Alignment of the Turkish 11th grade philosophy skill-based activity book with Bloom’s revised taxonomy
Abstract views: 0
/ 
PDF downloads: 0
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19328137Keywords:
Bloom’s revised taxonomy, philosophy education, skill-based assessment, cognitive process dimension, constructive alignmentAbstract
This study examines the alignment of the assessment tools included in the 11th Grade Philosophy Skill-Based Activity Book prepared by the Turkish Ministry of National Education with the Cognitive Process Dimension of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (BRT). Conducted within a qualitative research framework using document analysis, the study analyzed all 115 assessment tools in the book without sampling, treating each question as an independent unit of analysis. The tools were coded according to the six cognitive process categories of BRT: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. Inter-coder reliability was calculated as .91, indicating a high level of consistency.
The findings reveal that assessment tools are predominantly concentrated at the understanding level (44%), while the applying level is represented at a limited rate (4%). Although 38% of the questions correspond to higher-order cognitive processes, sub-dimension diversity within these levels appears open to further development. In particular, the absence of the “organizing” sub-dimension in analyzing and the “planning” sub-dimension in creating suggests that higher-order cognitive processes could be structured in a more balanced and comprehensive manner.
Overall, the cognitive distribution of the assessment tools may be further enhanced in line with the higher-order thinking skills emphasized in policy documents. Strengthening constructive alignment among curriculum goals, instructional practices, and assessment tools is recommended to improve the effectiveness of skill-based assessment.
References
Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4(1), 213–230.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Longmans, Green.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. ASCD.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.
Çepni, S., Ayvacı, H. Ş., & Bacanak, A. (2020). Fen bilimleri ders kitaplarında yer alan soruların bilişsel düzey açısından incelenmesi[An examination of the cognitive level of questions found in science textbooks]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 45(201), 123–140.
Demir, S., & Yılmaz, E. (2022). Ders kitaplarındaki ölçme değerlendirme sorularının Bloom taksonomisine göre analizi [Analysis of assessment questions in textbooks according to Bloom's taxonomy]. Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(2), 78–95.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Macmillan.
Ensar, F. (2007). Sınıf içi soru sorma davranışlarının incelenmesi [Examining classroom questioning behaviors]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 32(145), 45–56.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton.
Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. University of Georgia.
Güler, M., & Çelik, D. (2021). Türkiye’de yüksek riskli sınavların ölçme ve değerlendirme süreçlerine etkisi [Measurement and evaluation processes of high-risk exams in Turkey]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 21(3), 45–60.
Haladyna, T. M. (1999). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Karakış, H., & Yıldırım, A. (2022). Dijital okuma ve anlama süreçlerinin değerlendirilmesi üzerine bir inceleme [A review on the evaluation of digital reading and comprehension processes]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 47(210), 1–20.
Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific research method]. (15. bs.). Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
King, A. (1995). Designing the instructional process to enhance critical thinking across the curriculum. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 13–17.
Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1–14.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
Ministry of National Education. (2023). Secondary school philosophy curriculum. Ministry of National Education Publications.
Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2014). Educational assessment of students (7th ed.). Pearson.
Noddings, N. (2018). Philosophy of education (4th ed.). Routledge.
OECD. (2021). 21st century readers: Developing literacy skills in a digital world. OECD Publishing.
Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.
Popham, W. J. (2017). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (8th ed.). Pearson.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Santrock, J. W. (2020). Adolescence (17th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371.
Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
Senemoğlu, N. (2018). Gelişim, öğrenme ve öğretim [Development, learning and teaching]. Kuramdan uygulamaya. Anı Yayıncılık.
Splitter, L. J., & Sharp, A. M. (1995). Teaching for better thinking: The classroom community of inquiry. ACER.
Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(4), 268–275.
Steinberg, L. (2014). Age of opportunity: Lessons from the new science of adolescence. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass.
UNESCO. (2018). A global framework of reference on digital literacy skills. UNESCO Publishing.
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Action Qualitative & Mixed Methods Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The journal is licensed under a 