A Curriculum Alignment Analysis: A Sample of Life Sciences Course Curriculum (2018) for 3rd-Grade Students

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 27, 279 - 297, 31.07.2021

Ferat Yılmaz Meral Öner Sunkur

Öz

In this study, the analytical research design is used to conduct a curriculum alignment analysis on the Life Sciences Course Curriculum (LSCC) for 3rd-grade according to Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBT). Objective elements were sampled from LSCC. Class instructional activities and assessment questions were taken from the Life Sciences course book for 3rd-grade students, published by Evren Publishing and approved by the Board of Education and Discipline. In this research, 29 cognitive objectives were studied in addition to 134 instructional activities and 90 assessment questions relating to those cognitive objectives. These elements were analyzed by two researchers and using RBT matrix. The findings showed that among the objectives, instructional activities and assessment questions in LSCC, there were nine objectives with complete alignment, 17 objectives in partial alignment and three objectives with misalignment.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Curriculum alignment analysis, revised Bloom’s taxonomy, life sciences course curriculum, Curriculum alignment analysis, revised Bloom’s taxonomy, life sciences course curriculum

Kaynakça

• Airasian, P. W., & Miranda, H. (2002). The role of assessment in the revised taxonomy. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 249-254. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_8
• Akin, A., & Abaci, R. (2011). Bilis otesi [Beyond cognition]. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Publishing.
• Aktan, O. (2020). Investigation of primary school mathematics curriculum lesson acquisitions according to renewed Bloom taxonomy. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 48, 15-36. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.523545
• Aktay, S., & Cetin, H. S. (2019). 2015, 2017 and 2018 life sciences course teaching programs. Eskisehir Osmangazi University Journal of Social Sciences, 20, 577-600. https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.548537
• Annevirta, T., & Vauras, M. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in primary grades: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(2), 257-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173029
• Anderson, L. (2002). Curricular alignment: A re-examination. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 255-260. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_9
• Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., P.W., A., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., … Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
• Aslan, M., & Atik, U. (2018). Investigation of 2015 and 2017 primary school Turkish curricula objectives according to revised Bloom's taxonomy. International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture Education, 7(1), 528-547.
• Baysal, Z. N., Tezcan, O., & Arac, K. E. (2018). Comparison of life science courses in turkey and Germany-Hamburg: A general outlook. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 11(1), 117-134. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.380762
• Bekdemir, M., & Selim, Y. (2008). Revised Bloom taxonomy and its application in algebra area. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 10(2), 185-196.
• Bennett, J. (2001). Practical work of the upper high school level: The evaluation of a new model of assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (1), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690119244
• Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching throught constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
• Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching for constructing learning. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255583992_Aligning_Teaching_for_Constructing_Learning
• Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.
• Bumen, N. T. (2006). A Revision of the Bloom’s taxonomy: A turning point in curriculum development. Education and Science, 31(142), 3-14.
• Buyukalan Filiz, S., & Baysal, S. B. (2019). Analysis of social studies curriculum objectives according to revised Bloom taxonomy. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 20(1), 234-253. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.435796
• Canguven, H. D., Oz, O., Binzet, G., & Avci, G. (2017). Examination of Ministry of National Education 2017 draft science program according to revised Bloom taxonomy. International Journal of Eurasian Education and Culture, (2), 62-80.
• Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2008). Biology in Bloom: implementing Bloom's taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 7(4), 368-381. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024
• Driscoll, M. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyna & Bacon Inc.
• Dunlop, J. C., & Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Constructing learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. In B. G. (Ed.), Rich environment for the active learning in the higher education (pp. 65-82). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
• Durmus, B. (2017). The evaluation of the 4th grade religious culture and moral knowledge course’s teaching program outcomes according to Bloom’s and the revised Bloom’s taxonomies. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, (21), 44-58.
• Eker, C., Bilgin, A. C., & Baykan, E. (2019). Hayat bilgisi dersi ogretim programinda bulunan kazanimlarin, yapilandirilmis Bloom taksonomisine gore incelenmesi [Examination of the objectives in the life sciences course curriculum according to the revised Bloom taxonomy]. Paper presented at the International Learning Teaching and Educational Research Congress (ILTER 2019), Amasya, Turkey, September 5-7.
• Ekmen, M., & Demir, M. K. (2019). An investigation of the objectives of life study course curriculum according to the teacher’s opinions. Jass Studies- The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 77, 35-57.
• Erden, M. (1998). Egitimde program degerlendirme [Program evaluation in education]. Ankara: Ani Publishing.
• Ersoy, A. (2015). Investigation of Phd students’ initial qualitative research experiences via their diaries. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 5(5), 549-568. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2015.030
• Esemen, A., & Sadioglu, O. (2019). National values in life sciences curriculum reconstruction in 2018. Academy Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(1), 14-27. https://doi.org/10.31805/acjes.501395
• Gorin, J., & Blanchard, J. (2004). The effect of curriculum alignment on elementary mathematics and reading. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in San Diego, CA, April, 12-16.
• Gozel, U., & Dincer, B. (2021). Investigation of the values in the life unit in our first class life science course. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 17(33), 145-176. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.760991
• Gultekin, M. (2015). Cocugun yasamindan dunyaya acilan pencere: Hayat bilgisi ogretim programi [A window opening to the world from a child's life: Life studies curriculum]. In M. G. (Ed.), Hayat bilgisi ogretimi [Life sciences teaching] (pp. 15-42). Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
• Harvey, M., & Baumann, C. (2012). Using student reflections to explore curriculum alignment. Asian Social Science, 8(14), 9-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n14p9
• Holmes, P. P. (2002). Assessment: New ways of pupil evaluation using real data. Teaching Statistics, 24(3), 87-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9639.00095
• Huitt, W. (2009). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys adresinden alindi
• Karabiyik, M. U. ( 2019). Ilkokul hayat bilgisi ders kitabi 3. sinif [Primary school life sciences textbook 3rd grade]. Ankara: Evren Publishing.
• Karacaoglu, O. C. (2020). An examination of learning outcomes in the second grade life sciences curriculum and identification of their levels according to the criteria in the literature. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 21(1), 34-62.
• Karasu Avci, E., & Ketenoglu Kayabasi, Z. E. (2018). Content analysis of the values in the purposes of life science education curricula (1936- 2018). Journal of Values Education, 16(35), 27-56.
• Karip, F. (2019). An evaluation of the primary school acquisitions of visual arts course according to revised bloom taxonomy. International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture Education, 8(3), 1929-1948.
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
• Kreitzer, A., & Madaus, G. (1994). Empirical investigations of the hierarchical structure of the taxonomy. In L. Anderson, & L. Sosniak (Eds.), Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective (pp. 64-81). Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.
• Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 131-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849309543588
• Martone, A., & Sireci, S. G. (2009). Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1332-1361. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654309341375
• Marzano, R. (2000). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Mayer, R. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226-232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_4
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
• Ministry of National Education. (2018). Hayat bilgisi dersi ogretim programi (Ilkokul 1, 2 ve 3. siniflar) [Life studies curriculum (Elementary school 1st, 2nd and 3rd grades)]. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Programlar.aspx.
• Nasstrom, G. (2008). Measurement of alignment between standards and assessment. (Department of Educational Measurement Umea University). Retrieved from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A142244&dswid=8768
• Oliver, D., Dobele, T., Greber, M., & Roberts, T. (2004, January). This course has a Bloom rating of 3.9. In R. Lister & A. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth Australasian conference on computing education (pp. 227–231). Dunedin, New Zealand: Australian Computer Society.
• Paziotopoulos, A., & Kroll, M. (2004). Hooked on thinking. The Reading Teacher, 57(7), 672-677.
• Pintrich, P. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385-407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x
• Saglam, H. I. (2015). Toplum, birey ve dogaya butuncul bakis: Hayat bilgisi [A holistic view of society, individual and nature: Life science]. In M. G. (Ed.), Life sciences teaching (pp. 1-14). Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
• Schneider, W., & Loffler, E. (2016). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents. In J. Dunlosky & S. K. Tauber (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 491–518). Oxford University Press.
• Tyler, R. W. (1969). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Whitebread, D., & Neale, D. (2020). Metacognition in early child development. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 6(1), 8-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tps0000223
• Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (1999). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastirma [Qualitative research in social sciences]. Ankara: Seckin Publishing.
• Yolcu, H. H. (2019). Analysis and evaluation of 3rd and 4th grade science course learning outcomes according to revised Bloom taxonomy. Elementary Education Online, 1, 253-262. Yuksel, S., & Taneri, A. (2020). Examination of life science textbooks in terms of key competencies. Gazi Journal of Education Sciences, 6(2), 185-209. https://dx.doi.org/110.30855/gjes.2020.06.02.002
• Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. (2003). Educational psycology: A century of contributions. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Zoller, U. (1993). Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe for LOCS: unlikely for HOCS. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 195-197.