Evaluation of the support education room primary school Turkish activity book prepared for gifted ones in the context of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy

Abstract

There are many science and art centers established throughout our country within the scope of support services for gifted students. These gifted students have the right to benefit from the support training room in the schools where they study, apart from the science and art canters. On 04/11/2022, the Ministry of National Education published 9 Training Room Activity books for gifted students in different branches. In this study, it is aimed to evaluate the achievements contained in the Support Training Room for Gifted Students Turkish 2. 3. and 4. classroom activities book in the context of the cognitive domain steps of the updated Bloom Taxonomy. In the study, the achievements found at the 2. 3. and 4. grade levels were analysed using keywords compiled in the literature and it was tried to determine which step corresponds to the updated Bloom Taxonomy. In the study carried out with document analysis technique, one of the qualitative research methods, a total of 122 achievements, including 40 at 2 grade levels, 37 at 3 grade levels and 45 at 4 grade levels, were evaluated. As a result of the study, it was determined that 10% of the 2nd grade achievements were in the recall, 15% in comprehension, 42.5% in practice, 5% in analysis and 27.5% in creation. Also, it was seen that 8.1% of the 3rd grade achievements were in the recall, 16.2% in comprehension, 43.2% in the application, 8.1% in analysis, 2.7% in evaluation and 21.6% in the creation stage. Finally, it was found that 6.6% of the 4 grade level achievements can be associated with recall, 17.7% with understanding, 35.5% with application, 8.8% with analysis, 8.8% with evaluation and 22.2% with the creation step. Based on these findings, it can be said that the achievements at the 2, 3 and 4 grade levels of the Support Training Room for the Gifted Turkish activity book correspond to the most application and creation steps from the Updated Bloom Taxonomy cognitive field steps, while the evaluation step is the least included.

Keywords

• activity book
• support training room
• revised Bloom Taxonomy
• gifted education
• dfifferentiation

References

1. Aktan, O. (2020). Examination of primary school mathematics curriculum course outcomes according to the renewed bloom taxonomy. Pamukkale University Faculty of Education Journal (PAU Journal of Education), 48, 15-36. Doi: 10.9779/pauefd.523545.
2. Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4 (1), 213-230.
3. Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2018). A classification of learning, teaching and assessment, an updated version of Bloom's classification of educational goals. 3rd Edition. (Trans. Özçelik, D. A.). Ankara: Pegem Academy Publications.
4. Ari, A. & Göokler, Z. S. (2012). Evaluation of primary school science and technology course outcomes and SBS questions according to the new Bloom taxonomy. X. National Science and Mathematics Education Congress, Niğde. 20-30 June 2012.
5. Basbay, M. (2008). The effect of project-based teaching on learning in an instructional design course organized according to the revised taxonomy. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
6. Belcastro, F. (1987). Elementary pull-out programs for the intellectually gifted--boon or bane? Roeper Review, 9, 208-212.
7. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals, handbook I: Cognitive do main. New York: David McKay Company.
8. Bowen, A. G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9 (2), 27-40.

9. Brighouse, H. & Swift, A. (2014). The place of educational equality in educational justice. In K. Meyer (Ed.), Education, justice, and the human good: Fairness and equality in the education system. Abingdon: Routledge.
10. Bumen, N.T. (2010). A milestone in program development: Revised Bloom's taxonomy. Education and Science, 31(142).
11. Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R. & Oh, S. (2017). Describing the status of programs for the gifted: A call for action. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(1), 20-49.
12. Canguven, H.D., Oz, O., Binzet, G. & Avci, G. (2017). An examination of the Ministry of National Education's 2017 science draft program according to the revised Bloom's taxonomy. International Journal of Eurasian Education and Culture, 2, 62-80.
13. Chuska, K. R. (2005). Gifted learners K-12: A practical guide to effective curriculum and teaching (2nd ed.). National Educational Service.
14. Dalak, O. (2015). Examination of TEOG exam questions and related achievements in 8th grade curriculum according to the revised Bloom's taxonomy. Unpublished master's thesis, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep.
15. Davis, G. & Rimm, S. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented, 5th edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
16. Dindar, H. & Demir, M. (2006). Evaluation of fifth grade teachers' science lesson exam questions according to Bloom's taxonomy. Journal of Gazi Education Faculty, 26, (3), 87-96.
17. Es, H. (2005). Evaluation of high school entrance exam science questions and primary school science exam questions according to Bloom's taxonomy. Unpublished master's thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.
18. Giesinger, J. (2011). Education, fair competition, and concern for the worst off. Educational Theory, 61(1), 41–54.
19. Girgin, E. (2012). Examining the end-of-unit evaluation questions in the primary school 2nd grade science and technology reverse books. Published master's thesis, Trakya University, Edirne.
20. Guleryuz, H. (2016). Evaluation of 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th grades science and technology exam questions according to Bloom's taxonomy. Published master's thesis, Mus Alparslan University, Mus.
21. Haight, A. (2005) ‘Inclusiveness and teacher attitudes in the identification of gifted and talented pupils in Excellence in Cities and Excellence Clusters schools’. Paper delivered to the British Education Research Association Conference, Glamorgan, September, 2005.
22. Kahramanoglu, E. (2013). Evaluation of primary school science and technology textbooks in terms of Bloom's Taxonomy. Published master's thesis. Istanbul University, Istanbul.
23. Kulik, J. A. (2003). Grouping and tracking. N. Colangelo and G. A. Davis (Editörler), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 268–281). Boston: Allyn and Baco.
24. Kuzu, T.S. (2013). Investigation of subtext questions in Turkish textbooks in terms of cognitive levels of remembering and understanding in the revised Bloom's taxonomy. Cumhuriyet University Journal of Social Sciences, 37 (1), 58-76.
25. Mammadov, S. (2015). Current policies and policy efforts for the education of gifted children in Turkey. Roeper Review, 37(3), 139-149.
26. Marlowe, B. & Page, M. L. (1998). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom. London: Corwin Press.
27. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226-232.
28. MoNE (Ministry of National Education) (2012). Special Education Services Regulation. Ankara: Ministry of National Education General Directorate of Special Education and Guidance Services.
29. MoNE (Ministry of National Education) (2022). Science and Art Centers Directive. Ankara: Ministry of National Education General Directorate of Special Education and Guidance Services. Journal of Announcements.
30. MoNE (Ministry of National Education), (1991). Special Education Council, Gifted Children and Their Education. Ankara: Ministry of National Education General Directorate of Special Education and Guidance Services.
31. MoNE (Ministry of National Education), (2006). Special education service regulation [Special education regulation]. Ankara, Official Gazette.
32. Meyer, K. (2021). Talents, abilities and educational justice. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53(8), 799-809. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, M. A. (2021). An extended sourcebook qualitative data analysis. (Trans. Eds. Sadegul Akbaba Altun and Ali Ersoy). Ankara: Pegem Publishing.
33. NAGC. (National Association for Gifted Children and Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted). (2015). State of the states in gifted education 2014–2015: National policy and practice data. Washington, DC.
34. Orey, M. (2010). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and technology (pp. 56-61). North Charleston: CreateSpace.
35. Oryasin, U. (2021). Examination of activities in Turkish textbooks according to the renewed Bloom Classification. Journal of Mother Language Education, 9(3) , 820-832.
36. Öpengin, E. (2018). Problems encountered in the implementation of the support training room for gifted students at the primary school level and solution interventions for problems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
37. Ozdemir, S. M., Altıok, S. & Baki, N. (2015). An examination of social studies curriculum achievements according to Bloom's revised taxonomy. Journal of Education and Training Research, 4 (3) 363-375.
38. Rinn, A. N. (2021). Social, emotional, and psychosocial development of gifted and talented individuals. Routledge.
39. Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
40. Sayler, M. F. (2021). Special schools for the gifted and talented. In The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 443-463). Routledge.
41. Sanli, C. & Pinar, A. (2017). Examination of social studies course exam questions according to the renewed Bloom taxonomy. Elementary Education Online, 16(3), 949-959.
42. Tahaoglu, A. (2014). Examination of secondary education Turkish literature course curriculum achievements from a cognitive point of view. Master's thesis. Bilkent University, Ankara.
43. Tolan, Y. (2011). The appropriateness of the placement exam (SBS) Questions to the science and technology course curriculum and the examination according to Bloom Taxonomy. Master's thesis. Ataturk University, Erzurum.
44. Topcu, E. (2017). Analysis of TEOG History questions according to the revised Bloom Taxonomy. International Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, (9), 321-335. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/goputeb/issue/34356/381023.
45. Vopat, M. C. (2011). Magnet schools, innate talent and social justice. Theory and Research in Education, 9(1), 59–72.
46. Webb, T.J., Meckstroth, A.E. & Tolan, S.S. (2006). Guiding the gifted child (25th ed.). Scottsdale. Winstanley, C. (2005). Investigating the notion of children with multiple exceptionalities. University of Warwick, National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth.
47. Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P. & Dixson, D. D. (2019). Gifted students. Annual review of psychology, 70, 551-576.
48. Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2013). Qualitative research methods in social sciences (9. Ed). Ankara: Seckin Publishing House.