Profile of the ability of prospective Biology teachers in making question instruments using Bloom's Taxonomy

Tengku Idris; Sepita Ferazona; Herlina Safitri

doi:10.21831/reid.v7i2.44903

Profile of the ability of prospective Biology teachers in making question instruments using Bloom's Taxonomy

Tengku Idris, Universitas Islam Riau, Indonesia
Sepita Ferazona, Universitas Islam Riau, Indonesia
Herlina Safitri, Universitas Islam Riau, Indonesia

10.21831/reid.v7i2.44903

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine students' ability to make Bloom's taxonomy questions. The study was conducted on students in the 5th semester of the 2020/2021 academic year who were taking evaluation courses and learning achievement techniques with a sample of 62 people. This research is a descriptive study using a checklist sheet as the main instrument that has been content validated by experts, questionnaires, and interviews as supporting data. Data were analyzed using the quantitative descriptive method. The results of the research show that students have very good abilities in making Bloom's taxonomy questions for the lower other thinking skills category with a percentage of 92.22% with details C1 100%, C2 95%, and C3 81.67%, while the students' ability in making questions with a higher level of other thinking skills is in the very poor category with a percentage of 44.17% with C4 54.17%, C5 46.67% and C6 31.17%. In addition, based on the form of questions, students' ability to design essay questions (74.17%) is better than multiple-choice questions (62.22%). The conclusion of this study is the ability of students to make questions based on Bloom's Taxonomy is in the fairly good category, with a percentage of 78.06%.

Keywords

Bloom’s Taxonomy; LOTS; HOTS; prospective teacher

Full Text:

PDF

References

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. https://www.uky.edu/~rsand1/china2018/texts/Anderson-Krathwohl - A taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing.pdf

Arievitch, I. M. (2020). The vision of developmental teaching and learning and Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 25, 100274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.01.007

Arti, E. P. N., & Hariyatmi, H. (2015). Kemampuan guru mata pelajaran Biologi dalam pembuatan soal HOT (Higher Order Thinking) di SMA Negeri 1 Wonosari Klaten. Undergraduate thesis, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Sukoharjo. http://eprints.ums.ac.id/33446/

Asrul, A., Ananda, R., & Rosinta, R. (2014). Evaluasi pembajalaran. Ciptapustaka Media.

Baghaei, S., Bagheri, M. S., & Yamini, M. (2020). Analysis of IELTS and TOEFL reading and listening tests in terms of revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1720939. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1720939

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. D. McKay.

Chin, H., Chew, C. M., & Lim, H. L. (2021). Development and validation of online cognitive diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items for ‘Multiplication of Time.’ Journal of Computers in Education, 8(2), 289–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00180-7

Deiglmayr, A. (2018). Instructional scaffolds for learning from formative peer assessment: Effects of core task, peer feedback, and dialogue. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0355-8

Ebadi, S., & Shahbazian, F. (2015). Exploring the cognitive level of final exams in Iranian high schools: Focusing on Bloom’s taxonomy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(4), 1–11. http://jallr.ir/index.php/JALLR/article/view/58

Ghidinelli, M., Cunningham, M., Monotti, I. C., Hindocha, N., Rickli, A., McVicar, I., & Glyde, M. (2021). Experiences from two ways of integrating pre- and post-course multiple-choice assessment questions in educational events for surgeons. Journal of European CME, 10(1), 1918317. https://doi.org/10.1080/21614083.2021.1918317

Hadiprayitno, G., Muhlis, & Kusmiyati. (2019). Problems in learning Biology for senior high schools in Lombok Island. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1241(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1241/1/012054

Hingorjo, M. R., & Jaleel, F. (2012). Analysis of one-best MCQs: The difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 62(2), 142–147. https://jpma.org.pk/PdfDownload/3255.pdf

Hooshyar, D., Lim, H., Pedaste, M., Yang, K., Fathi, M., & Yang, Y. (2019). AutoThinking: An adaptive computational thinking game. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 11937, 381-391. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35343-8_41

Johnson, C., Boon, H., & Dinan Thompson, M. (2021). Cognitive demands of the reformed Queensland Physics, Chemistry, and Biology syllabus: An analysis framed by the new taxonomy of educational objectives. Research in Science Education, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-09988-4

Kidwell, L. A., Fisher, D. G., Braun, R. L., & Swanson, D. L. (2013). Developing learning objectives for Accounting ethics using Bloom’s Taxonomy. Accounting Education, 22(1), 44–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2012.698478

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Kwangmuang, P., Jarutkamolpong, S., Sangboonraung, W., & Daungtod, S. (2021). The development of learning innovation to enhance higher order thinking skills for students in Thailand junior high schools. Heliyon, 7(6), e07309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07309

Lee, Y. J., Kim, M., & Yoon, H. G. (2015). The intellectual demands of the intended primary Science curriculum in Korea and Singapore: An analysis based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2193–2213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1072290

Meda, L., & Swart, A. J. (2018). Analysing learning outcomes in an Electrical Engineering curriculum using illustrative verbs derived from Bloom’s Taxonomy. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1378169

Momsen, J., Offerdahl, E., Kryjevskaia, M., Montplaisir, L., Anderson, E., & Grosz, N. (2013). Using assessments to investigate and compare the nature of learning in undergraduate science courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(2), 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-08-0130

Pappas, E., Pierrakos, O., & Nagel, R. (2013). Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to teach sustainability in multiple contexts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.039

Parsaei, I., Alemokhtar, M. J., & Rahimi, A. (2017). Learning objectives in ESP books based on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Beyond Words, 5(1), 14–22. http://journal.wima.ac.id/index.php/BW/article/view/1112

Prakash, R., & Litoriya, R. (2021). Pedagogical transformation of Bloom taxonomy’s LOTs into HOTs: An investigation in context with IT education. Wireless Personal Communications, 122, 725-736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-021-08921-2

Radmehr, F., & Drake, M. (2017). Revised Bloom’s taxonomy and integral calculus: Unpacking the knowledge dimension. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(8), 1206–1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2017.1321796

Ramesh, D., & Sanampudi, S. K. (2021). An automated essay scoring systems: A systematic literature review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55, 2495-2527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-10068-2

Retnawati, H., Djidu, H., Kartianom, Apino, E., & Anazifa, R. D. (2018). Teachers’ knowledge about higher-order thinking skills and its learning strategy. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 76(2), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/18.76.215

Risnawati, R., Andrian, D., Azmi, M. P., Amir, Z., & Nurdin, E. (2019). Development of a definition maps-based plane geometry module to improve the student teachers’ mathematical reasoning ability. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 541–560. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12333a

Sahoo, D. P., & Singh, R. (2017). Item and distracter analysis of multiple choice questions (MCQs) from a preliminary examination of undergraduate medical students. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 5(12), 5351-5355. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20175453

Sahragard, R., & Alavi, S. Z. (2016). Investigating the predominant levels of learning objectives in general English books. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning Studies, 8(17), 93-114. https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_4962.html

Sargeant, J. (2015). Reflecting upon multisource feedback as ‘assessment for learning.’ Perspectives on Medical Education, 4(2), 55–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-015-0175-y

Schut, A., van Mechelen, M., Klapwijk, R. M., Gielen, M., & de Vries, M. J. (2020). Towards constructive design feedback dialogues: Guiding peer and client feedback to stimulate children’s creative thinking. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 99-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09612-y

Spuck, D. W., Hubert, L. J., & Lufler, H. S. (1975). An introduction to educational policy research. Education and Urban Society, 7(3), 211-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/001312457500700301

Stringer, J. K., Santen, S. A., Lee, E., Rawls, M., Bailey, J., Richards, A., Perera, R. A., & Biskobing, D. (2021). Examining Bloom’s taxonomy in multiple choice questions: Students’ approach to questions. Medical Science Educator, 31(4), 1311–1317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01305-y

Sulaiman, T., Muniyan, V., Madhvan, D., Hasan, R., & Rahim, S. S. A. (2017). Implementation of higher order thinking skills in teaching of Science. International Research Journal of Education and Sciences, 1(1), 1–3. https://www.masree.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Implementation-of-Higher-Order-Thinking-Skills-in-Teaching-of-Science.pdf

Tangsakul, P., Kijpoonphol, W., Duy Linh, N., & Kimura, L. N. (2017). Using Bloom’S revised Taxonomy to analyze reading comprehension questions in team up in English 1-3 and grade 9 English O-Net tests. International Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH, 5(7), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v5.i7.2017.2106

Van Niekerk, J., & Von Solms, R. (2013). Using Bloom’s Taxonomy for information security education. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 406, 280-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39377-8_33

Waite, L. H., Zupec, J. F., Quinn, D. H., & Poon, C. Y. (2020). Revised Bloom’s taxonomy as a mentoring framework for successful promotion. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 12(11), 1379–1382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2020.06.009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v7i2.44903