Bloom’un Revize Edilen Taksonomisinin Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirmeye Etkileri

Year 2012, Volume: 11 Issue: 2, 327 - 348, 01.12.2012

İrfan Yurdabakan

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, orijinalinde Bloom’un taksonomisi olarak bilinen hedeflerin aşamalı sınıflandırılması üzerinde Krathwoohl ve Anderson’un öncülüğünde gerçekleştirilin yeni düzenlemeyi, yeni düzenlemenin orijinalinden farklarını ve eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirmeye olan etkilerini ele almaktır. Bu amaçla, uluslararası veritabanları taranarak “Bloom’un revize edilen taksonomisi ve revize dilen taksonomi ile ölçme ve değerlendirme İlişkisi”ni içeren yayınlara ulaşılmıştır. Ulaşılan yayınlarda, yeniden düzenlemenin gerekçeleri, yeniden düzenleme ile ortaya çıkan sonuçlar ve bu sonuçların eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirmeyle olan yansımaları betimlenmeye çalışılmıştır

Keywords

Bloom’un taksonomisi, revize edilen taksonomisi, ölçme ve değerlendirme, alternatif değerlendirme

The Effects of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy on Measurement and Evaluation in Education

Abstract

The aim of this study is to discuss the revision of the original version of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives under the leadership of Krathwohl and Anderson and its reflections on testing and assessment in education. Fort his purpose, international database was scanned to analyze the publications on “Bloom’s revised taxonomy and relationships between the revised taxonomy and testing and assessment”. The reasons for revision, the results that emerged following the revision and the reflections of those results on measurement and evaluation in education are described within the scope of those publications obtained

Keywords

Bloom’s taxonomy, Bloom’s revised taxonomy, measurement and evaluation, alternative assessment

References

• Açıkgöz, K. (2003). Aktif Öğrenme. Kanyılmaz Matbaası, İzmir
• Airasian P. W ve Miranda H. (2002). The Role of Assessment in the Revised Taxonomy. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 249-254.
• Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology. 8, 4 (1), 213-230
• Anderson, L. W. (1999). Rethinking Bloom’s Taxonomy:Implications for Testing and Assessment. U. S. Department of Education.Reports. ED: 435630
• Anderson, L. W. (2002). Curricular Alignment: A Re-Examination. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 255-260.
• Anderson, L. W. (2005). Ojectives, Evaluation, And The Improvement of Education.Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31, 102-113
• Arter. J. A. & Spandel, V. (1992). Using Portfolios of Student Work in Instruction and Assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(2).
• Birenbaum, M., ve Dochy, F. (1996). Alternatives in Assessment of Achievement, Learning Processes and Prior Knowledge, 3-31 (Boston, MA, Kluwer Academic).
• Boud, D. (1995) Enhancing Learning through Self Assessment. Kogan Page, London.
• Boud, D. ve Falchikov, N. (1989) Quantitative studies of self-assessment in higher education: a critical analysis of findings, Higher Education, 18, 529-549.
• Boud, D., ve Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning Assessment with long-term learning, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399- 413.
• Chen, L.M. (1993). Portfolios in Second and Foreign Language Classroom Assessment. http://spectrum.troy.edu/~lchen/papers/portfolio.doc (Erişim: 21.10.2005).
• Cornford, I. R. (2004). Cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies as a basis for effective lifelong learning: How far have we progressed? Paper presented to the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Melbourne. http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/alpha04.htm COR04942 (Erişim: 20.5.2009).
• Demirel, Ö. (2000). Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde program geliştirme. Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
• Dochy, F. ve McDowell, L. (1997) Assessment as a tool for learning, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23, 279-298.
• Dochy, F., Segers M., ve Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The Use of Self, Peer and Co- assessment in Higher Education: a review. Studies in Higher Education. 24(3).
• Edwards, R., Ranson, S. ve Strain, M. (2002). Reflexivity: towards a theory of lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21, 525-536.
• Ernest, P. (1995). The one and the many. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). Constructivism in education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc.
• Falchikov, N. (1995) Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment, Innovations in Education and Training International, 32, pp. 175-187.
• Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
• Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Hargreaves, A., Lorna, E. ve Schmidt, M. (2002). Perspectives on alternative assessment reform. American Educational Research Journal. 39 (1), 69-95.
• Freeman, M. (1995) Peer assessment by groups of group work, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 20, 289-300.
• Grace, C. (1992). The Portfolio and Its Use: Developmentally Appropriate Assessment of Young Children. ERIC Dökümanı Servis Numarası: ED 351150.
• Greaves, J. D. ve Gupta, S. K. (2003). Portfolios can Assist Reflective Practice and Guide Learning. Current Anaesthesia and Critical Care, 14(4), 173-177.
• Hamilton, L. S. (1994). Validating Hands-on Science Assessments Through an Investigation of Response Process. ERIC Dokümanı, Servis Numarası: ED 376202.
• Hebert, E. A. ve Schultz, L. (1996). The Power of Portfolios. Educational Leadership, 53(7), 70-71.
• Honebein, J. (1996). Seven Goals for the Design of Constructivist Learning. http://cter.ed.uiuc.edu/JimL_Courses/edpsy490i/su01/readings/honebein.htm, (Erişim: 15.6.2008).
• Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Towards a Constructivist Design Model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34-37.
• Kutlu, Ö., Doğan, C.D. ve Karakaya, İ.(2008). Öğrenci Başarısının Belirlenmesi: Performansa ve Portfolyaya Dayalı Durum Belirleme. Pegem A Yayıncılık, Ankara.
• Krethwohl, R. D., (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218
• McMahon, T. (2009). Combining peer-assessment with negotiated learning activities on a day-release undergraduate-level certificate course (ECTS level 3). Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–17,
• MEB. (2003). Öğrenci Merkezli Eğitim Uygulama Modeli, Millî Eğitim Basım Evi, Ankara (192-205).
• Moya, S. S. ve O’Malley, J. M. (1994). A Portfolio Assessment Model for ESL. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 13, 13-36.
• Öncü, H. (2009). Ölçme ve Değerlendirmede Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: Portfolyo Değerlendirme. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi.13(1), 103-130.
• Paulson, F.L., Paulson, P.R. ve Meyer, C.A. (1991). What Makes a Portfolio a Portfolio? Educational Leadership, 48(5), 60-63.
• Pierce, L. V. ve O’Malley, J. M. (1993). Performance and Portfolio Assessment for Language Minority Students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3)
• Pickard M. J. (2007). The New Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview For Family And Consumer Sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 25(1), 45-55
• Pintrich P. R. (2002).The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.
• Raths J. (2002). Improving Instruction. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 233-237.
• Shrauger, S. J. ve Osberg, T. M. 1981. The relative accuracy of selfprediction and judgements by others in psychological assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 322-351.
• Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 33–45.
• Somervell, H. (1993). Issues in assessment, enterprise and higher education: the case for self-, peer and collaborative assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18, 221-233.
• Sönmez, V. (2001). Program Geliştirmede Öğretmen El Kitabı. Anı Yayıncılık. Ankara
• Sundström, A. (2005). Self-assessment of knowledge and abilities: A literature study. Umea Universitet, 54.
• Tedick, D. J. ve Klee, C. A. (1998). Alternative Assessment in the Language Classroom. ERIC Dokümanı, Servis Numarası: ED 433 720.
• Topping K. J. (2005). Trends in Peer Learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6),631–645
• Turgut, M., F. (1995). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. Yargıcı matbaası. Ankara
• Turgut, M. F. ve Baykul, Y. (2010). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. Pegem Akademi. Ankara.
• Valencia, S. (1990). A Portfolio Approach to Classroom Reading Assessment: The Whys, Whats, and Hows. The Reading Teacher, 43(4), 38-40.
• Van den Berg I., Admiraal W. ve Pilot A. (2006) Design principles and outcomes of peer assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31( 3), 341– 356
• Wilson, B. G., & Cole, P. (1991). A review of cognitive teaching models. Educational http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~bwilson/hndbkch.html (Erişim: 20.5.2009).
• Wolf, Kenneth ve Siu-Runyan, Yvonne (1996). Portfolio Purposes and Possibilities. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(1).
• Yurdabakan, İ. (2011). Yapılandırmacı Kuramın Değerlendirmeye Bakışı: Eğitimde Alternatif Değerlendirme Yöntemleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 44(1), 51-77.
• Yurdabakan, İ. (2012). The effect of co- and peer assessment training on self- assessment skills of teacher trainees. Education and Science,37(163), 190-202.
• Zollman, A. ve Jones, D. L. (1994). Accomodating Assessment and Learning: Utilizing Portfolios in Teachers Education with Preservice Teachers. ERIC Dokümanı, Servis Numarası: ED 368551.