The Evaluation of the Secondary-School English Curricula According to Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy

Öz

This study aims to evaluate the extent of the objectives in the Secondary-School English curriculum concerning cognitive levels in Bloom’s taxonomy. This aim underlies the first question of the study. The second and third questions inquire about the comparison among the grades and the homogeneity. Along with the adoption of the qualitative method, document and content analysis were implemented to categorize the objectives. The number of the curriculum objectives was 245 from 5th to 8th graders. Three notable outcomes were reached. First, each grade substantially suggests lower-order thinking skills. Besides, understanding is the surpassing level regardless of the grades. Lastly, receptive skills were dominantly consulted in lower-order thinking levels, while higher-order thinking skills were mainly applied in productive skills. Consequently, the research concludes that the objectives in the curriculum are not sufficient enough in developing higher-order thinking skills of secondary-school students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• 21st century skills
• Bloom's Revised Taxonomy
• Critical Thinking
• English Language Curriculum

Kaynakça

1. Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4(1), 213-230.
2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition, New York: Longman.
3. Anderson, L. (2002). Curricular realignment: A re-examination. Theory Into Practice, 41 (4), 255-260.
4. Assaly, I.R. & Smadi, O.M. (2015). Using Bloom’s taxonomy to evaluate the cognitive levels of master class textbook’s questions. English Language Teaching, 8(5), 100-110.
5. Bümen, N.T. (2006). Program geliştirmede bir dönüm noktası: Yenilenmiş Bloom taksonomisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 31(142), 3-14.
6. Büyükalan 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.
7. Carroll, R.T. (2000). Becoming a critical thinker: A guide for the new millennium. USA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
8. Demirci, C. & Gökdeniz, M. (2020). TEOG sınavı İngilizce öğretim programına uygunluğu ve yenilenmiş Bloom taxonomisine göre sınıflandırılması. Education Sciences (NWSAES), 15(1), 1-10.

9. Doğan, Y. & Burak, D. (2018). 4. sınıf fen bilimleri dersi kazanımlarının revise edilmiş Bloom taksonomisine göre incelenmesi. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 23, 34-56.
10. Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405849309543594
11. Evcim, H. & Özenici, S. (2019). Analyzing 2016 PPSE English language TPFE according To Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Disiplinlerarası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 1-18.
12. Filiz, S.B. (2019). Ortaokul Türkçe dersi öğretim programı kazanımlarının revize edilmiş Bloom taksonomisine göre analizi. İlköğretim Online, 18(4), 1550-1573.
13. Gandimathi, A., & Zarei, N. (2018). The impact of critical thinking on learning English language. Asian Journal of Social Science Research, 1(2), 25-35.
14. Gökler, Z.S., Aypay, A., Arı, A. (2012). İlköğretim İngilizce dersi hedefleri kazanımları SBS soruları ve yazılı sınav sorularının yeni Bloom taksonomisine göre değerlendirilmesi. Eğitimde Politika Analizi Dergisi, 1(2), 114-133.
15. Halpern DF 2003. Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (4th ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.
16. Kablan, Z., Baran, T. & Hazer, Ö. (2013). İlköğretim matematik 6-8 öğretim programında hedeflenen davranışların bilişsel süreçler açısından incelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 347-366.
17. Karagül, A. & Oral, B. (2020). Ortaöğretim Fransızca dersi öğretim programının A1.1 ve A1.2 dil düzeyi hedeflerinin yenilenmiş Bloom taksonomisine göre değerlendirilmesi. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(38), 84-100.
18. Kozikoğlu, İ. (2018). The examination of alignment between national assessment and English curriculum objectives using Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Educational Research Quarterly, 41(4), 50-77.
19. Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4).
20. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publication. OECD (2018). OECD Learning Framework 2030. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf
21. Pardede, P. (2020). Integrating the 4Cs into EFL integrated skills learning. JET (Journal of English Teaching), 6(1), 71-85.
22. Rahpeyma, A. & Khoshnood, A. (2015). The analysis of learning objectives in Iranian junior high school English text books based on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 3(2), 44-55.
23. Thyer, B. (2010). The handbook of social work research methods. California: SAGE Publication.
24. Van Roekel, N. P. D. (2008). Technology in schools: The ongoing challenge of access, adequacy and equity. National Education Association, Washington DC.
25. What are the three domains of Bloom’s Taxonomy [Online Image]. (2020). Educere Centre. https://educerecentre.com/what-are-the-three-domains-of-blooms-taxonomy/
26. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.