Yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisine İngilizce Aktif Okuma Becerileri Kitabında Ne Ölçüde Yer Verildiğine dair Eleştirel bir Yaklaşım

Öz

Bloom taksonomisi 1956 yılında eğitim psikoloğu Benjamin Bloom tarafından eğitimde üst düzey becerileri geliştirme amacıyla tasarlanmıştır. Zamanla orijinal taksonomi bazı değişikler uygulanarak yenilenmiştir. Güncel taksonomi daha etkin bilişsel becerileri yansıtır ve muhtemelen daha gelişmiştir. Yenilenmiş taksonomi fiil bildiren kelimeler kullanarak taksonominin pratikliğini artırmıştır. Yenilenmiş taksonomide seviyeleri kavramsal farklılıklar gösteren bilişsel alanda altı basamak vardır. Yenilenmiş taksonominin basamakları hatırlama, anlama, uygulama, analiz, değerlendirme ve yaratma basamaklarından oluşmaktadır. Yenilenmiş taksonominin her bir basamağı özel fiiller içerdiğinden taksonomi öğrenme kazanımları oluşturmada faydalıdır. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışma bir İngilizce okuma ders kitabında yer alan okuduğunu anlama sorularında yenilenmiş Bloom taksonomisine ne ölçüde yer verildiğini keşfetmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu yüzden, yenilenmiş taksonomide yer alan bilişsel becerileri irdeleyen iki araştırma sorusu geliştirilmiştir. Birinci araştırma sorusu alt seviye bilişsel becerileri irdelerken, ikinci araştırma sorusu üst düzey bilişsel becerileri irdelemektedir. Analiz edilen İngilizce okuma ders kitabı betimsel içerik analizi yöntemi ile irdelenmiştir. Araştırmanın sonuçları analiz edilen ders kitabının yenilenmiş Bloom taksonomisinde altı çizilen üst düzey bilişsel becerilerden yoksun olduğunu göstermiştir. Yazılmakta olan veya yazılacak olan okuma ders kitaplarının okuduğunu anlama sorularında yenilenmiş Bloom taksonomisine ne ölçüde yer vermeleri gerektiğine dair bu bağlamda ilgili önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bilişsel alan
• taksonomi
• yenilenmiş Bloom taksonomisi
• okuduğunu anlama soruları
• okuma becerilerinin değerlendirilmesi

A Critical Approach to the Inclusion of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy in Active Skills for Reading: Book 1

Abstract

Bloom’s Taxonomy was produced in 1956 by the educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom with the aim of fostering higher order thinking skills in education. In time, the original taxonomy was revisited by applying some changes. This up to date taxonomy mirrors a more active style of cognition and is possibly more precise. The revised one developed the practicality of the taxonomy by employing action words. There are six steps of cognitive domain in the revised version, the levels of which are conceptually different. These are remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating in the revised version and they are beneficial in forming learning outcomes since specific verbs are particularly suitable for each level. Accordingly, this paper focuses on exploring how the revised Bloom’s taxonomy is contained in the reading questions of an EFL reading course book. Therefore, two research questions were promoted to respond to the cognitive skills in the revised taxonomy. The first research question aims at evaluating the lower level while the second one hints on the higher cognition level. The analyzed EFL reading course book was inquired through descriptive content analysis method. The results of the study displayed that the assessed reading course book lacks the higher level cognitive skills underlined in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Thus, related assumptions have been produced to suggest how the reading course books which are being produced or will be produced should refer to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy while assessing reading comprehension.

Keywords

• cognitive domain
• taxonomy
• the revised Bloom’s taxonomy
• reading comprehension questions
• assessing reading skills

References

1. Adams, N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103(3), 152.
2. Ahmed, N., Anwar, M. A., Wajahat, U., Edriss, A., & Abdurahen, M. (2014). Bloom’s taxonomy based proportionate curriculum development model. Journal of education and practice, 5(26), 12-17.
3. Airasian, P. W., & Miranda, H. (2002).The role of assessment in the revised taxonomy.Theory into practice, 41(4), 249-254.
4. Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom's revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4(1), 213-230.
5. Assaly, I. R., &Smadi, O. M. (2015).Using Bloom's Taxonomy to Evaluate the Cognitive Levels ofMaster Class Textbook's Questions. English Language Teaching, 8(5), 100-110.
6. Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014).The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18(1), 118-136.
7. Bümen, N. T. (2007). Effects of the original versus revised Bloom's Taxonomy on lesson planning skills: A Turkish study among pre-service teachers. International Review of Education, 53(4), 439-455.
8. Carbo, M. (1986).Teaching students to read through their individual learning styles. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632.

9. Coleman, J. S. (1968). Equality of educational opportunity.Integrated Education, 6(5), 19-28.
10. Cowan, N. (2008). What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory?.Progress in brain research, 169, 323-338.
11. Dopson, L. R., &Tas, R. F. (2004). A practical approach to curriculum development: A case study. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 16(1), 39-46.
12. Febrina, F., Usman, B., & Muslem, A. (2019).Analysis of Reading Comprehension Questions by Using Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy on Higher Order Thinking Skill (HOTS).English Education Journal, 10(1), 1-15.
13. Forehand, M. (2010).Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, 41(4), 47-56. Retrieved on the 30th of August, 2021 from https://www.d41.org/cms/lib/IL01904672/Centricity/Domain/422/BloomsTaxonomy.pdf
14. Freahat, N. M., & Smadi, O. M. (2014). Lower-order and Higher-order Reading Questions in Secondary
15. and University Level EFL Textbooks in Jordan. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 4(9).
16. Freeman, D. (2014). Reading comprehension questions: The distribution of different types in global EFL
17. textbooks. In English Language Teaching Textbooks (pp. 72-110). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
18. Halpern, D. F. (1998).Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American psychologist, 53(4), 449.
19. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
20. Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock and the revision of Bloom's taxonomy. Educational psychologist, 45(1), 64-65.
21. MacVaugh, J., Jones, A., &Auty, S. (2014). Implicit, stand-alone or integrated skills education for undergraduates: a longitudinal analysis of programme outcomes. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(6), 755-772.
22. Marzano, R. J. (2010). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.
23. McClune, B., &Jarman, R. (2010). Critical Reading of Science‐Based News Reports: Establishing a knowledge, skills and attitudes framework. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 727-752.
24. Millrood, R., &Maksimova, I. (2018). Cognitive skills in education: typology and development. Языки культура, 42, 137-147.
25. Miri, B., David, B. C., & Uri, Z. (2007).Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in science education, 37(4), 353-369.
26. Mizbani, M., & Chalak, A. (2017). Analyzing listening and speaking activities of Iranian EFL textbook
27. Prospect 3 through Bloom's Revised Taxonomy. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(3), 38-43.
28. Nappi, J. S. (2017). The importance of questioning in developing critical thinking skills. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 84(1), 30.
29. Newton, P. M., Da Silva, A., & Peters, L. G. (2020, July).A pragmatic master list of action verbs for bloom's taxonomy. In Frontiers in Education, 5, 107.
30. Noble, T. (2004).Integrating the Revised Bloom. Teachers college record, 106(1), 193-211.
31. Ozola, S. (2014).Views on taxonomy and learning. Education in a changing society, 1, 152-159.
32. Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships. International review of applied linguistics in language teaching, 41(4), 271-278.
33. Pakpahan, S. F., Pakpahan, S., Purba, I. D. S., & Nasution, J. (2021). Analysis Reading Comprehension Questions by Using Revised Bloom's Taxonomy on Higher Order Thinking Skill (HOTS). IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 9(1), 259 - 271.
34. Riazi, A. M., & Mosalanejad, N. (2010). Evaluation of Learning Objectives in Iranian High-School and
35. Pre-University English Textbooks Using Bloom's Taxonomy. TESL-EJ, 13(4).
36. Rodgers, T. (2008).Student engagement in the e-learning process and the impact on their grades. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 1(2), 143-156.
37. Roohani, A., Taheri, F., &Poorzangeneh, M. (2013).Evaluating Four Corners textbooks in terms of cognitive processes using Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 51-67.
38. Rupani, C. M., & Bhutto, M. I. (2011). Evaluation of existing teaching learning process on Bloom's Taxonomy. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 1, 119-128.
39. Shell, D. F., Brooks, D. W., Trainin, G., Wilson, K. M., Kauffman, D. F., & Herr, L. M.(2010).Theunified learning model. In The Unified Learning Model (pp. 1-4).Dordrecht: Springer.
40. Skrbic, N., & Burrows, J. (2014).Specifying learning objectives. Learning, teaching and development: Strategies for action, London: Sage, 39-69.
41. Tutkun, O. F., Güzel, G., Köroğlu, M., &Ilhan, H. (2012). Bloom’s revised taxonomy and critics on it. The Online Journal of Counselling and Education, 1(3), 23-30.
42. Ulum, H., &Taşkaya, S. M. (2019).Evaluation of the Activities in the Turkish Coursebooks(Student’s Books and Workbooks) Used at the 2nd, 3rd, And 4th Classes of State Primary Schools According to Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Kastamonu Education Journal, 27(1), 107-118.
43. Walbesser, H. H. (1963). Curriculum evaluation by means of behavioral objectives. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(4), 296-301.
44. Wall, T. F. (2015).The transferability of higher order cognitive skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 233-238.
45. Wilson, L. O. (2001). Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised. Retrieved on the 24th of June, 2021 from https://thesecondprinciple.com/essential-teaching-skills/blooms-taxonomy-revised/
46. Wright, G. B. (2011). Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 92-97.
47. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & health sciences, 15(3), 398-405.
48. 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.