Is the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Revisited in the EFL/ESL Reading Textbooks?

Yıl 2022, , 170 - 177, 30.01.2022

Ömer Gökhan Ulum

https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1062878

Cited By: 1

Öz

Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues produced a cognitive model for classifying educational objectives. This model has not been properly utilized by teachers and university instructors in their teaching settings. This cognitive model covers six main levels as knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation which, after knowledge, were displayed as skills and abilities, with the fact that knowledge was the essential prerequisite for putting these skills and abilities into practice. In the taxonomy, each category bears a continuum from concrete to abstract and simple to complex. In 2001, a group of cognitive psychologist revisited and modernized Bloom’s Taxonomy for teaching, learning, and assessment. Accordingly, the revised Bloom’s taxonomy drew attention away from the partially passive image of educational objectives and hints on a more active conception of categorization. The revised taxonomy employs verbs and gerunds to refer to cognitive levels unlike the nouns employed in the original taxonomy. The dynamic words in the revised taxonomy define the cognitive processes through which thinkers confront and work with knowledge. The learning goals are significant to form a pedagogical interchange in order that learners and instructors perceive the aim of that interchange. Having and classifying objectives support teachers in planning and supplying quality education, forming proper assessment tasks, and ensuring teaching to go parallel with the objectives. Hence, this research paper hints on investigating to what extent the revised Bloom’s taxonomy is employed in the reading comprehension questions of an EFL reading textbook. Thus, two research questions were developed to find out the state of cognitive skills stated in the revised taxonomy, the first question aiming at evaluating the lower level while the second one involving the higher cognition level. The investigated EFL reading textbook was analyzed through descriptive content analysis. The findings of the study showed that the examined textbook lacked the higher level cognitive skills highlighted in the revised version of the taxonomy. Related assumptions have been accordingly provided to recommend how the reading textbooks which are being written or will be written should be integrated with the revised Bloom’s taxonomy when assessing reading skills.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cognitive Skills, Cognitive Domain, Taxonomy, The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, Reading Comprehension, Reading Assessment

Kaynakça

• Abdelrahman, M. S. H. B. (2014). An analysis of the tenth grade English language textbooks questions in Jordan based on the revised edition of Bloom's taxonomy. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(18), 139-151.
• Adams, N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103(3), 152.
• Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds..). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon MA (Pearson Education Group) .
• 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.
• Betts, S. C. (2008). Teaching and assessing basic concepts to advanced applications: Using Bloom's taxonomy to inform graduate course design. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 12(3), 99.
• Case, R. (2013). The unfortunate consequences of bloom's taxonomy. Social Education, 77(4), 196-200.
• Churches, A. (2008). Bloom's taxonomy blooms digitally. Tech & Learning, 1, 1-6.
• Cumming, A. (2013). Assessing integrated skills. The companion to language assessment. Abilities, Contexts, and Learners, 1, 216-229.
• Darwazeh, A. N. (2017). A new revision of the [revised] Bloom's Taxonomy. Distance Learning, 14(3), 13-28.
• Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader–text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of educational psychology, 104(3), 515.
• Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2004). Critical Thinking and the Art of Close Reading (Part II). Journal of Developmental Education, 27(3), 36-37.
• Febrina, F., Usman, B., & Muslem, A. (2019). Analysis of reading comprehension questions by using revised Bloom’s Taxonomy on Higher Order Thinking Skill (HOTS). English Education Journal, 10(1), 1-15.
• Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, 41(4), 47-56. Retrieved on the 30th of August, 2021 from https://www.d41.org/cms/lib/IL01904672/Centricity/Domain/422/BloomsTaxonomy.pdf.
• Furst, E. J. (1981). Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives for the cognitive domain: Philosophical and educational issues. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 441-453.
• 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.
• Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational psychology interactive, 22.
• Jideani, V. A., & Jideani, I. A. (2012). Alignment of assessment objectives with instructional objectives using revised Bloom's taxonomy—The case for food science and technology education. Journal of Food Science Education, 11(3), 34-42.
• Köksal, D., & Ulum, Ö. G. (2018). Language assessment through Bloom’s Taxonomy. Journal of language and linguistic studies, 14(2), 76-88.
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. İlköğretim Online, 8(3), 1-7.
• Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock and the revision of Bloom's taxonomy. Educational psychologist, 45(1), 64-65.
• Larkin, B. G., & Burton, K. J. (2008). Evaluating a case study using Bloom's taxonomy of education. Aorn Journal, 88(3), 390-402.
• Lee, Y. J., Kim, M., & Yoon, H. G. (2015). The intellectual demands of the intended primary science curriculum in Korea and Singapore: An analysis based on revised Bloom's taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2193-2213.
• Liu, O. L., Frankel, L., & Roohr, K. C. (2014). Assessing critical thinking in higher education: Current state and directions for next‐generation assessment. ETS Research Report Series, 2014(1), 1-23.
• Ollmann, H. E. (1996). Creating higher level thinking with reading response. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39(7), 576-581.
• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2004). Critical Thinking... and the Art of Close Reading, Part III. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(1), 36-37.
• 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.
• 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.
• Rupp, A. A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: A cognitive processing perspective. Language testing, 23(4), 441-474.
• Schubauer-Leoni, M. L., & Grossen, M. (1993). Negotiating the meaning of questions in didactic and experimental contracts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8(4), 451-471.
• Su, W. M., Osisek, P. J., & Starnes, B. (2004). Applying the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy to a medical-surgical nursing lesson. Nurse Educator, 29(3), 116-120.
• San, K. M. (2019). The thinking levels demanded in reading activities in the coursebook global A2+. International Journal of Education and Research, 7(5), 23-36.
• Susan, S., Warsono, W., & Faridi, A. (2020). The evaluation of exercises compatibility between revised Bloom’s taxonomy and 2013 curriculum reflected in English textbook. English Education Journal, 10(2), 252-265.
• Ulum, Ö. G. (2016). A descriptive content analysis of the extent of Bloom's Taxonomy in the reading comprehension questions of the course book Q: skills for success 4 reading and writing. Qualitative Report, 21(9), 1674-1683.
• Ulum, Ö. G. (2021). A critical approach to the inclusion of the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy in active skills for reading: Book 1. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 25, 273-296.
• Ulum, H., & Taşkaya, S. M. (2019). Evaluation of the Activities in the Turkish Coursebooks (Student’s Books and Workbooks) Used at the 2nd, 3rd, And 4th Classes of State Primary Schools According to Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Kastamonu Education Journal, 27(1), 107-118.
• Waite, L. H., Zupec, J. F., Quinn, D. H., & Poon, C. Y. (2020). Revised Bloom's taxonomy as a mentoring framework for successful promotion. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 12(11), 1379-1382.
• Walsh, R. L., & Hodge, K. A. (2018). Are we asking the right questions? An analysis of research on the effect of teachers’ questioning on children’s language during shared book reading with young children. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 18(2), 264-294.
• Wei, B., & Ou, Y. (2019). A comparative analysis of junior high school science curriculum standards in Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao: Based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(8), 1459-1474.
• Wilson, L. O. (2001). Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised. Retrieved on the 24th of June, 2021 from https://thesecondprinciple.com/essential-teaching-skills/blooms-taxonomy-revised/.
• Xu, J. (2011). The application of critical thinking in teaching English reading. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(2), 136-141.
• Zareian, G., Davoudi, M., Heshmatifar, Z., & Rahimi, J. (2015). An evaluation of questions in two ESP course books based on Bloom’s new taxonomy of cognitive learning domain. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(8), 313-326.