The Use of Bloom’s Taxonomy to Inform Students’ Cognitive Levels

Siti Nursaila Alias, Faridah Ibrahim

Abstract


To improve students’ conceptual understanding depends on the question types asked by the teachers. This paper investigates to examine form four students’ cognitive levels in Newton’s Law based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. The study sample consisted of 189 science stream students from three secondary schools in Kuala Kangsar, Perak. Researcher implemented Newton’s Law questions as instrument to determine the three cognitive levels of the respondent which namely Knowledge, Comprehension and Application. The paper-pencil test was developed and administered on the subject. The data were collected and analyzed using the Statistical Packages for Social Science for Windows release 21 (SPSS Software). The findings show that the mean of the Knowledge, Comprehension and Application level is moderate.

Keywords


Bloom’s taxonomy; Newton’s Law questions; cognitive levels

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alice Thomas (2010). 30 Strategies for Enhancing Higher Order Thinking. Retrived June 14, 2016, from http://ueatexas.com/pdf/30strategies.pdf

Anderson, B. (1986). Pupils’ explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70(5), 549-563.

Angell, R. J., Heffernan, T. W., & Megicks, P. (2008). Service quality in postgraduate education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 236-254.

Connel, W.F. (1981). Asas Pendidikan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka.

Fisher, K. M. (1985). A misconception in biology: amino acids and translation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(1), 53-62.

Gardiner, L. F. (1994). Redesigning Higher Education: Producing Dramatic Gains in Student Learning. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Gilbert, J.K. & Watts, D.M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: changing perspective in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.

Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students. Physics Education, 15, 92105.

Marzano R J (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. California: Corwin Press Inc.

Mazur, E. (1996). Peer instruction: a user's manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

McDermott, L. C. (1993). Millikan Lecture 1990: How we teach and how students learn- A mismatch? American Journal Physics 61, 295-298.

Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils‟ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467.

Phang, F. A., & Noor Izyan, S. (2012). Pengajaran Free-Body Diagram (FBD) dalam menyelesaikan masalah tajuk daya Tingkatan Empat. Seminar Majlis Dekan Pendidikan IPTA 2012, (2002), 1–15.

Thornton, R. K. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338.

Wilen (1986). Effective techniques of questioning. Retrived June 13, 2016, from http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/effquest.htm




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v3i3.48

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2016 International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU) ISSN 2364-5369
https://ijmmu.com
[email protected]
dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu
facebook.com/ijmmu
Copyright © 2014-2018 IJMMU. All rights reserved.