/18345
3. Arı, A., & İnci, T. (2015). The evaluation of common exam questions regarding 8th grade science and technology lesson. Uşak University Journal of Social Sciences, 8(4), 17-50.
4. Arslan, A., & Eker, C. (2018). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel Akademi Yayıncılık.
5. Ataş, E., & Güneş, P. (2020). Evaluation of the exam questions of the sixth grade science course according to the reconstructed Bloom taxonomy. Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Education Journal, 20(2), 1066-1078. https://dx.doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2020..-632040
6. Ateş, M. (2017). Examination of the opinions of Turkish teachers works in science and art centers about individualized education plan. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Education Journal, 42, 211-225. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/327622
7. Ayyıldız, Y., Aydın, A., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2019). Examination of the 2018 chemistry curriculum’s LO according to original and Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Education Journal, 52, 340-376. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.540854
8. Bowen A. G. (2009). “Document analysis as a qualitative research method”. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 7-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

9. Bhroin, Ó. N., King, F., & Prunty, A. (2016). Teachers’ knowledge and practice relating to the individual education plan and LO for pupils with special educational needs. REACH: Journal of Inclusive Education in Ireland, 29(2), 78-90.
10. Burunsuz, E., & İnce, M. (2020). Teachers’ opinions on the implementation of individualized education program for teachers in elementary education schools. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 14(31), 530-544. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2020.234.25
11. Cawley, J., Hayden, S., Cade, E., & Baker Kroczynski, S. (2002). Including students with disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 423-435. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001440290206800401
12. Christle, C. A., & Yell, M. L. (2010). Individualized education programs: Legal requirements and research findings. Exceptionality, 18(3), 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2010.491740
13. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Çerçi, A. (2018). Investigation of 2018 Turkish language curriculum (5, 6, 7, 8th grade) according to revised Bloom taxonomy. Research in Reading & Writing Instruction, 6(2), 70-81.
15. Darwazeh, A. N., & Branch, R. M. (2015). A revision to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Annual Proceedings–Indianapolis, 2, 220-225.
16. Evyapan, G. (2020). Pre school teachers self-suffiency perception level in regard to inclusive education and their views about individualized education program. (Unpublished Master Thesis). Balıkesir University, Balıkesir, Turkey.
17. Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology, 41(4), 47-56.
18. Goodwin, K., Farquharson, K., Yeager Pelatti, C., Schneider Cline, W., Harvey, J., & Bush E. (2020). Examining the Quality of Individualized Education Plan (IEP) Goals for Children with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Communication Disorders Quarterly, 43(2), 96-104.
19. Gökulu, A. (2015). Examination of science and technology teachers' written exam questions and science and technology questions asked in TEOG exams according to the revised Bloom taxonomy. Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 2(2), 434-446.
20. Hedeen, T., Peter, M., Moses, P., & Engiles, A. (2013). Individualized education program (IEP)/individualized family service plan (IFSP) facilitation: Practical insights and programmatic considerations. Eugene, OR: Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558077.pdf
21. İdin, Ş. (2016). Individualized education programs in teacher practices. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 3(1), 1-7.
22. İlik, Ş. Ş. (2017). Examination and evaluation of individualized education programs prepared for intellectual disability students. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(4), 4898-4909. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v14i3.nnnn
23. Jung, L. A., Gomez, C., Baird, S. M., & Keramidas, C. L. G. (2008). Designing intervention plans: Bridging the gap between Individualized Education Programs and implementation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(1), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F004005990804100103
24. Kala, A., & Çakır, M. (2016). Analysis of 2013 public personnel selection exam biology field knowledge questions based on biology teachers’ knowledge competencies and the Revised Bloom taxonomy. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 243-260.
25. Karaer, H. (2020). Analysis of organic chemistry questions in teaching field knowledge tests according to the revised Bloom taxonomy. Trakya Journal of Education, 10(3), 726-743. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.608336
26. Kargın, T. (2007). The process for educational assessment and Individualized Education Programme. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 8(1), 1-13.
27. Kosko, K., & Wilkins, J. L. (2009). General educators in-service training and their self-perceived ability to adapt instruction for students with IEPs. Teacher Training and Inclusion Journal, 33(2), 1-10. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ988196.pdf
28. Mete, P., Çapraz, C., & Yıldırım, A. (2017). Science education for intellectual disabled students. Atatürk University Journal of the Social Sciences Institute, 21(1), 289-304.
29. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2th ed.). California: SAGE Publications.
30. Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2000). Özel eğitim hakkında kanun hükmünde kararname ve özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
31. MoNE (2008). Özel eğitim ve rehabilitasyon merkezi özel öğrenme güçlüğü destek eğitim programı. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2013_09/04010347_zelrenmegldestekeitimprogram.pdf
32. MoNE (2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=32
33. Özan, S., & Sarıca, A. D. (2021). The Individualized Education Plan: The experiences of general educators and school counselors. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 147-174. doi: 10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.664973
34. Pektaş, H. (2008). The proficiency of the teachers who are graduated form the department of special education and the teachers who are graduated form the departments other than special educationin relation to preparing and practicing ''individualized education schedule''. (Unpublished Master Thesis). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
35. Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Routledge.
36. Sağlamöz, F., & Soysal, Y. (2021). Exploration of 2018 primary and elementary sciences course teaching programs outcomes according to the revised Bloom taxonomy. İstanbul Aydın University Faculty of Education Journal, 7(1), 111-145. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1764424
37. Saracaloğlu, A. S. (2015). Program geliştirme ve değerlendirme. A. S. Saracaloğlu and A. Küçükoğlu (Ed.), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri [Teaching principles and methods] (pp. 23-78). Ankara: Pegem Publishing.
38. Söğüt, D. A., & Deniz, S. (2018). Rigours which class teachers encounter with preparing Individualized Education Program (IEP) and assessment of views related to inclusive practices. Erzincan University Faculty of Education Journals, 20(2), 423-443. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.402532
39. Spiel, C. F., Evans, S. W., & Langberg, J. M. (2014). Evaluating the content of Individualized Education Programs and 504 plans of young adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(4), 452–468.
40. Strickland, B.B., & Turnbull, A.P. (1990). Developing and implementing individualized education programs. Columbus OH: Merrill.
41. Stubbs, S. (2008). Inclusive education where there are few resources. Norway, Oslo: The Atlas Alliance. https://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/IE%20few%20resources%202008.pdf
42. Şahin, S. (2017). The opinions of parents and teachers who have inclusion students i̇n primary education about inclusion practicings. (Unpublished Master Thesis). Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Turkey.
43. Tekin Ersan, D., & Ata, S. (2018). Preschool teachers’ opinions/views on developing the Individualized Education Program. Trakya University Journal of Education Faculty, 8(1), 162-177. https://doi.org/10.24315/trkefd.366706
44. Tomlinson, S. (2017). A sociology of special and inclusive education: Exploring the manufacture of inability. Abingdon: Routledge.
45. Tutkun, Ö. F., Demirtaş, Z., Erdoğan, D. G., & Arslan, S. (2015). A Comparison on new version of Bloom’s taxonomy and original Bloom’s cognitive domain taxonomy. The journal of Akademic Social Science, 3(10), 350-359.
46. Yaşar, M. D., & Sadi Yılmaz, S. (2020). Analysis, evaluation, and comparison of the 2007, 2013 and 2018 chemistry curriculum LO based on the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 9(2), 264-278. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.590764
47. Yell, M. L. (1998). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall.
48. Yell, M. L., & Drasgow, E. (2005). No Child Left Behind: A guide for professionals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10883576050200030101
49. Yılmaz, E., & Batu, E. S. (2016). Opinions of primary school teachers about Individualized Education Programme, legal regulation and inclusion implementation. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 17(3), 247-267. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.267316
50. 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. https://doi.org/10.17522/nefefmed.22297
51. Zorluoğlu, S. L., Şahintürk A., & Bağrıyanık K. E. (2017). Analysis and evaluation of science course curriculum LO of the year 2013 according to the revised Bloom taxonomy. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.267190
52. 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.