Comparative Analysis of International Baccalaureate and Cambridge Chemistry Curriculum Based on the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare the learning objectives of the globally recognized International Baccalaureate Diploma Program (IBDP) and Cambridge International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) Chemistry curricula according to the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy. In the study conducted through document analysis, 362 learning objectives in the IBDP and 353 learning objectives in the IGCSE were analyzed. The learning objectives were independently coded by two researchers according to the knowledge and cognitive process dimensions of Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (RBT), and discrepancies were resolved through discussion and expert consultation. The results were analyzed using frequency and percentage distributions. The results revealed that both curricula tended to emphasize the understand and apply levels within the cognitive process dimension, whereas objectives targeting the create category were scarce. In the knowledge dimension, conceptual and procedural knowledge were dominant in both curricula. However, notable differences emerged between the two programs. The IBDP included a higher proportion of learning objectives at the apply and evaluate levels, whereas the IGCSE curriculum contained more objectives at the remember and understand levels. These findings suggest that while both curricula prioritize conceptual understanding and the practical application of knowledge, the IBDP places greater emphasis on higher-order cognitive processes. By systematically mapping these cognitive disparities, this study provides an empirical benchmark to guide curriculum developers in bridging the gap between foundational chemistry education and advanced, higher-order skills.

Keywords

• Chemistry curriculum
• International Baccalaureate Organization
• International Cambridge Education
• Revised Bloom

Uluslararası Bakalorya ve Cambridge Kimya Öğretim Programlarının Yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisine Göre Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, ortaöğretim seviyesinde uluslararası yürürlükte olan Uluslararası Bakalorya Diploma Programı (IBDP) ve Cambridge Uluslararası Genel Ortaöğretim Eğitim Sertifikası (IGCSE) kimya dersi öğretim programları öğrenme hedeflerini Yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisi (YBT) göre karşılaştırmalı incelemektir. Çalışmada nitel araştırma desenlerinden doküman analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın veri kaynakları, Bakalorya Diploma Programı’nda 362 ve Cambridge programında 353 öğrenme çıktısı olmuştur. Öğrenme hedefleri, YBT'nin bilgi ve bilişsel süreç boyutlarına göre iki araştırmacı tarafından bağımsız olarak kodlanmış ve farklılıklar tartışma ve uzman danışmanlığı yoluyla çözülmüştür. Bulgular frekans ve yüzde değerler halinde tablo ve grafik olarak sunulmuştur. Sonuçlar, her iki programın da bilişsel süreç boyutunun anlama ve uygulama kategorilerine ağırlıklı olarak vurgu yaptığını, yaratma kategorisini hedefleyen kazanımların ise az olduğunu ortaya koydu. Bilgi boyutunda, her iki programda da kavramsal ve prosedürel bilgi baskındı. Bununla birlikte, iki program arasında önemli farklılıklar ortaya çıktı. IGCSE müfredatı ile karşılaştırıldığında, IBDP, uygulama ve değerlendirme seviyelerinde daha yüksek oranda öğrenme hedefi içerirken, IGCSE programı hatırlama ve anlama seviyelerinde daha fazla hedef içeriyordu. Bu bulgular, her iki müfredat da kavramsal anlayışı ve bilginin pratik uygulamasını önceliklendirirken, IBDP'nin daha üst düzey bilişsel süreçlere daha fazla önem verdiğini göstermektedir. Bu çalışma bilişsel farklılıkları sistematik olarak haritalandırarak, müfredat geliştiricilerine temel kimya eğitimi ile ileri düzey, üst düzey beceriler arasındaki boşluğu kapatmada yol göstermek için ampirik bir ölçüt sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

• Kimya Öğretim Programı
• Uluslararası Bakalorya Organizasyonu
• Uluslararası Cambridge Eğitimi
• Yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisi

References

1. Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives: complete edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
2. Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2010). Bloom’un eğitim hedefleri ile ilgili sınıflamasının güncelleştirilmiş biçimi. Durmuş Ali Özçelik (Çev.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi (2001).
3. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal, 9(2), 27-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
4. Bunnell, T. (2008). The International Baccalaureate in England and Wales: the alternative paths for the future. The Curriculum Journal, 19(3), 151-160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170802357462
5. Cambridge Assessment International Education (ICGSE). (2022) Cambridge International AS & A Level Chemistry 9701.
6. Cambridge Assessment International Education (ICGSE). (2023a, Mayıs). What we do. Erişim adresi: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/about-us/what-we-do/
7. Cambridge Assessment International Education (ICGSE). (2023b, Mayıs). Cambridge global perspectives. Erişim adresi: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/programmesand-qualifications/cambridge-global-perspectives/
8. Cambridge Assessment International Education (ICGSE). (2023c, Mayıs). International curriculum. Erişim adresi: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/why-chooseus/benefits-of-a-cambridge-education/international-curriculum/

9. Davila, K. & Talanquer, V. (2010). Classifying end-of-chapter questions and problems for selected general chemistry textbooks used in the United States. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 97-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed8000232
10. Dulun, Ö., Lane, J. F. & Ateşkan, A. (2018). Student perceptions of successful learning support for an international high school programme: a comparative case study in Turkey. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 49(6), 905-923. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2018.1471343
11. Elmas, R., Rusek, M., Lindell, A., Nieminen, P., Kasapoğlu, K. & Bílek, M. (2020). The intellectual demands of the intended chemistry curriculum in Czechia, Finland, and Turkey: a comparative analysis based on the revised Bloom's taxonomy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(3), 839-851. DOI: 10.1039/d0rp00058b
12. Fensham, P. J. & Bellocchi, A. (2013). Higher order thinking in chemistry curriculum and its assessment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 250-264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.06.003
13. Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom's taxonomy: Original and revised. Emerging perspectives on learning. Teaching and Technology, 8, 41-44.
14. Georghiades, P. (2006). The role of metacognitive activities in the contextual use of primary pupils' conceptions of science. Research in Science Education, 36, 29-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-3954-8
15. Hill, I. (2006). Do International Baccalaureate programs internationalize or globalize. International Education Journal, 7(1), 98-108.
16. Hotiu, A. (2006). The relationship between item difficulty and discrimination indices in multiple-choice tests in a physical science course. Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University.
17. Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational psychology interactive, 22, 1-4. International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO). Diploma Programme. Chemistry guide. https://www.ibo.org/ Access: 14 January 2023
18. IBO (2016). International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme Chemistry guide. Geneva, Switzerland.
19. IBO (2022). International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme Sciences: Chemistry. Geneva, Switzerland.
20. James, S.T. (2023). Cambridge İnternational. Erişim adresi: https://stjamesschool.co.za/cambridge-international/
21. Koosimile, A. T. (2005). Teachers’ experiences with an adapted IGCSE physics syllabus in Botswana. International Journal of Educational Development, 25(3), 209-219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2004.08.002
22. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: an overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
23. Lee, M., Hallinger, P. & Walker, A. (2012). Leadership challenges in international schools in the Asia Pacific region: Evidence from programme implementation of the International Baccalaureate. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 15(3), 289-310.
24. Lee, Y. J., Kim, M. & Yoon, H. G. (2015). The intellectual demands of the intended primary science curriculum in Korea and Singapore: An analysis based on revised Bloom's taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2193- 2213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1072290
25. Nkhoma, M. Z., Lam, T. K., Sriratanaviriyakul, N., Richardson, J., Kam, B. & Lau, K. H. (2017). Unpacking the revised Bloom’s taxonomy: developing case-based learning activities. Education Training, 59(3), 207-214. DOI: 10.1108/ET-03-2016-0061
26. Özmen, H. (2005). Examination of the SSE chemistry questions between 1990 and 2005 according to subject matters and Bloom’s taxonomy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), (21), 187-199.
27. Perna, L. W., May, H., Yee, A., Ransom, T., Rodriguez, A. & Fester, R. (2015). Unequal access to rigorous high school curricula: An exploration of the opportunity to benefit 68 from the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP). Educational Policy, 29(2), 402-425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813492383
28. Pulungan, R. H. (2019). An analysis of student’s reading comprehension on narrative text based on Original Bloom’s taxonomy at tenth grade of senior high school at man 1 mandailing natal. Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara.
29. Reeves, M. F. (1990). An application of Bloom's taxonomy to the teaching of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(7), 609-616. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383217
30. Sagun, S. & Corlu, M. S. (2014). Resolving the dilemma of international school curriculum: The case of biology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 153-158.
31. Scott, D. (2018). Knowledge and the curriculum. In creating curricula: Aims, knowledge and control (pp. 25-39). Routledge.
32. Sinnema, C., Nieveen, N. & Priestley, M. (2020). Successful futures, successful curriculum: What can Wales learn from international curriculum reforms? The Curriculum Journal, 31(2), 181-201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.17
33. Sivesind, K. & Westbury, I. (2016). State-based curriculum-making, Part I. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(6), 744-756. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1186737
34. Tewkesbury, M. (2017). An analysis of National Certificate of Educational Achievement chemistry courses in terms of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment: With comparison to the International Baccalaureate Diploma. Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington.
35. Tikkanen, G. & Aksela, M. (2012). Analysis of Finnish chemistry matriculation examination questions according to cognitive complexity. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 8(3), 257-268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.532
36. Tuğrul, B. (2002). A view of Bloom's taxonomic process in respect to interactive taxonomy. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 23, 267-274.
37. Tutkun, Ö. F. (2010). 21. yüzyılda eğitim programının felsefi boyutları. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(3), 993-1016.
38. Wei, B. (2020). The change in the intended senior high school chemistry curriculum in China: focus on intellectual demands. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(1), 14-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00115H
39. Wei, B. & Ou, Y. (2019). A comparative analysis of junior high school science curriculum standards in Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao: Based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 1459-1474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9935-6
40. Westbury, I., Aspfors, J., Fries, A. V., Hansén, S. E., Ohlhaver, F., Rosenmund, M. & Sivesind, K. (2016). Organizing curriculum change: An introduction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(6), 729-743. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1186736
41. Wootten, L. M. (2019). Exploring 21 st century teaching and learning skills in the ınternational baccalaureate continuum training and practice. Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University.
42. Wright, E. & Lee, M. (2014). Developing skills for youth in the 21st century: the role of elite ınternational baccalaureate diploma programme schools in China. International Review of Education, 60(2), 199-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-014-9404-6
43. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
44. Yıldırım, T. (2020). The analysis of chemistry teachers’ exam questions in regards to the revised bloom’s taxonomy and their comparison with ÖSYM questions. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 50, 449-467. doi:10.9779/pauefd.585602
45. Young, M. (2014). What is a curriculum and what can it do? Curriculum Journal, 25(1), 7-13.
46. Zorluoglu, S. L. & Gün N., (2024). Investigation of the science individualized education programs’ learning outcomes according to the Revised Bloom Taxonomy. Journal of Education and Future, 26, 67-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.1379690
47. 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.
48. Zorluoglu, S. L., Kizilaslan A. & Sozbilir M., (2016), Analysis and evaluation of learning outcomes in high school chemistry curriculum according to revised Bloom taxonomy, Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 260–279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17522/nefefmed.22297