Language assessment through Bloom’s Taxonomy

Abstract

Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
Language assessment through Bloom’s Taxonomy
The significance of Bloom's taxonomy is ingrained in developing assessments that measure higher and lower level cognitive skills. Since it is important to assess how well students master the information within the levels of the taxonomy, in this study, the higher and lower levels of Bloom's taxonomy are presented and whether the exam questions of General English courses are based on both higher and lower order thinking levels is detected. This study was carried out through both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection. The findings of the study suggested that the analyzed exam papers lacked the higher level cognitive skills contained in Bloom’s Taxonomy. Through the findings, some assumptions have been made with the aim of suggesting how the exam papers which are being written or will be written should refer to Bloom’s taxonomy.
Information about Author(s)*
Author 1
Author (Last name, First name)	Köksal, Diçay
Affiliated institution (University)	Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank	Foreign Language Education
Corresponding author (Yes/No) Write only one corresponding author.	Yes
Author 2
Author (Last name, First name)	Ulum, Ömer Gökhan
Affiliated institution (University)	Adana Science and Technology University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank	School of Foreign Languages
Corresponding author (Yes/No)	No
Author 3
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 4
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)

Keywords

• Bloom’s Taxonomy,Language Assessment,Exam Questions

References

1. Almerico, G. M. & Baker, R.K. (2004). Bloom’s Taxonomy Illustrative Verbs: Developing a Comprehensive List for Educator Use. Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal. 1(4), 1-10.
2. Assaly, I. R., & Smadi, O. M. (2015). Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Evaluate the Cognitive Levels of Master Class Textbook’s Questions. English Language Teaching. 8(5), 100-110.
3. Black, P., Harrison, C., & Lee, C. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
4. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 20-24.
5. Brualdi, A.C. (1998). Classroom questions. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation.6/6).
6. Chang, W. C., & Chung, M. S. (2009). Automatic applying Bloom's taxonomy to classify and analysis the cognition level of English question items. In 2009 Joint Conferences on Pervasive Computing (JCPC).
7. Chin, C. (2004). Questioning Students in ways that encourage thinking. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 50(4).
8. Cognition (2016). In The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=cognition

9. Eber, P. A., & Parker, T. S. (2007). Assessing Student Learning: Applying Bloom's Taxonomy. Human Service Education, 27(1).
10. Freahat, N. M., & Smadi, O. M. (2014). Lower-order and Higher-order Reading Questions in Secondary and University Level EFL Textbooks in Jordan. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(9), 1804-1813.
11. Haris, S. S., & Omar, N. (2015). Bloom's Taxonomy Question Categorizatıon Using Rules and N-gram Approach. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology, 76(3).
12. Jones, K. O., Harland, J., Reid, J., & Bartlett, R. (2009). Relationship between examination questions and Bloom's taxonomy. In Frontiers in Education Conference, 2009. FIE'09. 39th IEEE. 1-6.
13. Kastberg, S. E. (2003). Using Bloom's Taxonomy as a framework for classroom assessment. The Mathematics Teacher, 96(6), 402-405.
14. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
15. Konza, D. (2011). Research into Practice. Understanding the reading process. Department of Education and Children’s Services. Government of South Australia. 1, 1-8.
16. Leeds, D. (2000). The 7 powers of questions: Secrets to successful communication in life and at work. Penguin.
17. Omar, N., Haris, S. S., Hassan, R., Arshad, H., Rahmat, M., Zainal, N. F. A., & Zulkifli, R. (2012). Automated analysis of exam questions according to Bloom's taxonomy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 297-303.
18. Ordem, E. (2016). Developing Critical-Thinking Dispositions in a Listening/Speaking Class. English Language Teaching, 10(1), 50.
19. Orey, M. (2010). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. The Global Text Project. Jacobs Foundation: Switzerland.
20. Paul, D. V., Naik, S. B., & Pawar, J. D. (2014). An Evolutionary Approach for Question Selection from a Question Bank: A Case Study. International Journal of ICT Research and Development in Africa (IJICTRDA), 4(1), 61-75.
21. Scott, T. (2003). Bloom’s Taxonomy Applied to Testing in Computer Science Classes. Consortium for Computing Science in Colleges: Rocky Mountain Conference. 267-274.
22. Swart, A.J. (2010). Evaluation of Final Examination Papers in Engineering: A Case StudyUsing Bloom's Taxonomy, IEEE Transactions on Education. 53 (2), 257-264.
23. Thompson, E., Luxton-Reilly, A., Whalley, J. L. Hu, M., P. Robbins. (2008). Bloom's Taxonomy for CS Assessment. Proceeding Tenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2008), Wollongong, Australia. 155-162.
24. Veeravagu, J., Muthusamy, C., Marimuthu, R., & Michael, A. S. (2010). Using Bloom's Taxonomy to Gauge Students' Reading Comprehension Performance/Utiliser La Taxonomie De Bloom Pour Evaluer Les Performances De Comprehension Ecrite Des Eleves. Canadian Social Science, 6(3), 205.
25. Zareian, G., Davoudi, M., Heshmatifar, Z., & Rahimi, J. (2015). An Evaluation of Questions in Two ESP Coursebooks Based on Bloom’s New Taxonomy of Cognitive Learning Domain. International Journal of Education and Research. 3(8), 313-326.
26. Zoller, U. & Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Higher and lower-order cognitive skills: The case of chemistry. Research in Science Education, 27,117- 130.