EVALUATING BLOOM’S TAXONOMY IN TEST ITEMS

Rusma Setiyana, Hayatul Muna

Abstract


This study seeks to find the application of Blooms Taxonomy in final test items in the extent of higher education level. This study was considered as a case study design. The object of this study was final test items from across faculties in a university in West Aceh, Indonesia. A rubric on verb usage of Blooms Taxonomy was used in classifying the data. Later, the data were analyzed using percentage formula. The results showed that the most dominant use was the level of remember (45%), then followed by the level of understand (42%), then the level of apply (11%), the least was in the level of analyze (2%), and none of the levels evaluate and create was used in the test items. In conclusions, the application of Blooms Taxonomy in test items is still prone to the use of lower lever order thinking which then manifests in the poor skilled thinking ability in students.


Keywords


Bloom’s Taxonomy; higher-order thinking; thinking skills; learning skills

Full Text:

PDF

References


Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman Publishing.

Bermett, R. E., & Gitomer, D. H. (2009). Transforming K-12 assessment: Integrating accountability testing, formative assessment, and professional support. Educational assessment in the 21st century (pp. 43-62). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York: Springer.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). The taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of education goals, handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.

Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teacher’s College Record, 102, 294-343.

Danielson, C. (2008). Assessment for learning: For teachers as well as students. In C.A. Dwyer (Ed). The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 191- 213). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Gichuhi. C. (2017). Teachers’competence in tests construction within Blooms Taxonomy for effective learning assessment: A case study of Kikuyu District, Kiambu County. (Master’s thesis). University of Nairobi, Kenya.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.

Lissitz, R. W., & Schafer, W. D. (2002). Assessment in educational reform: Both means and ends. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Mbelani. M. (2008). Winds of change in teachers’ classroom assessment practice: A self-critical reflection on the teaching and learning of visual literacy in a rural eastern Cape High School. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 7(3), 100-114.

National Council on Measurement in Education and National Education Association. (1990). Washington, DC.; National Education Association.

Popham, W. J. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Raty, F., Kasanen, K., & Honkalampi, K. (2006). Three years later: A follow-up student of parents’ assessments of their children’s competencies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(9), 2079-2099.

Rust, C. (2002). Purposes and principles of assessment. Oxford: Oxford Center for Staff and Learning Development, Learning and Teaching Briefing Paper Series.

Samo, D. D. (2017). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ conception of higher-order thinking level in bloom’s taxonomy. Infinity journal, 6(2), 34-45.

Stake, R. E. (2004). Standards-based and responsive evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stiggins, R. J. (1988). Revitalizing classroom assessment: The highest instructional priority. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(5), 363-368.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.