THE EXTENT OF THE REVISED BLOOM’S TAXONOMY IN THE READING COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS OF THE COURSE BOOK COVER TO COVER 3 FOR READING COMPREHENSION AND FLUENCY

Yıl 2022, Sayı: 90, 497 - 508, 28.03.2022

Yusuf Kasimi

Öz

The revised Bloom’s taxonomy is a cognitive process model measuring learners’
comprehension levels through the use of filtered terms. The revised taxonomy is the
refurbished form of the former Bloom’s Taxonomy dating back to 1956, which analyzed
cognitive skills. Modifications in concepts, system, format and prominence are involved
in the revised model. The revised Bloom’s taxonomy covers two learning domains that
constitute instructional objectives: cognitive (knowledge) and affective (attitude) and
underlines six levels: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate and create. The
verbs highlight the cognitive practices that learners confront and the knowledge they
facilitate. For example, an action included in the “remember” level may demand learners
to call up the acquired knowledge while a verb included in the “create” level may demand
learners to carry out an efficacious project. Thus, this study aims at discovering to what
degree the revised Bloom’s taxonomy is referred in the reading questions of a globally
written EFL reading course book. On the grounds of the mentioned dimensions, two
research questions were developed to reach answers to cognition levels in the taxonomy.
The initial research question focused on assessing the lower order while the next one
aimed at measuring the higher order cognition level in the related reading comprehension
questions. The contained EFL reading course book was examined by means of descriptive
content analysis technique. The findings of the study clarified that the evaluated reading
course book is deficient in the higher level cognitive domain highlighted in the revised
taxonomy. Accordingly, some assumptions have been made to suggest how the reading
course books which are being produced or will be produced should hint on the revised
taxonomy in their reading questions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cognitive skills, Taxonomy, The revised Bloom’s taxonomy, Reading skills, Reading comprehension assessment.

Kaynakça

• Adams, N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103(3), 152.
• Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom's revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4(1), 213-230.
• 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.
• Attia, A. S. (2021). Bloom’s Taxonomy as a tool to optimize course learning outcomes and assessments in Architecture Programs. Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 24(3), 315-322.
• Bhagyalakshmi, H. R. & Seshachalam, D. (2015). Student performance using Blooms cognitionlevels:Acase study. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, Special Issue, 122-125.
• Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
• Bümen, N. T. (2010). Program geliştirmede bir dönüm noktası: Yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 31(142).
• Chipman, S. F., Segal,J. W. & Glaser, R. (2013). Higher cognitive goals for education: An introduction. In Thinking and learning skills (pp. 13-30). New York: Routledge.
• Choudhary, T. & Raikwal, J. (2014). Improving teaching-learning process using Bloom’s Taxonomy and correlation analysis. Department of Computer Engineering Institute of Engineering and Technology, 3(6), 1747-1750.
• Churches, A. (2008). Bloom's taxonomy blooms digitally. Tech & Learning, 1, 1-6.
• Ernawati, E. & Baharullah, B. (2020). Analysis of higher order thinking skills(hots) in mathematical problem solving based on revised blooms’taxonomy viewed from gender equality. MaPan: Jurnal Matematikadan Pembelajaran, 8(2), 315-328.
• Eskridge, L. (2010). Teaching Soil Conservation in an Introductory Soil Science Laboratory and the Classification of Examinations Using the Revised Blooms Taxonomy (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University).
• Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, 41(4), 47-56.
• Gichuhi, C. (2014). Teachers’ competence in tests construction within blooms taxonomy for effective learning assessment: a case study of Kikuyu district, Kiambu county (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).
• Gonzalez-Cabezas, C., Anderson, O. S., Wright, M. C. & Fontana, M. (2015). Association between dental student-developed exam questions and learning at higher cognitive levels. Journal of dental education, 79(11), 1295-1304.
• Gul, R., Kanwal, S. & Khan, S. S. (2020). Preferences of the teachers in employing revised Blooms Taxonomy in their Instructions. SJESR, 3(2), 258-266.
• Hyder,I.&Bhamani, S.(2016).Bloom’staxonomy (cognitive domain)in higher education settings: Reflection brief. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 3(2), 288-300.
• Irvine, J. (2017). A Comparison of revised Bloom and Marzano's new taxonomy of learning. Research in Higher Education Journal, 33.
• Kadiyala, S., Gavini, S., Kumar, D. S., Kiranmayi, V. & Rao, P. N. S. (2017). Applying Bloom’s Taxonomy in framing MCQs: An innovative method for formative assessment in medical students. Journal of Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, 6(2), 86.
• Kalasuramath, S., Tandon, M., Deshpande, D. V. & Kumar, V. (2015). Application of blooms taxonomy of verbs to evaluate the cognitive domain in undergraduate medical physiology question papers: A critique. Int J Res Med Sci, 3(11), 3351- 3356.
• Kamlasi, I. (2018). Descriptive analyses on english test items based on the application of revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching, 2(2), 203-210.
• Köksal, D. & Ulum, Ö. G. (2018). Language assessment through Bloom’s Taxonomy. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 14(2), 76-88.
• Köksal, D. & Ulum, Ö. G. (2021). Analysis of cultural hegemony in Touchstone EFLCourse book series. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 21(1), 131-141.
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
• Krishnan, R. (2019). Achieving cognitive skills in multimedia through revised bloom taxonomy. In Creative business and social innovations for a sustainable future (pp. 11-20). Springer, Cham.
• Kumar, R., Chowdhry, B. S. & Kazi, H. (2018). Identifying cognitive weaknesses in students learning through Bloom’s Taxonomy. Journal of Information Communication Technologies and Robotic Applications, 68-73.
• Lemons, P. P. & Lemons, J. D. (2013). Questions for assessing higher-order cognitive skills: It's not just Bloom’s. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(1), 47-58.
• Newton, P. M., Da Silva,A. & Peters, L. G. (2020).Apragmatic master list of action verbs for bloom's taxonomy. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 5, p. 107). Switzerland: Frontiers.
• Ördem, E. & Ulum, Ö. G. (2019). Critical pedagogy and participatory approach in Turkey: Views of pre-service ELT teachers. Electronic Turkish Studies, 14(2), 679-693.
• Oscarini, S. L. & Bhakti, W. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy: Original and revised. EKSIS: Jurnal Riset Ekonomidan Bisnis, 6(2), 1440-1605.
• Pakpahan, S. F., Pakpahan, S., Purba, I. D. S. & Nasution, J. (2021). Analysis reading comprehension questions by using revised Bloom's Taxonomy on Higher order thinking skill (HOTS). IDEAS: Journal on English language teaching and learning. Linguistics and Literature, 9(1), 259-271.
• Paleeri, S. (2015). Setting objectives of value education in constructivist approach in the light of revised Blooms Taxonomy (RBT). Journal on School Educational Technology, 10(3), 1-12.
• Palmer, E. J. & Devitt, P. G. (2007). Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: modified essay or multiple choice questions? Research paper. BMC medical education, 7(1), 1-7.
• Reddy, D., Chugh, K. L. & Subair, R. (2017). Automated tool for Bloom’s Taxonomy. Technology, 8(7), 544-555.
• Sivaraman, S. I. & Krishna, D. (2015). Blooms Taxonomy–application in exam papers assessment. Chemical Engineering (VITU), 12(12), 5-9.
• Skiba, D. J. (2013). Bloom's digital taxonomy and word clouds. Nursing Education Perspectives, 34(4), 277-280.
• Thote, P. & Gowri, S. (2020). Analysis of senior secondary examination questions according to revised blooms taxonomy complexity. International Journal of Research Granthaalayah, 8(3), 119-127.
• Tierney, R. J., Soter, A., O'Flahavan, J. F. & McGinley, W. (1989). The effects of reading and writing upon thinking critically. Reading research quarterly, 2, 134-173.
• 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.
• Ulum, Ö. G. & Köksal, D. (2019). Ideological and hegemonic practices in global and local EFL textbooks written for Turks and Persians. Acta Educationis Generalis, 9(3), 66-88.
• Ulum, Ö. G. & Köksal, D. (2020). Ideology and hegemony of English foreign language textbooks: Globally and locally written practices. New York: Springer Nature.
• Ulum, Ö. G. & Uzun, K. (2020). Critical perspective of English teaching and learning in Turkey. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(2), 456-460.
• Ulum, Ö. G. (2014). Teachers' views on ''yes you can'', the ninth grade English course book for public schools. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, Special Issue, 132-148.
• Ulum, Ö. G. (2015a).Aneeds analysisstudy for preparatory class ELT students. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-29.
• Ulum, Ö. G. (2015b). Program evaluation through Kirkpatrick's framework. Pacific Business Review International, 8(1), 106-111.
• Ulum, Ö. G. (2015c). Pragmatic elements in EFL course books. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Science. Special Issue, Special Issue, 93-106.
• Ulum, Ö. G. (2016a). ESP needs analysis of public order police officers. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 4(1), 19-30.
• Ulum, Ö. G. (2016b). 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. (2016c). Evaluation of English as a foreign language program using CIPP (context, input, process and product) model. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(2), 114.137.
• Ulum, Ö. G. (2020a). Türkiye’de duyma engelli çocukların öğrenim gördüğü bir devlet okulunda İngilizce ihtiyaç analizi. Tarih Okulu Dergisi, 13(44), 355-364.
• Ulum, Ö. G. (2020b). ESP needs analysis of Turkish learners of English in architecture. Rumeli Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 18, 443-456.
• Valcke, M., De Wever, B., Zhu, C. & Deed, C. (2009). Supporting active cognitive processing in collaborative groups: The potential of Bloom's taxonomy as a labeling tool. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 165-172.
• VanSickle, R. L. & Hoge, J. D. (1991). Higher cognitive thinking skills in social studies: Concepts and critiques. Theory & Research in Social Education, 19(2), 152-172.
• 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.
• Wilson, L. O. (2001). Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised. Retreived on the 24th of June, 2021 from https://thesecondprinciple.com/essentialteaching-skills/blooms-taxonomy- revised/ adresinden alınmıştır.
• Zareian, G., Davoudi, M., Heshmatifar, Z. & Rahimi,J. (2015).An evaluation of questions in two ESP coursebooks based on Bloom’s new taxonomy of cognitive learning domain. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(8), 313-326.