BİLİŞSEL ALANIN SINIFLAMASINDA (TAKSONOMİ) YENİ GELİŞMELER VE SINIFLAMALAR

Abstract

Bu çalışma, bilişsel hedeflerin sınıflamasında (taksonomi) yaşanan gelişmeleri ve bu alanda geliştirilen yeni sınıflamaları tanıtmayı amaçlamaktadır. Ülkemizde bilişsel alanın sınıflamasında Bloom tarafından 1956 yılında yapılan sınıflama hâlen yoğun olarak kullanılmaktadır. Ancak Bloom’un sınıflamasına alternatif olarak geliştirilen yeni sınıflamalar ile bilişsel alanın sınıflamasındaki son gelişmeler yeterince izlenmemektedir. Bu çalışmada Bloom’un sınıflamasına alternatif olarak geliştirilen önemli sınıflamalar incelenmiştir. Bu alternatif sınıflamalar Bloom’un sınıflamasındaki temel düşünce ve anlayışı çok fazla değiştirmemiş, genellikle bazı basamakların isimlerinde veya basamakların sıralamasında değişiklikler yapmıştır. İleri sürülen alternatif sınıflamalar tek boyutlu (Gerlach ve Sullivan, Hannah ve Michaelis, Gagné ve Briggs, Stahl ve Murphy, Quellmalz, Hauenstein ve Haladayna) ve çok boyutlu (Tuckman, Marzano, Romizowski, Anderson ve Krathwohl, DeBlock, Williams ve Haladayna) olmak üzere iki grupta toplanmaktadır. Son yıllarda yapılan sınıflamalar iki boyutludur. Bu sınıflamalarda bilgiye ayrı bir önem verilmiş, bilişsel alan; içerik ve süreç olmak üzere iki boyuta ayrılarak incelenmiştir. Sonuçta, alternatif sınıflamalar Bloom’un sınıflamasını temel almış ve bu sınıflamada gördükleri eksiklikleri gidermeye çalışmışlardır.

Keywords

• Bilişsel alan, Bloom, hedefler, hedeflerin aşamalı sınıflaması, yeni sınıflamalar

THE DEVELOPMENTS IN COGNITIVE DOMAIN AND NEW TAXONOMIES

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to describe the new developments in the taxonomies of the objectives in cognitive domain. The taxonomy created by Bloom in 1956 is still used extensively in Turkey. However, alternative taxonomies developed after those of Bloom and new improvements in this area are not well know. This study aims to explain and do an in depth analysis of these alternative taxonomies. These alternative classifications did not bring big changes in Bloom’s taxonomy and the modifications are mostly related to altering the names or the order of the steps of taxonomies. These alternative classifications can be organized into two groups: one dimension and multiple dimensions taxonomies. One dimension classifications are made by Gerlach and Sullivan, Hannah and Michaelis, Gagné and Briggs, Stahl and Murphy, Quellmalz, Hauenstein and Haladayna. As for multiple dimension taxonomies, they are done by Tuckman, Marzano, Romizowski, Anderson and Krathwoh, DeBlock, Williams and Haladayna. Recent alternative taxonomies are two dimensions. Those taxonomies which favored two dimensions divided the cognitive domain into process and content and examined them separately. As a result, these alternative taxonomies aimed to make better classifications based on Bloom’s taxonomies.

Keywords

• Cognitive domain, Bloom, educational objectives, taxonomy new taxonomies

References

1. Anderson, L. W. ve Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Complete Edition. Longman: New York
2. Anderson, L. W. (1999). Rethinking Bloom’s Taxonomy: Implications for Testing and Assesment. ERIC Documents Reproduction Service ED 435 630
3. Anderson, L. W. (2003). Benjamin S. Bloom: His Life, His Works, and His Legancy. (Eds: B. J. Zimmerman ve D. H. Schunk) Educational Psychology: A Century of Contributions. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, s. 367-389
4. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans, Gren and Company Inc.
5. Gagné, R. M. ve Briggs, L.J. (1979). Principles of Instructional Design. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
6. Gerlach, V. ve Sullivan, A. (1967). Constructing Statements of Outcomes. Inglewood, California: Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
7. Haladayna, T. M. (1997) Writing Test Items to Evaluate Higher order Thinking. Boston: Allynn & Bacon.
8. Hannah, L. S. ve Michaelis, J. U. (1977). A Comprehensive Framework for Instructional Objectives: A Guide to Systematic Planning and Evaluation. Reading, Mass: Addison- Wesley.

9. Harrow, A. J. (1972). A Taxonomy of the Pschomotor Domain. New York: David McKay Company Inc.
10. Hauenstein, A. D. (1998). A Conceptual Framework for Educational Objectives. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc.
11. Krathwohl, D. R.; Bloom, B.S. ve Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of Educational objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Company Inc.
12. Lewy, A. ve Bathory, Z. (1994). The taxonomy of educational objectives in Continental Europe, The Mediterranean and the Middle East. (Eds: L.W. Anderson ve L. A. Sosniak) Bloom’s Taxonomy. A forty-year Retrospective. Ninety-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part II. Chicago, Illinois: NSSE. s. 146- 163.
13. Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kind of classroom. Alexandria, Virginia: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
14. Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oak, California: Corwin Press, Inc.
15. Quellmalz, E. (1987). Developing reasoning skills. (Eds: J.B. Faron ve R. J. Sternberg) Teaching Thinking Skills. New York: W. H. Freeman. s. 86-105
16. Özcelik, D.A.; Aksu, M.; Berberoğlu, G. ve Paykoç, F. (1993). The Use of the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in Turkey. Studies in Educational Evaluation. Cilt:19, Sayı:1. (25-34).
17. Romizowski, A. J. (1981). Designing Instructional Systems: Decision Making in Course Planning and Curriculum Design. London: Kogan Page.
18. Reigeluth, C. M. ve Moore, J. (1999). Cognitive education and the cognitive domain. (Ed: C. M. Reigeluth). Instructional- Design Theories and Models, Vol. II: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. s. 51- 68.
19. Simpson, E. J. (1966). The classification of educational objectives. Psychomotor Domain. The Report of U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. No: OE 5-85-104 ERIC Documents Reproduction Service No: ED 010 368
20. Sönmez, V. (2004). Program Geliştirmede Öğretmen El Kitabı. 11. Baskı. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
21. Stahl, R. J. ve Murphy, G. T. (1981). The Domain of Cognition: An Alternative Bloom’s Cognitive Domain within The Framework af an Information Processing Model. ERIC Documents Reproduction Service No: ED 208 511
22. Tuckman, B. W. (1972). A Four-Domain Taxonomy for Classifying Educational Tasks and Objectives. Educational Technology. Cilt:12, Sayı:12. (36-38).
23. Williams, R. G. ve Haladayna, T. M. (1982). Logical operations for generating intended Questions. (LOGIQ): A typhology for higher level test items. (Eds: G. H. Raid ve T. M. Haladayna) A technology for test-item writing. New York: Academic Pres. s. 161- 186.
24. Williams, R. G. (1977). A Behavioral Typology of Educational Objectives for the Cognitive Domain. Educational Technology. Cilt:17, Sayı:6. (39-46).