Evaluation Of The Learning Outcomes Of 8th Grade 2018 Science Teaching Curriculum According To The Revised Bloom Taxonomy
2nd International Congress on Seeking New Perspectives in Education, İstanbul, Türkiye, 26 - 27 Ekim 2019, ss.46-48, (Özet Bildiri)
- Yayın Türü: Bildiri / Özet Bildiri
- Basıldığı Şehir: İstanbul
- Basıldığı Ülke: Türkiye
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.46-48
- İstanbul Üniversitesi-Cerrahpaşa Adresli: Evet
Özet
Purpose
Advances in scientific and technological fields, new approaches in learning methods and techniques brought by the information age have created the need to renew the Science program (MEB, 2005). In order to meet this need, the Science Education Program should be designed in accordance with dynamic and field knowledge in order to adapt to the changing world conditions (Abd-El-Khalik, 2012). The Ministry of National Education has also been making various changes in the science curriculum for a long time (MEB, 2005, 2013, 2017 and 2018). Developed each program has different learning outcomes. Measurement and evaluation activities performed correctly is difficult in the case where change of the learning outcomes realized (Avşar & Mete, 2018). In such a case, there is a need to classify the learning outcomes in a common language. The purpose of this study was to analyze and evaluate the learning outcomes of the 8th Grades in the Science Teaching Curriculum which was renewed in 2018 by the Ministry of National Education, according to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy.
Method
The data of this research consisted of 61 learning outcomes defined Science 8th Grade Curriculum.Document analysis technique used in qualitative research was used in the study. In the analysis of the data, content analysis was performed, frequency and percentage values were presented. Analysis of the learning outcomes were carried out at three stages. At the first stage, a common judiciary was established by the researchers and three experts to evaluate the learning outcomes. At the second stage, the learning outcomes were analyzed separately by the researchers, the differences were discussed and a common result was reached. At the third stage, the learning outcomes were sent to three different experts and asked to be evaluated. In order to calculate the consistency of the analyzes as a result of the comparisons, Miles and Huberman's (1994) Formula (Reliability=Number of agreements/Total number of agreements + Disagreements) was used. The reliability coefficient was found to be 0.81. As the calculated value was found to be greater than 0.70, the results were found to be sufficiently reliable.
Findings
Research findings; According to Cognitive Process Dimension of learning outcomes, 5,26% Recall, 49,12% Understanding, 10,53% Application and Analysis, 8,77% Evaluation and 15,79% Creation group. According to the Accumulation Dimension of learning objectives; 7,02% factual knowledge, 54,39% conceptual knowledge, 17,54% operational knowledge and 21,05% upper cognitive knowledge group. The findings of the research show that 57 learning outcomes are in cognitive learning, 3 learning outcomes are in affective learning and 1 learning outcomes are in psychomotor learning outcomes.
Discussion and Conclusion
When the program is evaluated in general, it is concluded that the learning outcomes are more intensively located in the sub-groups of “conceptual knowledge” in the dimension of knowledge accumulation and “understanding” in the dimension of cognitive process. It may be advisable to arrange the learning outcomes to have a balanced distribution in all dimensions.
Keywords: Science teaching curriculum, Learning outcomes, Revised Bloom taxonomy.