Analysis of TSKT Questions on Science Teaching in 2013 PPSE According to Reconstructing of Bloom Taxonomy
 
More details
Hide details
1
Saftekin Gazi High School, Malazgirt, Muş, Turkey
2
Faculty of Education, Amasya University, Amasya, Turkey
Publish date: 2017-10-10
 
International Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education 2015;7(1):29–36
KEYWORDS:
ABSTRACT:
The Ministry of National Education (MoNE) in Turkey hires teachers based on the results of the Public Personnel Selection Examination (PPSE). By 2013, the MoNE has decided to do another examination which is called the Teacher Subject Knowledge Test, in 13 different fields in addition to Educational Science Test. By this decision, prospective teachers have to take 3 different sessions including General Skills Test (GST), General Culture Test (GCT), Educational Science Test (EST), and Teacher Subject Knowledge Test (TSKT). The MoNE has selected teachers based on the results of these PPSE P121 tests. Calculation of PPSE P121 has been made by the following: GST %15, GCT %15, EST %20, and TSKT %50. Science education is one of these 13 different fields. The cognitive levels of questions on TSKT test are related to how ready prospective science teachers are to teach in their subject. The aim of this study is to analyze TSKT questions on science teaching in 2013 PPSS according to reconstructing of Bloom Taxonomy. The requested permission for the analyses of the questions had been taken from the Student Selection and Placement Center (SSPC). The study was conducted using the document analysis method in the framework of qualitative research. At the end of this study; the majority of TSKT questions were found as low cognitive level according to Bloom Taxonomy. Based on the results of this study, some recommendations have been declared for the readers of this study.
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Orhan Karamustafaoğlu   
Faculty of Education, Amasya University, Amasya, Turkey
 
REFERENCES (27):
1. Akçay, S. (2009). A Study on Primary Education Preservice Science Teacher Knowledge in the Subject Area of Biology, Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 29(3), 709-731.
2. Anderson, L.W. (2005). Objectives, Evaluation, and the Improvement of Education. Studies in Education Evaluation, 31, 102–113.
3. 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, New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
4. Ayvacı, H. Ş. and Türkdoğan, A. (2010). Analysing “Science and Technology Course Exam Questions” According to Revised Bloom Taxonomy, Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(1), 13-25.
5. Bahar, H.H. (2011). KPSS 10 Score Prediction Power of Bachelor Graduation Mark with OSS Score, Education and Science, 36(162), 168-181.
6. Bekdemir, M. and Selim, Y. (2008). Revised Bloom Taxonomy and its Application in Algebra Area, Erzincan University Faculty of Education Journal, 10(2), 185-196.
7. Cansüngü Koray, Ö. and Yaman, S. (2002). An Assessment Of Questioning Skills Of Science Teacher According To Bloom’s Taxonomy, Kastamonu Education Journal, 10(2), 317- 324.
8. Çepni, S. (2003). An Analysis of University Science Instructors' Examination Questions According to the Cognitive Levels, Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 3(1), 65- 84.
9. Çepni, S. (2009). Araştırma ve Proje Çalışmalarına Giriş. (4. Baskı), Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık. (in Turkish).
10. Çepni, S., Ayvacı, H. Ş. ve Keleş, E. (2001). Okullarda ve lise giriş sınavlarında sorulan fen bilgisi sorularının Bloom Taksonomisine göre karşılaştırılması. Yeni Binyılın Başında Türkiye’de Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu, Bildiriler Kitabı, Maltepe Üniversitesi, Đstanbul, 144-150. (in Turkish).
11. DPT (2000). Yüksek Öğretim Özel Đhtisas Komisyonu Raporu, Sekizinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı, Yayın No DPT: 2534, Ankara. (in Turkish).
12. Eyüp, B. (2012). Evaluation of the Questions Prepared by Turkish Language Teacher Candidates according To the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, Kastamonu Education Journal, 20(3), 965-982.
13. Keskin Özer, M. and Aydın, S. (2011). A Study of the Biology Questions in the 6th Grade Science and Technology Test of the Level Assessment Examination Based on the Revised Taxonomy Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 31(3), 727- 742.
14. Kratwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212– 218.
15. MEB - Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı- TTKB. (2005). Đlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi Öğretim Programı. Ankara. (in Turkish).
16. ÖSYM (2009). 2009 Kamu Personeli Seçme Sınavı (KPSS) Kılavuzu-Lisans Düzeyi (A Grubu ve Öğretmenlik). Ankara. (in Turkish).
17. ÖSYM (2013). 2013 Kamu Personeli Seçme Sınavı (KPSS) Kılavuzu-Lisans Düzeyi (A Grubu ve Öğretmenlik). Ankara. (in Turkish).
18. Özmen, H. (2005). Examination of the SSE Chemistry Questions Between 1990 and 2005 According to Subject Matters and Bloom’s Taxonomy, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 21, 187-199.
19. Poyraz, S. (2005). Đlköğretim 7. Sınıfların Fen Bilgisi Dersi Öğretiminde Kullanılan Aktif Öğretim Modellerine Uygun Ölçme-Değerlendirme Tekniklerinin Belirlenmesi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Celal Bayar Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Manisa. (in Turkish).
20. Ralph, E. G. (1999). Oral questioning skills of novice teachers: …any questions? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26(4), 286.
21. Rawadieh, S.M. (1998). An analysis of the cognitive levels of questions in jordanian secondary social studies textbooks according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Faculty of the College of Education Ohio University, Ohio.
22. Risner, G.P, Nicholson J.I. & Webb B. (2000). Cognitive levels of questioning demonstrated by new social studies textbooks: what the future holds for elementary students. http://www.eric.ed.gov [ED448108].
23. Tanık, N. & Saraçoğlu, S. (2011). Analysis Of The Exam Questions For The Science And Technology Course Based On Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, Türk Bilim Araştırma Vakfı Bilim Dergisi, 4(4), 235-246.
24. Tekin, H. (2000). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. Ankara: Yargı Yayınevi. (in Turkish).
25. Wilen, W. (1991). Questioning Skills for Teachers. What Research Says to the Teacher? 3 rd Ed. Washington, DC: National Education Association. ERIC Document Reproduction no: ED 332983.
26. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. (8. Baskı), Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
27. Yiğit, N. & Akdeniz, A. R. (2002). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenlerinin Kullandıkları Ölçme Araçlarının Kapsam Geçerliği Yönünden Araştırılması, V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi. (in Turkish).
eISSN:1306-3049