Analyzing University Entrance Exam Physics Questions using Physics Problems Taxonomy for Cognitive Processes

Öz

University students often find physics challenging due to physical and mathematical obstacles, poor mathematical skills, and inadequate problem-solving abilities. This perception affects their interest and performance in the subject. High school students also struggle with numerical problems and understand curricular topics that lack concrete examples and require mathematical manipulations or visualization. Analyzing physics problems is crucial for guiding curriculum development, contributing to physics education, identifying students' difficulties in understanding and solving problems, and improving the process of physics education at all educational levels. Taxonomies are hierarchical frameworks used in education to classify educational learning goals or objectives according to their complexity. Bloom's Taxonomy, Anderson and Krathwohl's revised taxonomy, Lee Shulman's learning grid, Marzano's New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (NTEO), and the Taxonomy of Introductory Physics Problems (TIPP) are all essential tools for understanding and improving educational learning outcomes. The study adapted the TIPP taxonomy into Turkish and analyzed 7 physics questions in the 2023 BPT. Results showed 3 questions were at recall, 1 at comprehension, and 3 at analysis, with no question at using knowledge. The study demonstrates that TIPP is a useful taxonomy for teachers to plan, apply, and evaluate knowledge and algorithms in solving physics problems, identifying students' needs. This taxonomy allows educators to create questions that engage students at all cognitive levels, promoting cognitive engagement. Researchers can analyze physics questions in the TYT and AYT in earlier years.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Physics problems
• basic proficiency test
• taxonomy
• cognitive processes

Kaynakça

1. Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2007). Problem solving skill evaluation instrument-validation studies. In AIP Conference Proceedings, 83(1), 18-21. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2508681
2. Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2015). Analyzing the many skills involved in solving complex physics problems. American Journal of Physics, 83(5), 459-467. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4913923
3. Adianto, T., & Rusli, M. A. (2021). Analysis of student's difficulties in solving physics problem: Impulse and momentum topics. Unnes Science Education Journal, 10(1), 24-33. https://doi.org/10.15294/usej.v10i1.41517
4. Aheisibwe, I., Kobusigye, L., & Tayebwa, J. (2021). Bridging education gap in higher institutions of learning using bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. African Educational Research Journal, 9(1), 69-74. https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.91.20.213
5. Angraeni, D. N., Suherman, A., & Guntara, Y. (2020). Aplikasi rasch model: Pengembangan fluids assessment (FASS) berdasarkan taxonomy of introductory physics problems (TIPP). Jurnal Penelitian Pembelajaran Fisika, 11(2), 135-143. https://doi.org/10.26877/jp2f.v11i2.5903
6. Antonowiski, R., Alencar, M. V., & Rocha, L. C. T. (2017). Difficulties to learn and to teach modern physics. Scientific Electronic Archives, 10(4), 50-57.
7. Ariani, T. (2020). Analysis of students' critical thinking skills in physics problems. Kasuari: Physics Education Journal, 3(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.37891/kpej.v3i1.119
8. Ariffin, K., Shanmugavelu, G., Ramli, Saadon, R., Saat, I. (2020). Thinking skills evaluation of taxonomy anderson, in arithmetic subject of the curriculum Malay school during colonial era. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(8), 871-876. http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.08.186

9. Aripin, M. A., Hamzah, R., Setya, P., Hisham, M. H. M., & Ishar, M. I. (2020). Unveiling a new taxonomy in education field. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(3), 524-530. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i3.20458
10. Arlianty, W. N., Febriana, B. W., Diniaty, A., & Fauzi'ah, L. (2018). Student profile in completing questions based on cognitive level of bloom's taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl. In AIP Conference Proceedings 2026(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5065023
11. Aronshtam, L., Shrot, T., & Shmallo, R. (2021). Can we do better? a classification of algorithm run-time-complexity improvement using the SOLO taxonomy. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 5851-5872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10532-0
12. Asmi, S. O., Wonorahardjo, S., & Widarti, H. R. (2019). The application of problem based learning assisted by blended learning in atomic spectroscopy material on cognitive learning outcomes and students'self system based on Marzano taxonomy. European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies, 4(1), 88-99.
13. Balta, N., Japashov, N., Abdulbakioglu, M., & Oliveira, A. W. (2019). High-school students' cognitive responses to counterintuitive physics problems. Physics Education, 55(1), 015003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab4df9
14. Baxter, D., & Durrant, C. (2017). Assessing response to Literature and the SOLO Taxonomy. International Perspectives on the Teaching of Literature in Schools: Global Principles and Practices, 68-76. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315396460-7
15. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
16. Braun, E. (1984). Science and technology as partners in technological innovation. Physics in Technology, 15(2), 80. https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4624/15/2/304
17. Bray, A., & Williams, J. (2020). Why is physics hard? Unpacking students' perceptions of physics. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1512 (1), 012002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1512/1/012002
18. Buick, J. M. (2011). Physics assessment and the development of a taxonomy. European Journal of Physics Education, 2(1), 5-10.
19. Burbano, P. P. (2013). Reflexiones sobre la enseñanza de la física. Universitas Scientiarum, 6(2), 55-59.
20. Castro, F. E. V., & Fisler, K. (2017). Designing a multi-faceted SOLO taxonomy to track program design skills through an entire course. In Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, 10-19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3141880.3141891
21. Cotič, M., Felda, D., & Žakelj, A. (2020). Taxonomy of learning objects at elementary level. https://pfunaucniskup.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/1-mara-cotic-darjo-felda-amalija-zakelj-u.pdf https://doi.org/10.46793/STEC20.335C
22. Djudin, T. (2018). How to cultivate students' interests in physics: A challenge for senior high school teachers. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains, 6(1), 16-22.
23. Dubas, J. M., & Toledo, S. A. (2016). Taking higher order thinking seriously: Using Marzano's taxonomy in the economics classroom. International Review of Economics Education, 21, 12-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2015.10.005
24. Ekici, E. (2016). " Why Do I Slog through the Physics?" Understanding high school students' difficulties in learning physics. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(7), 95-107.
25. Erinosho, S. Y. (2013). How do students perceive the difficulty of physics in secondary school? An exploratory study in Nigeria. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 3(3), 1510-1515. https://doi.org/10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2013.0212
26. Example, F., Robinson, W. R., & Haugan, M. R. (2007). What makes physics difficult?. Science Education International, 18(3), 165-172.
27. Finelli, C. J., & Rasoulifar, G. (2014). Using and disseminating a taxonomy for engineering education research. In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7043989
28. Graf, S. T. (2021). Outline of a taxonomy for general Bildung: Deep learning in the anglophone tradition of curriculum studies and the Didactic of north-west Europe. In Didactics and Curriculum in Ongoing Dialogue, 83-102. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003099390-6
29. Hanáková, M., & Kluvanec, D. (2016). Taxonomies of physics problems in physics education. In CBU International Conference Proceedings, 4, 520-525). https://doi.org/10.12955/cbup.v4.808
30. Harikrishnaprabu, V., & Annapooranam, V. J. (2019). Challenges of students in solving physics numerical problems. Young Scientist-Tomorrow's Science Begins Today, 3(1).
31. Hook, P. (2018). The Who, What, When, Where, and Why of SOLO Taxonomy. Research Information for Teachers, 2, 48-53. https://doi.org/10.18296/set.0109
32. Ibrahim, N., Zakiang, M. A. A., & Damio, S. M. (2019). Attitude in learning physics among form four students. Social and Management Research Journal, 16(2), 19-40. https://doi.org/10.24191/smrj.v16i2.7060
33. Insani, M. D., Pratiwi, N., & Muhardjito, M. (2019). Higher-order thinking skills based on Marzano taxonomy in basic biology course. Journal of Biological Education Indonesia (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 5(3), 521-528. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v5i3.10171
34. Irvine, J. (2017). A comparison of revised Bloom and Marzano's new taxonomy of learning. Research in Higher Education Journal, 33.
35. Irvine, J. (2020). Marzano's New taxonomy as a framework for investigating student affect. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 24.
36. Irvine, J. (2021). Taxonomies in education: Overview, comparison, and future directions. Journal of Education and Development, 5(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.20849/jed.v5i2.898
37. Kaharuddin, A., & Hajeniati, N. (2020). An identification of students' responses based on SOLO taxonomy in mathematics learning toward learning activities and learning outcomes. Al-Jabar: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 11(2), 191-200. https://doi.org/10.24042/ajpm.v11i2.6270
38. Koupilová, Z., Mandíková, D., & Snětinová, M. (2017). Collection of solved problems in physics. In AIP Conference Proceedings,1804 (1). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4974399
39. Krau, S. D. (2011). Creating educational objectives for patient education using the new Bloom's Taxonomy. Nursing Clinics, 46(3), 299-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnur.2011.05.002
40. Laddha, M. D., Lokare, V. T., Kiwelekar, A. W., & Netak, L. D. (2021). Classifications of the summative assessment for Revised Bloom's Taxonomy by using deep learning. International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, 69(3), 211-218. https://doi.org/10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V69I3P232
41. Ladias, A., Ladias, D., & Karvounidis, T. (2019). Categorization of requests detecting in Scratch using the SOLO taxonomy. In 2019 4th South-East Europe Design Automation, Computer Engineering, Computer Networks and Social Media Conference (SEEDA-CECNSM), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEEDA-CECNSM.2019.8908438
42. Lai, R., & Sanusi, N. (2013). Improving higher education student learning through a table of learning. Creative Education, 4(7), 150. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.47A2019
43. Li, K. W., & Goos, M. (2013). Evaluating students' correlation graphing capability using SOLO taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 59th ISI World Statistics Congress, 3411-3416.
44. Ling, S. J., Moebs, W., & Sanny, J. (2016). University Physics Volume 1. Cnxuniphysics.
45. Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (Eds.). (2006). The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Corwin Press.
46. Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (Eds.). (2008). Designing and assessing educational objectives: Applying the new taxonomy. Corwin Press.
47. Masitoh, P. N. A., Latifah, S., Saregar, A., Aziz, A., & Jamaluddin, W. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of physics problem solving. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series,1796(1), 012009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1796/1/012009
48. Mason, A., & Singh, C. (2016). Using categorization of problems as an instructional tool to help introductory students learn physics. Physics Education, 51(2), 025009. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/51/2/025009
49. Mortier, T., & Yatczak, J. (2016). Utilizing Shulman's table of learning to understand learning in professional health science programs. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(6), 85-105. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i6.20074
50. Motejlek, J., & Alpay, E. (2021). Taxonomy of virtual and augmented reality applications in education. IEEE Transactions On Learning Technologies, 14(3), 415-429. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2021.3092964
51. Mumthas, N. S., & Abdulla, S. U. (2019). Substandard performance in mathematical problem solving in physics among higher secondary school students in kerala--an investigation on teacher perceptions and student difficulties. Online Submission, 7(1), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.15415/iie.2019.71005
52. Nehru, N., Kurniawan, W., & Riantoni, C. (2020). Exploration of students' problem-solving skills in physics-based on expert and novice categories. In Proceedings of the 7th Mathematics, Science, and Computer Science Education International Seminar, MSCEIS 2019, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.12-10-2019.2296469
53. Newton, P. M., Da Silva, A., & Peters, L. G. (2020). A pragmatic master list of action verbs for bloom's taxonomy. In Frontiers in Education, 5, 107. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00107
54. OSYM (2023a). 2023-YKS (TYT, AYT and YDT) Basic Question Booklets and Answer Keys https://www.osym.gov.tr/TR,25588/2023-yks-tyt-ayt-ve-ydt-temel-soru-kitapciklari-ve-cevap-anahtarlari.html
55. OSYM (2023b). Statistical Information on YKS 2023 Exam Results https://www.osym.gov.tr/TR,25647/2023-yks-sinav-sonuclarina-iliskin-sayisal-bilgiler.html
56. Pathak, B. K., & Palvia, S. C. (2021). Taxonomy of higher education delivery modes: a conceptual framework. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 23(1), 36-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2021.1901351
57. Patterson, B. (2021). Analyzing student understanding of cryptography using the SOLO taxonomy. Cryptologia, 45(5), 439-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/01611194.2020.1755746
58. Qaddafi, M., Ikbal, M. S., & Sari, R. I. (2022). An analysis of the 2019’s national physics exam questions using the taxonomy of introductory physics problem. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika dan Teknologi, 8(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.29303/jpft.v8i1.2634
59. Reddy, M., & Panacharoensawad, B. (2017). Students problem-solving difficulties and implications in physics: An empirical study on influencing factors. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(14), 59-62.
60. Rigney, D. Y., & Zhao, Y. (2022). Side effects in education: Taxonomy of educational outcomes. Prospects, 52(1-2), 33-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-021-09574-6
61. Sahu, P., Cogswell, M., Rutherford-Quach, S., & Divakaran, A. (2021). Comprehension based question answering using Bloom's Taxonomy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.04653. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.repl4nlp-1.3
62. Sartika, D., & Humairah, N. A. (2018). Analyzing students' problem solving difficulties on modern physics. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1028(1), 012205). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1028/1/012205
63. Shaikh, S., Daudpotta, S. M., & Imran, A. S. (2021). Bloom's learning outcomes' automatic classification using LSTM and pretrained word embeddings. IEEE Access, 9, 117887-117909. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3106443
64. Snetinova, M., & Koupilova, Z. (2012). Students' difficulties in solving physics problems. WDS'12 Proceedings of Contributed Papers, 93-97.
65. Supeno, S., Subiki, S., & Rohma, L. W. (2018). Students' ability in solving physics problems on newtons' law of motion. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni, 7(1), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.24042/jipfalbiruni.v7i1.2247
66. Süzük, E., Çorlu, M. A., & Gürel, C. (2011). Students' perceptions of learning efficiency of introductory physics course. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 1(1), 65-71.
67. Tee, T., Yunos, J., Mohamad, B., Othman, Yee, M. (2010) The evaluation of thinking skills based on taxonomy of Anderson and Krathwohl. In the 3rd Regional Conference on Engineering and Research on Higher Education (RCEE & RHEd 2010), 7-9 June 2010, Kuching, Sarawak. http://library.oum.edu.my/repository/688.
68. Teodorescu, R. E., Bennhold, C., Feldman, G., & Medsker, L. (2013). New approach to analyzing physics problems: A taxonomy of introductory physics problems. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 9(1), 010103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010103
69. Teodorescu, R., Bennhold, C., & Feldman, G. (2008). Enhancing cognitive development through physics problem solving: A taxonomy of introductory physics problems. In AIP Conference Proceedings,1064(1), 203-206). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3021255
70. Toledo, S., & Dubas, J. M. (2016). Encouraging higher-order thinking in general chemistry by scaffolding student learning using Marzano's taxonomy. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(1), 64-69. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00184
71. Tunnisa, T., Syamsu, S., & Werdhiana, I. K. (2015). Kemampuan pemecahan masalah dinamika partikel pada mahasiswa calon guru fisika berdasarkan taxonomy of ıntroductory physics problems (TIPP). Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Tadulako Online, 4(3), 26-35. https://doi.org/10.22487/j25805924.2016.v4.i3.6219
72. Urgo, K., Arguello, J., & Capra, R. (2019). Anderson and Krathwohl's two-dimensional taxonomy applied to task creation and learning assessment. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval, 117-124. https://doi.org/10.1145/3341981.3344226
73. Velázquez-Iturbide, J. Á. (2021). An Analysis of the Formal Properties of Bloom's Taxonomy and Its Implications for Computing Education. In Proceedings of the 21st Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3488042.3488069
74. Vrettaros, J., Vouros, G., & Drigas, A. (2007). An intelligent system for solo taxonomy. In Intelligent Information Processing III: IFIP TC12 International Conference on Intelligent Information Processing, 421-430). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-44641-7_44
75. Waheed, A., Goyal, M., Mittal, N., Gupta, D., Khanna, A., & Sharma, M. (2021). BloomNet: A robust transformer based model for Bloom's learning outcome classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07249.
76. Yıldırım A. ve Şimşek H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Publications.
77. Yuliati, L., & Parno, P. (2018). Exploration of physics problem-solving skills within phenomenon-based learning in senior high school students. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education, 4(1), 97-103. https://doi.org/10.17501/icedu.2018.4111