PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2019, Vol. 15(2) 104-117

Analyze of the Science and Technology Course TEOG Questions based on the Revised Bloom Taxonomy and their Relation between the Learning Outcomes of the Curriculum

Seraceddin Levent Zorluoğlu, Kübra Elif Bağrıyanık & Ayşe Şahintürk

pp. 104 - 117   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.189.8   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1812-17-0006

Published online: April 06, 2019  |   Number of Views: 12  |  Number of Download: 65


Abstract

Students who are getting education in our country are subject to various exams in order to be placed in a higher education. Since 2013-2014 academic year, Transition from Primary Education to Secondary Education (TEOG) exam has started to be applied for secondary education. TEOG exam questions are prepared in such a way to include teaching program achievements/learning outcomes published by the Ministry of National Education. In this study, the relations between the levels of the TEOG exam science and technology course questions and the 8th class achievements of the Science and Technology course curriculum in the renewed Bloom taxonomy were examined. In the research, data were subjected to descriptive analysis using the document analysis method. A total of 120 Science and Technology questions of the TEOG exams held between 2013 and 2016 were included in the study but 118 of the questions were analyzed since two of the questions were canceled. At the end of the research, it was determined that 58 questions from the Science and Technology course of Semester I included in the TEOG exam were the questions related to the 31 learning outcomes of the total of 34 outcomes included in the examination program. It was observed that 60 questions from the Science and Technology course of Semester II were related to the 42 learning outcomes of the total of 96 outcomes included in the program. In addition, it was also determined that there was no question in TEOG related to some of the course units.

Keywords: TEOG, Science and Technology Curriculum, Revised Bloom Taxonomy, learning outcome.


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Zorluoglu, S.L., Bagriyanik, K.E. & Sahinturk, A. (2019). Analyze of the Science and Technology Course TEOG Questions based on the Revised Bloom Taxonomy and their Relation between the Learning Outcomes of the Curriculum . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(2), 104-117. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2019.189.8

Harvard
Zorluoglu, S., Bagriyanik, K. and Sahinturk, A. (2019). Analyze of the Science and Technology Course TEOG Questions based on the Revised Bloom Taxonomy and their Relation between the Learning Outcomes of the Curriculum . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(2), pp. 104-117.

Chicago 16th edition
Zorluoglu, Seraceddin Levent, Kubra Elif Bagriyanik and Ayse Sahinturk (2019). "Analyze of the Science and Technology Course TEOG Questions based on the Revised Bloom Taxonomy and their Relation between the Learning Outcomes of the Curriculum ". International Journal of Progressive Education 15 (2):104-117. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2019.189.8.

References
  1. Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  2. Arı, A., & İnci, T. (2015). Assessment of common exam questions regarding eighth grade science and technology course. Uşak University Social Sciences Journal, 8(4), 17-50. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arseven, A., Şimşek, U., & Güden, M. (2016). Analysis of geography course written exam questions based on revised bloom taxonomy. Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Literature Social Sciences Journal, 40(1), 243-258. [Google Scholar]
  4. Atila, M. E., & Özeken, Ö. F. (2015). Examination for Transition from Primary Education to Secondary Education (TEOG): What do Science Teachers think about it? OMU Faculty of Education Journal, 34(1), 124-140. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cayhan, C., & Erhan, A. (2016). Assessment of the Turkish Course Questions of the TEOG Examination in terms of Learning outcomes of the Turkish Course Curriculum. Siirt University, Institute of Social Sciences Journal, 3(4), 119-128. [Google Scholar]
  6. Çepni, S. (2006). The reflection of the Science and Technology concepts on curricula. S. Çepni (Ed.), In the Science and Technology education from theory to practice (pp.2-22). Ankara: Pegem Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  7. Çepni, S. (2010). Introduction to research and project studies. Trabzon: Celepler Printing. [Google Scholar]
  8. Çolak, K., & Demircioğlu, İ. H. (2010) Classification of the history course exam questions based on cognitive domain level of Bloom taxonomy. National Education Journal, 40 (187), 160-171. [Google Scholar]
  9. Demir, M. (2011). Assessment of the 5th and 6th grade science and technology course exam questions based on the Bloom taxonomy. National Education Journal, 41(189), 131-143. [Google Scholar]
  10. Demirel, Ö. (2011). Teaching principles and methods, Teaching Art. Ankara: Pegem Academy. [Google Scholar]
  11. Demirel, Ö. (2015). Curriculum development in education from theory to practice. Ankara: Pegem Academy. [Google Scholar]
  12. Eryaman, M. Y. (2010). Frameworks in curriculum development. In C. Kridel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  13. Güleryüz, H., & Erdoğan, İ. (2018). Assessment of the secondary school science course exam questions based on Bloom's cognitive domain taxonomy: Muş Province example. Anemon Muş Alparslan University Journal of Social Sciences, 6 (1), 43-49. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gündüz, Y. (2009). Analysis of primary, 6th, 7th and 8th grade science and technology questions based on measurement tools and Bloom's cognitive domain taxonomy. Yüzüncü Yıl University, Faculty of Education Journal, 6(2), 150-165. [Google Scholar]
  15. Güven, Ç., & Aydın, A. (2017). Analysis and assessment of seventh grade science and technology course curriculum questions based on revised Bloom taxonomy. Atatürk University Kazim Karabekir Faculty of Education Journal, (35), 223-233. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gökulu, A. (2015). Evaluation of exam questions of science and technology teachers and science and technology lesson TEOG questions according to revised Bloom taxonomy. Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 2(2), 434-446. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kala, A., & Çakır, M. (2016). Analysis of 2013 Public Personnel Selection Exam Biology Field Knowledge Questions based on Biology Teachers' Knowledge Competencies and The Revised Bloom Taxonomy. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 243-260. [Google Scholar]
  18. Karadeniz, O., Eker, C., & Ulusoy, M. (2015). Assessment of the TR History of Revolution and Kemalism course questions of TEOG exam based on learning outcomes. International Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 6 (18), 115-134 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kaşıkçı, Y., Bolat, A., Değirmenci, S., & Karamustafaoğlu, S. (2015). Assessment of the Second term TEOG exam, science and technology questions based on certain criteria. Journal of Education and Training Research, 4 (1), 225-232. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kotluk, N., &Yayla, A. Development of a modern physics achievement test based on the revised Bloom taxonomy: Validity and Reliability Study. YYÜ Journal of Faculty of Education, XIII (I), 213-231. [Google Scholar]
  21. Koğar, E. Y., & Aygün, B. (2015). Examination of the scope validity of the tests belonging to the basic mathematics field of the Exam for Transition from Primary to Secondary Education (TEOG). Pegem Journal of Education and Teaching, 5 (5), 667-680. [Google Scholar]
  22. Köğçe, D., & Baki, A. (2009). Comparison of the mathematics questions asked by mathematics teachers in written exams and mathematics questions asked in OSS examinations based on the Bloom taxonomy. Pamukkale University Faculty of Education Journal, 26, 70-80. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ministry of National Education (2006). Science and technology curriculum. Ankara: Directorate of Education and Training Board. [Google Scholar]
  24. Näsström, G. (2009). Interpretation of standards with Bloom’s revised taxonomy: A comparison of teachers and assessment experts. Gunilla International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(1), 39-51 [Google Scholar]
  25. Özçelik D. A. (2010). Measurement and Assessment. Ankara: Pegem Academy [Google Scholar]
  26. Özden, M., Akgün, A., Çinici, A., Sezer, B., Yıldız, S., & Taş, M. M. (2014). Analysis of the central system common exam science questions according to Webb's knowledge depth levels. Adıyaman University Science Studies Journal, 4(7), 91-108. [Google Scholar]
  27. Tanık, N., & Saraçoğlu, S. (2011). Analyze of science and technology course exam questions based on the revised BLOOM taxonomy. TÜBAV Science Journal, 4(4), 235-246. [Google Scholar]
  28. Uslu, S., & Akgün, A. (2016). Investigation of the effects of work sheets on academic achievement in science and technology courses in Primary education Tier II Bayburt Faculty of Education Journal, 7(2), 157-168. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ünal, G., & Ergin, Ö. 2006. Influence of science education through inventions on students' academic achievements, learning approaches and attitudes. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 3 (1), 36-52. [Google Scholar]
  30. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Qualitative research methods in social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  31. Zorluoğlu, S. L., Güven, Ç, & Korkmaz, Z. S. (2017). Example of an analysis based on the Revised Bloom Taxonomy: 2017 draft secondary school chemistry curriculum. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, VII (2), 467-479. [Google Scholar]