REFLECTION OF BLOOM S REVISED TAXONOMY IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCE QUESTIONS OF SECONDARY SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION

Transcription

1 REFLECTION OF BLOOM S REVISED TAXONOMY IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCE QUESTIONS OF SECONDARY SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION Mahbubul Hasan Training Coordinator, ROSC Project, DPE, MoPME, Ex-Faculty, Scholastica. shaondu@hotmail.com Iffat Naomee Training Coordinator, ROSC Project, DPE, MoPME naomee77@gmail.com Rokshana Bilkis Deputy Director, NAEM rokshana.naem@gmail.com Abstract Innovation of new methods and techniques in assessment is always a desire for this 21 st century. Educators and teachers are trying their best to innovate new assessment techniques for sharpening students intelligence. Following this trend the Government of Bangladesh has also introduced creative question using the idea of Bloom s revised taxonomy from 211 at secondary level. However, is the technique really being creative enough to judge students creativity, is a question. This study tried to give some insights for the answer of that question. The objectives of this study were to examine the reflection of Bloom s revised taxonomy in the social science questions of Secondary School Certificate Examination of Dhaka board and to compare the level of applying Bloom s revised taxonomy in the questions before and after creative question has been set. The study was descriptive in nature and was primarily based on document analysis. Secondary School Certificate Examination question papers of Social Science of Dhaka board of the years 29 to 212 had been analyzed for the study. The findings were that in the year 29 and 21 most of the objective type questions were based on knowledge and understanding. On the other hand for subjective type questions few questions were found from understanding and analyzing besides knowledge based questions. A quite different scenario was in 211 and 212 where importance had been given to knowing, understanding, applying and analyzing in both subjective and objective questions; however, evaluating and creating was ignored again. So, for a quality education it has been suggested to use all the sub-domains of Cognitive domain of Bloom s revised taxonomy in all the subjective ad objective questions of every subject of secondary level of Bangladesh. Key Words: Bloom s Revised Taxonomy, Social Science, Secondary School Certificate Examination 47

2 1. Introduction Students learning is the main focus of an education system. It develops curriculum, designs teaching-learning strategies and determines learning experiences necessary for students learning. There exist a direct and strong relationship between assessment of students achievement and students learning. Assessment approach shapes and dictates content, ways, process and quality of learning. (Aziz, 211) According to Gipps (1994), There is a relationship between assessment and the way in which subject matter is presented in teaching. However, Bloom, Engelhart, Frust, Hill & Krathwohl (1956) had this question in mind regarding the objective of teaching, Some teachers believe their students should really understand, others desire their students to internalize knowledge, still others want their students to grasp the core or essence or comprehend. Do they all mean the same thing? To solve this mystery and different problems related to this issue, Benjamin Bloom along with his team established taxonomy for educational objectives in order to help the curriculum developers and the teachers to set learning experiences for the students and to develop assessment tools to measure their learning. They suggested that the learning experiences for the students should be categorized in three major domains- Cognitive domain, Affective domain and Psychomotor domain so that the overall development of a student can be ensured as well as measured. All these domains have some subdomains according to difficulty level. The main concern of this study had been the cognitive domain and application of its sub-domains on evaluation system of Secondary School Certificate Examination of Bangladesh. 2. Background of Bloom s Taxonomy Bloom s taxonomy is a very useful and relevant to the planning and design of education and training courses, teaching and lesson plans, learning and development within every aspect of education. That s why still now, Bloom s taxonomy is the most used and popular taxonomy in the field of education. The cognitive domain of Bloom s taxonomy encompasses a hierarchical series of intellectual skills involving the acquisition and use of knowledge that ranges from simple recall to the ability to judge and evaluate learned material. Bloom identified six levels within the cognitive domain. Cognitive domain s sub-domains are as follows- Figure 1: Hierarchy of sub-domains of Cognitive domain The sub-domains of Cognitive domain have been described by Isaacs (1996)- Knowledge: the recall of specific items 48

3 Comprehension: can recall, but can do a little more (e.g. paraphrase, define, discuss to some extent) Application: all of the above, but can take information of an abstract nature and use it in concrete situations Analysis: can break down a communication into its constituent parts, revealing the relationships among them Synthesis: can pull together many disorganized elements or parts so as to form a whole Evaluation: makes judgments about the value of materials or methods. Table 1: Bloom s taxonomy Cognitive Domain by Bonanno & Todd (26) Objectives Process Outcomes Information Skills KNOWLEDGE Specifics Ways and means of dealing with specifics Universals and abstractions in a field Define Recognize Recall Identify Label Understand Examine Show Collect List Labels Names Facts Definitions Concepts Define Locate COMPREHENSION Translation Interpretation Extrapolation APPLICATION Use of abstraction in specific and concrete situations ANALYSIS Elements Relationships Organizational principles Translate Interpret Explain Describe Summarize Demonstrate Apply Solve Experiment Demonstrate Construct Show Make Illustrate Record Connect Relate Differentiate Classify Arrange Group Interpret Organize Categorize Take apart Compare Argument Explanation Description Summary Diagram Illustration Collection Map Puzzle Model Report Photograph Lesson Graph Questionnaire Category Survey Chart Outline Diagram Conclusion List Plan Summary Define Locate Select Present Organize Select Organize Present Locate Select Present 49

4 SYNTHESIS Unique communication Plan of operation Set of abstract relations EVALUATION Judgments in terms of internal evidence Judgments in terms of external evidence Dissect Investigate Separate Design Redesign Combine Consolidate Add to Compose Hypothesize Construct Translate Imagine Invent Create Infer Produce Predict Interpret Assess Judge Criticize Decide Discuss Verify Dispute Choose Poem Project Design brief Formula Invention Story Solution Machine Film Program Product Opinion Judgment Recommendation Verdict Conclusion Evaluation Investigation Editorial Select Organize Present Evaluate 2.1 Limitations of Original Taxonomy While applying the taxonomy, several educators faced problems. A remarkable flaw of the taxonomy was the assumption that cognitive processes are ordered on a single dimension of simple to complex behavior. (Furst, 1994, p.34) Anderson, Krathwohl, Airasian, Cruikshank, Mayer, Pintrich, Raths and Wittrock (21, p.39) suggested Cumulative Hierarchy which means, Mastery of a more complex category required prior mastery of all the less complex categories below it was a stringent standard. So, the domains or sub-domains must not overlap in order to keep that Cumulative Hierarchy. But some of the verbs of each subdomain showed frequent overlaps. Again, Ormall (1974) found some contradictions in using the original taxonomy. For example, some knowledge based objectives were more complex than some analysis or evaluation based objectives. Krietzer and Madaus (1994) also said that synthesis is more complex than evaluation and synthesis actually requires evaluation. The original taxonomy was influenced by behaviorist learning theories. However over the years, introduction of several new theories such as constructivism, metacognition etc has made students more knowledgeable of and responsible for their own learning and thinking. In order to include the extract of these theories into the taxonomy and to address the limitations of the original taxonomy, a group of cognitive psychologists, curriculum and instructional researchers and testing and assessment specialists revised the original taxonomy. (Anderson et al., 21) 5

5 2.2 The Revised Taxonomy Anderson et al. brought some major changes to the original taxonomy in order to keep it updated and check its flaws. The new version of the taxonomy is known as the revised taxonomy. Most notable change in the revised taxonomy is the move from one dimension to two dimensions. The revised taxonomy separates the noun and verb components of the original taxonomy into two separate dimensions: The knowledge dimension and the cognitive process dimension. The structure of the knowledge domain in the revised taxonomy highlights the difference between the original one with the revised one. According to Pohl (2) the names of six major categories were changed and some were reorganized. As the taxonomy reflects different forms of thinking and thinking is an active process; verbs were used rather than nouns. The knowledge category was renamed. Knowledge is an outcome or product of thinking not a form of thinking. So it was replaced by remembering. Comprehension and synthesis were retitled to understanding and creating respectively, in order to better reflect the nature of the thinking defined in each category. Figure 2: Changes in the sub-domains of Cognitive Domain Table 2: Cognitive Domain of the Revised Taxonomy by Overbaugh and Schultz New Bloom s Taxonomic Level & Explanatory Question Remembering: can the student recall or remember the information? Understanding: can the student explain ideas or concepts? Applying: can the student use the information in a new way? Corresponding Action Verbs define, duplicate, list, memorize, recall, repeat, reproduce state classify, describe, discuss, explain, identify, locate, recognize, report, select, translate, paraphrase choose, demonstrate, dramatize, employ, illustrate, interpret, operate, schedule, sketch, solve, use, write 51

6 Analyzing: can the student distinguish between the parts? Evaluating: can the student justify a stand or decision? Creating: can the student create new product or point of view? appraise, compare, contrast, criticize, differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, examine, experiment, question, test appraise, argue, defend, judge, select, support, value, evaluate assemble, construct, create, design, develop, formulate, write 3. Objectives of the Study Main purpose of this research was to find out the reflection of Bloom s Revised Taxonomy on the social science question papers of the Secondary School Certificate Examination. To serve this purpose, some specific objectives had been set. Those are as follows- 1. To examine the reflection of Bloom s revised taxonomy in the social science questions of Secondary School Certificate Examination of Dhaka board. 2. To compare the level of applying Bloom s revised taxonomy in the questions before and after creative question has been set. 4. Rationale The standard of questioning pattern must be assured for measuring the curriculum s outcome properly. As each subject differs from the nature and objectives of another, the assessment system of a particular subject must be able in assessing the performance of its distinct features. Curriculum is concerned not with what students will do in the learning situation, but with what they will learn as a consequence of what they do. Curriculum is concerned with results. (Johnson, 1967) The main objective of preparing curriculum is to develop learners knowledge, attitude and according to Bangladesh Education Policy 21 skill and secondary education aims to bring out learners latent talent and potential. So, the evaluation system should be designed focusing these goals. In Bangladesh, question-answer is the mostly used tool for evaluating students learning plus Bloom s taxonomy has an important role in patterning questions and in assessing students knowledge, attitude and skill as well as talent and potential. Thus, it is necessary to know whether the questions of Secondary School Certificate Examination have been set according to Bloom s taxonomy or not. In Secondary School Certificate Examination of Bangladesh, the pattern of questioning which is being used is open ended questions (subjective) and multiple choice questions (objective).earlier the trend of items selected for the questions was mostly knowledge based. However, from 211, the questioning pattern has been changed to creative questioning which involves use of the sub-domains of cognitive domain of Bloom s revised taxonomy. Thus this study has been designed to find out the actual reflection of Bloom s revised taxonomy in Secondary School Certificate Examination from before and after starting creative questioning and compare between the two periods. 5. Methodology The study has been carried out based on descriptive mode of research. Data and evidence has been gathered from different sources for the purpose of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Data has been analyzed statistically using table of specification and some interpretation has been made thematically. The study was primarily based on document analysis. The social science question papers (both subjective and objective) of Secondary School Certificate Examination were the main 52

7 elements for the study. Among all the question papers of different years, four years question papers had been chosen as sample. Those were questions of 29 and 21 (Before the period of creative questions) along with 211 and 212 (After the arrival of creative questions). The question papers were mainly analyzed according to Bloom s revised taxonomy, then comparison was made between 29, 21 and 211, Analysis and Findings 6.1 Analysis of Subjective Questions The chart below presents the item specification in percentage by four years (29, 21, 211 and 212) subjective questions of Social Science of Dhaka board Figure 3: Percentage of Item Specification of Subjective Questions According to the collected data it has been found that most of the questions in almost every year were asked to evaluate students knowledge and understanding only. Few question also touched other sub-domains like applying and evaluating. No question has been found from the creating subdomain perhaps because attainment of this subdomain is not very easily measurable. However, when the two periods has compared, it has been found that there was a slight increase in the number application and analysis based questions and a sudden decrease in understanding based questions. 6.2 Analysis of Objective Questions The chart below presents the item specification in percentage by four years (29, 21, 211 and 212) objective questions of Social Science of Dhaka board. 53

8 Figure 4: Percentage of Item Specification of Objective Questions At the time of analyzing objective type questions a very different scenario has been found. In all the years, highest priority has been given to knowing. Before the period of creative questioning, the MCQ type questions were almost all knowledge and understanding based. Nevertheless, after introducing creative questioning, the MCQ part has changed dramatically. Some questions from applying and analyzing were also found in the MCQ questions of 211 and 212. But again, there was no question from evaluating and creating perhaps because of the same reason that evaluation and creation skills were not easily measureable through MCQ type questions. 7. Discussion and Recommendation The findings of the study shows that there have been a number of changes in the question format after introducing creative questioning system, but the changes are still not up to the mark. In the creative question system, the sub-domains have been categorized in four parts- knowing, understanding, applying and higher order thinking (analyzing, evaluating and creating). There should be equal number of questions from each of these domains. But it is a matter of concern that the board questions did not reflect this thing correctly. Some questions which were categorized under understanding have actually been found as knowledge based. Again, in higher order thinking based questions, almost all the questions were only from analyzing and no other sub-domain. This new system of creative questioning is without any doubt a very good and fruitful initiative for the education system of Bangladesh. If the system can be employed efficiently, it will surely bring change in the education system of the country as well as students insights and outlooks. However, this system has not been understood correctly by the teachers and educators yet. As a result, there has been room for improvement. It is hoped that in the upcoming years the question patterns will improve and it will thus help the learners to achieve the overall goal of education. Here go some recommendations to improve the quality of questions in creative question system for 54

9 the betterment of education system as well as learners life. The recommendations are- A strong curriculum development unit should be established in order to create quality questions for fulfilling the demands of creative questions. Higher order thinking capacity building should be given more priority and for this, educators should train teachers and question makers. For this an advance training cell should be developed. Along with question making, textbooks, classroom practices and other related issues should be reformatted in order to emphasize higher order thinking. There should be more room for practicing higher order skills in the textbooks for the students. For raising awareness about the new creative question system throughout the country and to make every individual aware of this new system, some television programs, advertisements should be telecast and campaigns should be done in both urban and rural areas. Along with authorities of Government and nongovernment organizations, National Curriculum and Textbook Board as well as all the education boards and other stakeholders directly related with question making need advanced training on question making and application of blooms revised taxonomy in the questions. Teachers should be given more training for better understanding of the creative question system and should be encouraged to develop creative question more and use those in school assessment system. Teachers training colleges, Institute of Education and Research (IER) of University of Dhaka and Rajshahi University, National Academy for Educational Management (NAEM), Primary Training Institutes (PTIs) and all the educational institutions should come forward to make decisions about creating new assessment techniques using Bloom s revised taxonomy, which will be helpful for judging students level of cognitive skills. 8. Reference 1. Anderson, L., Krathwohl, R., Airaisian, P., Cruikshak, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P. Raths, J. and Wittrock, M. (Eds.) (21).Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A revision of Bloom s Taxonomy. New York: Longman. 2. Aziz, N. T. (211). Reflection of Bloom s Taxonomy in the Questions of Social Science at Secondary Level. An Unpublished Master s Thesis.Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. 3. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D. and Furst, E. J. (1956).Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I. London: Longmans Green and Co. Ltd. 4. Bonanno and Todd.(26). Bloom s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives and Information Skills. State of New South Wales: NSW Department of Education ad Training. 5. Furst, E. (1994). Bloom s Taxonomy: Philosophical and Educational Issues. In Anderson, L. and Sosniak, L. (Eds.) Bloom s Taxonomy: A forty years Retrospective (p.34) Chicago: The national society for the Study of Education. 6. Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond Testing: Towards a theory of Educational Assessment. London: The Falmer Press. 55

10 7. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh.(21). National Education Policy Report. Dhaka: Ministry of Education. 8. Isaacs, G. (1996). Bloom s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Australia: TEDI. 9. Johnson, M. (1967).Definition and Models in Curriculum Theory. Educational Theory, 17(2), Kreitzer, A. and Madaus, G. (1994).Empirical Investigations of the Hierarchical Structure of the Taxonomy. In Anderson, L. and Sosniak, L. (Eds.) Bloom s Taxonomy: A forty year Retrospective (p.65). Chicago: The National Society for the study of Education. 11. Ormall, C. P. ( ). Bloom s Taxonomy and the Objectives of Education. Educational Research, 17, Overbaugh, R.C. and Schultz, L. (n.d.). Bloom s Taxonomy. Retrieved August 12, 212 from blooms_taxonomy.htm 13. Pohl, M. (2). Learning to Think, Thinking to Learn: Models and Strategies to Develop a Classroom Culture of Thinking. Cheltenham, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow. 56