Level 3: Ordering/Abstraction
2.2.2. Bloom’s Taxonomy Categories
Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning domains is a well-known explanation of levels of educational objectives. It may be helpful to bear in mind this Taxonomy when signifying educational objectives (Martha et al., 2001); Taxonomy objectives are useful to researchers in matching their goals and specific objectives. Although Bloom’s Taxonomy has been criticised for being too simplistic (Pritchett, 1999), it provides a useful framework that can be used by members of academic staff when developing assessment (Pritchett, 1999; Krathwohl & Anderson, 2001). Bloom’s Taxonomy has been recommended to be used across all levels: at school level, at tertiary level, by researchers and even at the work place, as it ensures that the level of the questions asked within assessment is sufficiently challenging (Lilley et al., 2004).
29
Bloom’s Taxonomy involves categorising the excellence of an individual answer (Pegg, 1992). Issues such as enthusiasm, the structure of the enquiry and previous information in a particular area, may influence a person’s answer. This study used cumulative hierarchy of Bloom’s Taxonomy in designing test questions (Appendix 5).
Bloom’s Taxonomy consists of six categories that are grouped into three levels, lower, middle and higher (DoE, 2003).
Table 3: Cognitive levels
Cognitive Level Bloom’s Taxonomy Verbs
Lower order Categories 1 & 2 What, Who, When, Name, Mention, List, etc.
Middle order Categories 3 & 4 Discuss, Explain, Describe, Identify, Compare, Distinguish, etc.
Higher order Categories 5 7 6 Analyse, Examine, Apply, Synthesize, Criticize, Suggests, etc.
Newly implemented primary mathematics curricula in Turkey have been underpinned by constructivist theory in which learners are actively involved in their own learning tasks by action, experiencing and exploring (Ali & Hakan Sevkin, 2010). In order to improve high order skills, Forehand (2010) has argued that examiners should utilise both appropriate teaching and assessment tools and techniques. She further points out that one must be aware that techniques or methods used in evaluation practice may influence candidates’ knowledge and progress in both bad and good ways. This study used the newly revised Bloom’s Taxonomy by Krathwohl and Anderson (2001) which are: remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating and creating. According to Ferguson (2002) teachers’ abilities should be investigated via diverse levels of questions, and Bloom’s Taxonomy is one useful instrument to assist in this regard.
30
The results of the data analysis in the study by Ali and Hakan Sevkin (2010) show that there was a slight reflection of the constructivist method on the examination papers, which were set by the educators who reported that they were applying constructivist methodology. Most of the problems asked in the assessment tools required remembering or memorising capacity. It is such findings that lead the researcher of this study to investigate teachers’ understanding using Bloom’s Taxonomy categories excluding the category of creating. The division of the problems in examination papers shows that educators are not concerned with the comprehension and systematic practice dimensions of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Ali &
Hakan Sevkin, 2010).
The test used in this study applied a cumulative hierarchical framework as will be further explained in Chapter 3; each category requires mastering of the earlier skill or ability prior to the next, more complex one. Forehand further states that ‘ability’ can be measured by using classifications of levels of scholars’ behaviour essential in learning and assessment such as Bloom’s Taxonomy. Krathwohl (2002) promotes the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy in research, by arguing that it can also clarify the essential questions, goals and objectives of other studies.
An investigation of the World Wide Web yields transparent proof that Bloom’s Taxonomy has been useful to a range of situations (Ferguson, 2002). In the commencement the scope of Bloom’s group was limited to facilitate the replacement of test objects measuring the identical educational objectives. However, when persons are designing effective lesson plans, they frequently look to Bloom’s Taxonomy for assistance (Paul, 1985). The revised Bloom’s Taxonomy includes precise verb and product relationship with each of the levels of cognitive procedure;
therefore, it offers the persons an additional influential tool to assist in designing their lesson plan. Implementing a revised Bloom’s Taxonomy in this study was the best choice as every teacher is expected to refer to it on daily basis during lesson preparation and also in designing tasks.
31
The researcher of this study used objective questions, which were designed in such a way that the marking process would not depend on any subjective judgement on the part of the researcher. This study was not for grading teachers, but to investigate and try and determine their level of understanding of circle geometry from both Bloom’s Taxonomy and Van Hiele theory as guidelines. Remembering questions (i.e.
at category 1 of the Taxonomy) were included. These were restricted to the ability to remember previously learned Euclidean Geometry. Bloom (1956) states that in remembering the only required skill is the ability to retrieve pertinent and accurate information from long-term memory. ‘Understanding’ questions were used to investigate teachers’ ability to understand learning material. Bloom defines understanding as the ability to construct meaning from different contexts ranging from the numerical to the graphical or geometrical, to interpret material and to draw logical conclusions from given information. This intellectual skill represents a step further from simply recalling learning material, and corresponds to the lowest level of
‘understanding’ (Gronlund, 2000).
‘Application’ questions investigated the ability to use pre-knowledge and procedures in new concrete and abstract situations. Bloom (1956) defines it as the use of rules, formulas, methods, concepts, principles and theories. ‘Analysis’ questions investigated how teachers break information into its element parts and discover how the parts connect to each other and to a global composition and intention.
‘Evaluation’ questions were based on making judgements based on criteria and standards (Bloom, 1956). Lilley et al (2004) presented guidelines to be considered when designing an assessment:
• The question being asked should be relevant to the study.
• There should be a balance between the intellectual skills being assessed.
• All the components of the questions - stem, key and distracters - should be correct and clear.
32
The six major levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (Lee, 2008):