An Analysis of The TRIO Reading 2 Questions Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v9i3p270Keywords:
Bloom’s Taxonomy, English Language Textbooks, Types of Questions, Textbook Evaluation, Learning ObjectivesAbstract
The purpose of the present study was to describe the types and levels of questions available in the textbook TRIO Reading 2, which is used for level two at the English Department, King Khalid University. The study aimed to identify and analyse the questions based on Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) of the cognitive domain. Data were analysed using a coding scheme based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. The findings indicated that the questions in the TRIO Reading 2 textbook covered all the cognitive domain levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy i.e. knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, syntheses, and evaluation. The most popular type of questions used was aligned with comprehension followed by knowledge and syntheses, then by evaluation while analysis and application were the least frequently used in the textbook. Results also revealed that among the 335 questions in the textbook, 177 of them focused on the lower level and 158 focused on the higher level ones. The study recommended that EFL teachers and academic policymakers should regularly evaluate the effectiveness of university textbooks and maintain a balance between both higher and lower level questions.
References
Abdelrahman, M.S.H.B. (2014). An Analysis of the tenth grade English Language textbooks questions in Jordan based on the revised edition of Bloom’s taxonomy. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(18), 139-151.
Al Btoush, O.A. (2012). An analysis of the questions in Jordanian secondary stage English Language textbooks. Unpublished master thesis. Mu’tah University, Jordan.
Al-Raqqad, Y., M., & Ismail, H.H. (2018). Analyzing the reading questions of AP12 textbook according to Bloom’s taxonomy. International Journal of Education, Psychology and Counseling, 3 (22), 81-94.
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Bloom.B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. Longman.
Chinoda, A.M. (1982). An Analysis of questions selected from senior high social studies textbooks used in Zimbabwe. Diss. George Peabody College.
Edward, S., & Bowman, M. (1996). Promoting student learning through questioning: A study of classroom questions. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 7(2), 3-24.
Freahat, N., & Smadi, O. (2014). Lower-order and higher-order reading questions in secondary and university level EFL textbooks in Jordan. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4, 1804-1813
Jo and Bednarz, S. (2011). Textbook questions to support spatial thinking: Differences in spatiality by question location. Journal of Geography, 110 (2), 70-80.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 202-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.
Marzano, R., &Kendall, J. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd Ed.). Corwin Press.
Muchlis (2015). An analysis of thinking order of reading comprehension questions in English textbook for young foresters of Forestry Vocational School of Samarinda. Journal Nalar Pendidikan, 3(1), 314-316.
Nurisma, R. (2010). An analysis of reading questions in English e-book entitled Developing English comprehension for grade XI. The Learning University. University Negeri Malang. Available on https://library.um.ac.id
Saif, M. (1994). Evaluation of Physics textbooks for ninth grade from the points of view of both teachers and supervisors. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. University of Jordan. Jordan.
Sheldon, L. E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42, 237-246.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/42.4.237
Schultz, L. (2005). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Lynn Schultz: Old Dominion University. Retrieved from https://ww2.odu.edu/educ/roverbau/Bloom/blooms_taxonomy.htm.
Shuyi, N.S., & Renandya, W.A. (2019). An analysis of the cognitive rigour of questions used in secondary school English language textbooks in Singapore. Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 7, 169-188.
Tomlinson, B. (1998). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Ulum, O.G., (2016). A descriptive content analysis of the extent of Bloom’s taxonomy in the reading comprehension questions of the coursebook Q: Skills for success 4 reading and writing. The Qualitative Report, 21(9), 1674-1683.
Zareian, G., Davoudi, M., Heshmatifar, Z., & Rahimi, J. (2015). An evaluation of questions in two ESP coursebooks based on Bloom’s new taxonomy of cognitive learning domain. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(8), 313-326.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies
International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies applies the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic Licence (CC BY-NC 2.0)
