Skip to main content
Log in

Effects of the Original Versus Revised Bloom's Taxonomy on Lesson Planning Skills: A Turkish Study Among Pre-Service Teachers

  • Published:
International Review of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The original taxonomy of educational objectives, developed by Benjamin S.␣Bloom and his associates in the 1950s, was revised several decades later by a group of educationists and cognitive psychologists, who developed a revised taxonomy (RT). This article describes a Turkish study carried out among a group of pre-service teachers in order to compare the influence of the two systems on lesson planning skills. The results confirmed other studies that have indicated a number of advantages of the revised system over the earlier one.

Résumé

LES EFFETS DE LA TAXONOMIE RÉVISÉE DE BLOOM SUR LES TECHNIQUES DE PLANIFICATION DES LEÇONSLa taxonomie des objectifs Éducatifs, dÉveloppÉe à l’origine par Benjamin S. Bloom et ses associÉs dans les annÉes 50, a ÉtÉ remise à jour plusieurs dÉcennies plus tard par un groupe d’Éducateurs et de psychologues de la cognition ayant dÉveloppÉ une taxonomie rÉvisÉe (revised taxonomy: RT). Cet article dÉcrit une Étude turque effectuÉe parmi un groupe d’enseignants en formation afin de comparer l’influence des deux systèmes sur les techniques de planification de leÇons. Les rÉsultats ont confirmÉ d’autres Études ayant indiquÉ un certain nombre d’avantages du système rÉvisÉ par rapport à celui d’origine.

Zusammenfassung

DIE ANWENDUNG DER ÜBERARBEITETEN BLOOM’SCHEN TAXONOMIE AUF DIE UNTERRICHTSPLANUNG – Die ursprÜngliche Taxonomie fÜr Unterrichtszwecke, von Benjamin S. Bloom und Mitarbeitern in den 1950er Jahren entwickelt, wurde einige Jahrzehnte später durch eine Gruppe Erziehungswissenschaftler und kognitiver Psychologen Überarbeitet, die auch eine Neufassung erstellten (RT). Der Artikel stellt eine tÜrkische Studie Über die Fähigkeit zur Unterrichtsplanung von Lehramtsanwärtern dar, die zum Zweck des Vergleichs der beiden Systeme durchgefÜhrt wurde. Durch die Ergebnisse werden andere Studien bestätigt, die in der Neufassung der Taxonomie eine Reihe von Vorteilen gegenÜber der Ursprungsfassung erkennen.

Resumen

TAXONOMÍA DEL DOMINIO COGNITIVO, DE BLOOM; EFECTOS DE LA REVISIÓN – La taxonomÍa original de dominios del aprendizaje, desarrollada por S. Bloom y sus colegas en los años 50, fue revisada varias décadas después por un grupo de educadores y de psicÓlogos cognitivos, que desarrollaron una taxonomÍa revisada. Este artÍculo describe un estudio realizado en TurquÍa entre un grupo de docentes incipientes, a efectos de comparar la influencia de estos dos sistemas sobre la capacidad de planificar lecciones. El resultado confirmÓ los de otros estudios, que indicaban un número de ventajas del segundo sistema revisado frente al primero, el más antiguo.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Airasian Peter W. 1996. Assessment in the Classroom. New York: McGraw Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Amer Aly 2006. Reflections on Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(4), 213–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson Lorin W. 2002. Curricular Alignment: A Re-examination. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 255–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Lorin.W., and D. Krathwohl (eds.). 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. U.S.: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc

  • Athanassiou N., McNett J. M., Harvey C. 2003. Critical Thinking in the Management Classroom: Bloom’s Taxonomy as a Learning Tool. Journal of Management Education, 27(5), 533–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azizoğlu, H. 1989. Ankara Merkez Ilkokul Öğretmenlerinin Öğretim Planları Hakkındaki GÖrüşleri. [Opinions of the Central Ankara Classroom Teachers’ about the Instructional Planning] Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

  • Bloom Benjamin S., Max D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, D. R. Krathwohl 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1: The Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford J., A. Brown, R. Cocking 1999. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bümen Nilay T. 2006. The Evaluation of Doctoral Level “Development and Learning” and “Instructional Planning and Evaluation. Courses Theory into Practice: Educational Sciences, 6(1), 7–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrd P. A. 2002. The Revised Taxonomy and Prospective Teachers. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 244–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter R. 1985. A Taxonomy of Objectives for Professional Education. Studies in Higher Education, 10(2), 135–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell J. W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. USA: Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

    Google Scholar 

  • English F., Steffy B. 2001. Deep Curriculum Alignment. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertürk, S. 1972. Eğitimde “Program” Geliştirme. [Curriculum Development in Education] Ankara: Meteksan A.ş

  • Ferguson C. 2002. Using the Revised Taxonomy to Plan and Deliver Team- Taught Integrated, Thematic Units. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 238–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell J. 1979. Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodrich, Andrade H. 2001, April 17. The Effects of Instructional Rubrics on Learning to Write. Current Issues in Education [On-line] 4(4). Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume4/number4/

  • Goodwin, L. D. 2001. Interrater Agreement and Reliability. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 5(1), 13–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorin, J. and J. Blanchard. 2004, April. The Effect of Curriculum Alignment on Elementary Mathematics and Reading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA

  • Kan, A. 2006. Ödev ve Projeler. In Atılgan, H. (ed). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme [Measurement and Evaluation in Education], 327–352. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık

  • Krathwohl D. W. 2002. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overwiew. Theory into Practice, 41(4): 212–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy A., Z. Bathory 1994. The Taxonomy of Objectives in Continental Europe, Mediterranean, the Middle East. In Lorin W. Anderson, L.A. Sosniak (eds.), Bloom’s Taxonomy: A Forty-year Retrospective, pp 146–163. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer R. E. 2002. Rote versus Meaningful Learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4): 226–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of National Education (MNE). 1998. İlköğretim Okulları Seçmeli Bilgisayar Dersi 1–5 öğretim Programı. [Elective Computer Lessons Curriculum for Grade 1–5] Tebliğler Dergisi 2492: 579–584

  • MNE. 2000. Lise Bilgisayar I Dersi Öğretim Programı. [Curriculum for High School Computer Lessons] Ankara: TTK

  • MNE. 2005. Eğitim Öğretim Çalışmalarının Planlı Yapılmasına Dair YÖnergede Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair YÖnerge [A Directive about Modification for Instructional Planning] Tebliğler Dergisi 2575: 603

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse J. M. 1991. Approaches to Qualitative – Quantitative Methodological Triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(1): 120–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskal B. M. 2003. Recommendations for Developing Classroom Performance Assessment and Scoring Rubric. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8: 14

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, T. 2004. Integrated the Revised Taxonomy with Multiple Intelligences: A Planning Tool for Curriculum Differentiation. Teachers College Record, 106(1): 193–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özçelik, D. A. 1989. Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim. [Curriculum and Instruction] Ankara: ÖSYM yayınları

  • Özçelik, D. A., Aksu, M., Berberoğlu, G., Paykoç, F. 1993. The Use of the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in Turkey. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 19(1), 25–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. 2002. The role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 119–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich P., C. Wolters, G. Baxter. 2000. Assessing Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning. In: Issues in the Measurement of Metacognition (eds.), G. Schraw, J. Impara 43–97. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institude of Mental Measurements

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohwer W. D. Jr., K. Sloane 1994. Psychological Perspectives. In: Lorin W. Anderson, L.A. Sosniak (eds.), Bloom’s Taxonomy: A Forty-year Retrospective, pp 41–63. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Solman R., G. Rosen 1986. Blooms’s Six Cognitive Levels Represent Two Levels of Performance. Educational Psychology, 6(3), 243–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sönmez, V. 1985. Program Geliştirmede öğretmen Elkitabı. [A Handbook for Teachers in Curriculum Development] Ankara: PegemA yayıncılık

  • Strauss A. L., J. Corbin 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Su W. M., P. J. Osisek, B. Starnes 2004. Applying the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to a Medical-surgical Nursing Lesson. Nurse Educator, 29(3), 116–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su W. M., P. J. Osisek, B. Starnes 2005. Using the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy in the Clinical Laboratory Thinking Skills Involved in Diagnostic Reasoning. Nurse Educator, 30(3), 117–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike R. L. 1990. Reliability. In: The International Encylopedia of Educational Evaluation, (eds.), Walberg J. H., Haertel D. G., 260–273.USA: Pergamon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Yıldırım, A., and K. Gündoğdu. 2004. Uzun Dönemli öğretim Planlarına Ilişkin öğretmen Algıları. [Teacher Perceptions of Long Term Instructional Plans] Education and Science 29(133): 11–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Yıldırım, A., and E. Öztürk. 2002. Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Günlük Planlarla Ilgili Algıları: Öncelikler, Sorunlar ve Öneriler. [Classroom Teacher Perceptions of Daily Instructional Plans: Priorities, Problems and Suggestions] İlkÖğretim Online 1(1): 17–27

Download references

Acknowledgements

Sincere thanks are extended to Professor Makbule - Alper Başbay, Eda Erdem, Bünyamin Yurdakul, and Hakan Atılgan for their contributions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nilay T. Bümen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bümen, N.T. Effects of the Original Versus Revised Bloom's Taxonomy on Lesson Planning Skills: A Turkish Study Among Pre-Service Teachers. Int Rev Educ 53, 439–455 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-007-9052-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-007-9052-1

Keywords

Navigation