11. Sınıf Felsefe Ders Kitabı’nda yer alan soruların üst düzey düşünme becerileri açısından incelenmesi

Year 2020, Volume: 9 Issue: 3, 222 - 245, 31.07.2020

Tuba Acar Erdol

https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.695928

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Bu araştırmada Türkiye’de Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı tarafından 2018 yılında hazırlanan 11.sınıf Felsefe Ders Kitabı’nda yer alan soruların üst düzey düşünme becerileri açısından incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma doküman analizi yoluyla yapılmıştır. Araştırmanın birinci alt amacının çözümlenmesinde frekans ve yüzde kullanılmıştır. İkinci, alt amacın çözümlenmesi 2001 yılında güncellenmiş Bloom’un Bilişsel Alan Taksonomisinin bilişsel süreç boyutu doğrultusunda yapılmıştır. Üçüncü alt amacın çözümlenmesinde Moodley (2013)’in sınıflaması kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda, kitaptaki tüm ünitelerde aynı sistematiklik içerisinde hazırlık, uygulama, tartışma, metin analizi, yazma ve ölçme ve değerlendirme sorularına yer verildiği görülmüştür. Toplam değerlendirme yanında biçimlendirici değerlendirme de kullanılmıştır. Kitapta en çok anlama basamağında sorulara yer verilmiş olup; uygulama, çözümleme, değerlendirme ve yaratma basamaklarında sorulara çok az yer verilmiştir. Soruların büyük bölümü orta bilişsel düzeye yönelik hazırlanmış olup; bu soruları alt düzey sorular izlemiştir. Kitaptaki soruların yalnızca yüzde 6,1’i üst bilişsel düzeye yönelik hazırlanmıştır. Üst bilişsel düzeyde felsefe soruları yazılmasını yaygınlaştırmak amacıyla analiz, değerlendirme ve yaratma basamaklarında felsefe soruları yazılmıştır.

Keywords

Felsefe eğitimi, Güncellenniş Bloom Taksonomisi, Düşünme becerileri, Soru sorma, Üst düzey düşünme

Analysis of the questions in 11th Grade Philosophy Coursebook in terms of higher-order thinking skills

Abstract

The present study aimed to investigate the questions included in the 11th grade Philosophy Coursebook prepared in 2018 by the Ministry of Education in Turkey in terms of higher-order thinking skills. Document analysis was utilized in the study, and frequencies and percentages were used in answering the first sub-research question. Cognitive processes domain of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy was utilized in conducting analyses to answer the second sub-research question. And Moodley’s (2013) categorization supported the analyses to answer the third sub-research question. The results suggested that the distribution of warm-up, practice, discussion, text analysis, writing, and measurement and evaluation questions were organized in a similar systematic across the coursebook. As a result of the research, not only summative but also formative assessment methods were included in the coursebook. Most of the questions were in the understand level of cognitive processes. The book included only a limited number of questions on the ‘apply’, ‘analyze’, and ‘create’ levels included in Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Most of the questions were designed for the mid-level of the cognitive domain and the low-level questions were the second most frequently used questions. Only 6.1 % of the questions were designed for high-levels of the cognitive domain. Last but not least sample questions for the analyze, evaluate, and create dimensions were prepared in an effort to encourage more frequent uses of such types of questions.

Keywords

Philosophy education, Thinking skills, Asking questions, Higher-order thinking, Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

References

• Acar-Erdol, T. (2019). Eğitim felsefesi ve hedefleri yönünden karakter ve değer eğitimi [Character and value education in terms of educational philosophy and goals]. In A. F. Ersoy & P. Ünüvar (Eds.), Karakter ve değerler eğitimi [Character and values education] (pp. 241-279). Ankara: Pegem Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Airasian, P. W., & Miranda, H. (2002). The role of assessment in the revised taxonomy. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 249-254. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_8
• Akdağ, B. (2002). Evaluation of philosophy lesson’s effectiveness in secondary education by students’ aspection. Marmara University Atatürk Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 15, 11-28.
• Alkın-Şahin, S., & Tunca, N. (2015). Philosophy and critical thinking. Trakya Journal of Education, 5(2), 192-206.
• Anderson, L. W. (2005). Objectives, evaluation, and the improvement of education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(2-3), 102-113.
• Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., ... & Wittrock, M. C. (2010). Öğrenme öğretim ve değerlendirme ile ilgili bir sınıflama: Bloom’un eğitim hedefleri ile ilgili sınıflamasının güncelleştirilmiş biçimi [A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives] D. A. Özçelik (Trans.). Ankara: Pegem Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Berberoğlu, G. (2006). Sınıf içi ölçme değerlendirme teknikleri [Classroom measurement evaluation techniques]. İstanbul: Morpa Kültür Yayınları.
• Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1), 7-74. DOI: 10.1080/0969595980050102
• Bono, E. (2011). Kendine düşünmeyi öğret [Teach yourself to think]. S. Arıbaş (Trans.). İstanbul: Remzi Kitapevi
• Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. DOI: 10.3316/QRJ0902027
• Bowery, A. M., & Beaty, M. (1999). The use of reading questions as a pedagogical tool: Fostering an interrogative, narrative approach to philosophy. Teaching philosophy, 22(1), 17-40. DOI: 10.5840/teachphil19992212
• Bozoğlu, Ö. (2008). The opinions of the teachers and the students concerning the developing of the critical thinking skills at the Philosophy Courses (Unpublished master thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
• Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. Alexandria, Virginia USA: ASCD.
• Bumen, N. T. (2007). A revision of the Bloom's Taxonomy: A turning point in curriculum development. Education and Science, 32(142), 3-14.
• Büyükalan, S. (2007). Soru sorma sanatı [The art of asking questions]. Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
• Cevizci, A. (1997). Felsefe sözlüğü [Dictionary of philosophy]. Ankara: Ekin Yayınları.
• Choi, C. B. (2002, October). Philosophy of education and education of philosophy: Three styles of teaching philosophy according to their conceptions of philosophy. Paper presented at 3rd IAPED International Conference on Teacher Education, Seoul National University, Korea. Retrieved from http://s-space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/70628/1/vol12_1.pdf
• Cicioğlu, H. (1985). Cumhuriyet döneminde ortaöğretim programlarında felsefe grubu derslerinin analizi [Analysis of philosophy group courses in secondary education curriculum in the Republican Period]. Education and Science, 10(55), 16-22.
• Cimer, A. (2007). Effective teaching in science: A review of literature. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(1), 20-44.
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Davila, K., & Talanquer, V. (2010). Classifying end-of-chapter questions and problems for selected general chemistry textbooks used in the United States. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 97-101. DOI: 10.1021/ed8000232
• Dewey, J. (2017). Okul ve toplum [School and society]. Kaymakcı, S. (Trans.). Ankara: Pegem Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Dombaycı, M. A. (2008). The evaluation of secondary education philosophy teaching in Turkey (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
• Elder, L., & Paul, R. (1998). The role of Socratic questioning in thinking, teaching, and learning. The Clearing House, 71(5), 297-301. DOI: 10.1080/00098659809602729
• Erdoğan, T. (2017). The view of primary school fourth grade students and teachers’ questions about Turkish Language Lessons in the terms of the Revised Bloom Taxonomy. Education and Science, 42(192), 173-191. DOI: 10.15390/EB.2017.7407.
• Ergün, M., & Yapıcı, M. (2006, May). Öğretmen adaylarının felsefe dersine ilişkin görüşleri [Pre-service teachers’ opinions about philosophy course]. Paper presented at 3rd International Teacher Training Symposium, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey.
• Gözütok, F. D. (2007). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri [Teaching principles and methods]. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayınları.
• Günay, M. (2004). Metinlerle felsefeye giriş [Introduction to philosophy with texts]. Adana: Karahan Kitabevi
• Gunel, M., Kingir, S., & Geban, Ö. (2012). Analyses of argumentation and questioning patterns in argument-based ınquiry classrooms. Education and Science, 37(164), 316-330.
• Halawi, L., A., McCarthy, R., V., & Pires, S. (2009). An Evaluation of E-Learning on the basis of Bloom's Taxonomy: An exploratory study. Journal of Education for Business, 84(6), 374-380. DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.6.374-380
• Höttecke, D., & Silva, C. C. (2011). Why implementing history and philosophy in school science education is a challenge: An analysis of obstacles. Science & Education, 20(3-4), 293-316. DOI: 10.1007/s11191-010-9285-4
• Kefeli, İ. (2011). Felsefe öğretiminde yeni bir model arayışı: Ayşe Teyze’nin çantası. Jean Baudrillard, özel bölüm: Felsefe eğitimi ve çocuklar için felsefe [The quest for a new model in philosophy teaching: Aunt Ayşe’s bag. Jean Baudrillard, special section: Philosophy education and philosophy for children]. Özne Felsefe Dergisi [Subject Philosophy Journal], 8(14), 199-210.
• Kelley-Mudie, S., & Phillips, J. (2016). To build a better question. Knowledge Quest, 44(5), 14-19.
• Kılıç, B. (2016). Investigating questioning patterns of teachers through their pedagogical progression in argument-based inquiry classrooms (Unpublished master thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
• Kızıltan, Ö. (2012). Problems of teaching philosophy and new approaches. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 1(4), 334-342.
• Kracl, C. L. (2012). Review or true? Using higher-level thinking questions in social studies instruction. The Social Studies, 103(2), 57-60. DOI: 10.1080/00377996.2011.586382
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
• Kutlu, Ö., Doğan, C. D., & Karakaya, İ. (2014). Ölçme ve değerlendirme: Performansa ve portfolyoya dayalı durum belirleme [Measurement and evaluation: Determining the situation based on performance and portfolio]. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Loewer, B. (2016). 30 saniyede felsefe [Philosophy in 30 seconds]. Z. Delen (Trans.). İstanbul: Caretta Kitap.
• Magas, C. P., Gruppen, L. D., Barrett, M., Dedhia, P. H., & Sandhu, G. (2017). Intra operative questioning to advance higher-order thinking. The American Journal of Surgery, 213(2), 222-226. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.08.027
• Marzano. R. J. (2006). Classroom Assessment & Grading that Work. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• McMillan, J. (2015). Sınıf içi değerlendirme, etkili ölçütlere dayalı etkili bir öğretim için ilke ve uygulamalar [Classroom assessment, principles and practices for effective instruction]. A. Arı (Trans. Ed.). Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi.
• Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). An expanded source book qualitative data analysis. California: Sage Publications.
• MoNE. (2018a). Ortaöğretim Felsefe Dersi (10 ve 11. sınıflar) Öğretim Programı [Secondary school philosophy course (10th and 11th grades) curriculum]. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=338
• MoNE. (2018b). Ortaöğretim Felsefe 11. Sınıf Ders Kitabı [Secondary philosophy 11th grade textbooks]. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları
• Moodley, V. (2013). In-service teacher education: Asking questions for higher order thinking in visual literacy. South African Journal of Education, 33(2), 1-18.
• Noddings, N. (2017). Eğitim felsefesi [Philosophy of education]. R. Çelik (Trans.). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Norris, T. (2015). Philosophical questions about teaching philosophy: What's at stake in high school philosophy education? Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 23(1), 62-72.
• Oktay, A. S., & Şakar, Ö. (2014). Evaluation on opinion of the teachers about programme on philosophy courses at 11th grade in secondary education “Isparta example”. Journal of Education and Society in the 21st Century, 3(9), 103-116.
• Ornstein, A. C. (1987). Questioning: The essence of good teaching. NASSP Bulletin, 71(499), 71-79. DOI: 10.1177/019263658707149915
• Phillips, A. W., Smith, S. G., & Straus, C. M. (2013). Driving deeper learning by assessment: an adaptation of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy for medical imaging in gross anatomy. Academic Radiology, 20(6), 784-789. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.02.001
• Pinto, L. E., Boyd, D., & McDonough, G. P. (2009). What would Socrates do? An exploratory study of methods, materials and pedagogies in high school philosophy. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 69-82. DOI: 10.22329/jtl.v6i1.585
• Pinto, L. E., McDonough, G. P., & Boyd, D. (2011). High school philosophy teachers’ use of textbooks: Critical thinking or teaching to the text? Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 5(2), 45-78. DOI: 10.3776/joci.2011.v5n2p45-78
• Radmehr, F., & Drake, M. (2017) Revised Bloom's Taxonomy and integral calculus: Unpacking the knowledge dimension. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(8), 1206-1224. DOI: 10.1080/0020739X.2017.1321796
• Renaud, R. D., & Murray, H. G. (2007). The validity of higher-order questions as a process indicator of educational quality. Research in Higher Education, 48(3), 319-351. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-006-9028-1
• Seeger, V., Wood, S., & Romans, D. (2018). Questioning for Meaning: Enhancing questioning strategies of teacher candidates through the understanding by design approach. College Quarterly, 21(3), 3-15.
• Splitter, L. J., & Sharp, A. M. (1995). Teaching for better thinking: The classroom community of inquiry. Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
• Şanlı, C. (2019). Investigation of question types in high school geography coursebooks and their analysis in accordance with the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 28(2), 111-127.
• Taşdelen, V. (2007). Philosophy education: In pursuit of a life. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 40(2), 277-294.
• Temizkan, M., & Sallabaş, M. E. (2011). Okuduğunu anlama becerisinin değerlendirilmesinde çoktan seçmeli testlerle açık uçlu yazılı yoklamaların karşılaştırılması [In the evaluation of the skill of understanding comparing open-ended questions with multiple choice tests]. Dumlupınar University Journal of Social Sciences, 30, 207-220.
• Thompson, A. R., Kelso, R. S., Ward, P. J., Wines, K., & Hanna, J. B. (2016). Assessment driven learning: The use of higher-order and discipline-integrated questions on gross anatomy practical examinations. Medical Science Educator, 26(4), 587-596. DOI: 10.1007/s40670-016-0306-z
• Topdemir, H. G. (2009). What is philosophy? What is knowledge? Turkish Librarianship, 23(1), 119-133.
• Turgut, M.F., & Baykul, Y. (2014).). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme [Evaluation and measurement in education]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi
• Uygur, N. (1964). What is a philosophical question? Mind, 73(289), 64-83.
• Ünsal, S., & Korkmaz, F. (2017) Analysis of the philosophy course curriculum acquisitions in terms of different taxonomies. Journal of Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Education, 17(2), 948-967.
• Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2018). Philosophy Examination. Unpublished instrument. Retrieved from https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/philosophy/2018/2018philos-w.pdf
• Virranmäki, E., Valta-Hulkkonen, K., & Pellikka, A. (2020). Geography tests in the Finnish Matriculation Examination in paper and digital forms - An analysis of questions based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 66, 1-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100896
• Wilen, W. W., & Clegg, A. (1986). Effective questions and questioning: A research review. Theory and Research in Social Education, 14(2), 153-162. DOI: 10.1080/00933104.1986.10505518
• Yapıcı, M., & Kösterelioğlu, İ. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ conceptual metaphors about philosophy course. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 9(4), 662-677. DOI: 10.5578/keg.27743