SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim (TEKE) Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 3

THE ACHIEVEMENTS LEVELS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THE SCIENCE CURRICULUM ON THE SUBSTANCE AND ITS NATURE: AN ANALYSIS THROUGH THE REVISED BLOOM'S TAXONOMY

ORTAOKUL ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN FEN BİLİMLERİ ÖĞRETİM PROGRAMI MADDENİN DOĞASI KONUSUNDAKİ BAŞARI DÜZEYLERİ: YENİLENMİŞ BLOOM TAKSONOMİSİ ÜZERİNDEN BİR ANALİZ

Abdulkadir Özkaya(Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği)0000-0002-6962-4597
Okan Sarıgöz(Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Programları Bölümü)0000-0002-1616-9789
Abdulkadir Demir(Bezge İmam Hatip Ortaokulu-Yayladağı-Hatay)0009-0002-9920-5032
Ahmet Bozak(Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Yönetimi Bölümü)0000-0001-5275-0514
Pages
1415–1434
Publication Date
2023-09-15
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results of the study revealed that the most (35 learning achievements) achievements were emphasized in the conceptual knowledge dimension while the least achievements (1 item) was emphasized in the metacognitive knowledge dimension; the study also revealed that the most achievements (14 learning achievements) were emphasized in the application dimension while the least achievements (3 achievements) were emphasized in the analzing dimension.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The current study aims to determine knowledge areas and cognitive process dimensions of the Revised Bloom Taxonomy of elementary school student achievements in the curriculum course unit of "The Substance and its Nature", as well as how the learning achievements are distributed across grade levels.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Accordingly, 52 achievements in the course unit of "The Substance and its Nature" were examined by the researchers.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results of the study revealed that the most (35 learning achievements) achievements were emphasized in the conceptual knowledge dimension while the least achievements (1 item) was emphasized in the metacognitive knowledge dimension; the study also revealed that the most achievements (14 learning achievements) were emphasized in the application dimension while the least achievements (3 achievements) were emphasized in the analzing dimension.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:: Fen öğretim programı · madde ve doğası · öğretim programı kazanımları

Abstract

The current study aims to determine knowledge areas and cognitive process dimensions of the Revised Bloom Taxonomy of elementary school student achievements in the curriculum course unit of "The Substance and its Nature", as well as how the learning achievements are distributed across grade levels. The document review method, regarded to be one of the qualitative research methods, was used in the study. Accordingly, 52 achievements in the course unit of "The Substance and its Nature" were examined by the researchers. The reliability coefficient of the research data was determined as 0.73 which was considered to be enough for research reliability. The results of the study revealed that the most (35 learning achievements) achievements were emphasized in the conceptual knowledge dimension while the least achievements (1 item) was emphasized in the metacognitive knowledge dimension; the study also revealed that the most achievements (14 learning achievements) were emphasized in the application dimension while the least achievements (3 achievements) were emphasized in the analzing dimension.

Özet

Bu çalışma, 2018 Ortaokul Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programındaki “Madde ve Doğası” konu alanında yer alan kazanımların yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisinin bilgi ve bilişsel süreç boyutunun hangi basamağında yer aldığı ve sınıf düzeylerine göre nasıl bir dağılım gösterdiğini belirlemek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden biri olan doküman inceleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın amacına yönelik olarak araştırmacılar tarafından “Madde ve Doğası” konu alanıyla ilgili 52 kazanım incelenmiştir. Elde edilen verilerin güvenirlik katsayısı da hesaplanmış ve 0,73 olarak belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen verilere göre bilgi boyutunda; en fazla (35 kazanım) kavramsal bilgi boyutundaki kazanımlara yer verildiği, en az (1 kazanım) ise üstbilişsel bilgi boyutundaki kazanımlara yer verildiği; bilişsel süreç boyutunda; en fazla (14 kazanım) uygulama boyutundaki kazanımlar, en az ise (3 kazanım) çözümleme boyutundaki kazanımlara yer verildiği belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, “Madde ve Doğası” konu alanında çözümleme dışındaki diğer üst düzey düşünme boyutlarına yeteri kadar yer verildiği görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özkaya, A., Sarıgöz, O., Demir, A., Bozak, A. (2023). THE ACHIEVEMENTS LEVELS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THE SCIENCE CURRICULUM ON THE SUBSTANCE AND ITS NATURE: AN ANALYSIS THROUGH THE REVISED BLOOM'S TAXONOMY. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim (TEKE) Dergisi, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 3, 1415–1434. https://doi.org/10.7884/teke.1339900

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Aktaş, E. (2017). Evaluation of the questioning skills of teachers candidates towards the different text types according to the renewed Bloom taxonomy. Turkish Studies, 12(25), 99-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.12274 Altınok, M.A, Tunç, T., & Özcan, H. (2020). Comparative analysis of science education programs in the context of science-technology-society and environmental acquisitions from 1926 to the present. Journal of Amasya University Faculty of Education, 9(2), 230-257. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/amauefd/issue/58078/774030
  2. Amer, A.A. (2006). Reflections of Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4(8), 213-230. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2931/293123488010.pdf
  3. Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.). (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  4. Anderson, L.W. (2005). Objectives, evaluation, and the improvement of education. Studies in Education Evaluation, 31, 102-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.05.004
  5. Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2010). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. Pegem Publication. Arı, A. (2011). Finding acceptance of Bloom’s revised cognitive taxonomy on the international stage and in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(2), 749-772. https://www.idealonline.com.tr/IdealOnline/pdfViewer/index.xhtml?uId=2015&ioM=Paper&preview=true&isViewer=true#pagemode=bookmarks
  6. Avcı, F., Aslangiray, H., & Özyalçın, B. (2021). Analysis and evaluation of the learning outcomes of the 2018 science curriculum according to revised Bloom taxonomy in terms of subject and class level. Trakya Journal of Education, 11(2), 643-660. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.689366
  7. Aydın, N., & Yılmaz, A. (2010). The effect of constructivist approach on students' high-level cognitive skills. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 39(39), 57-68. http://efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/shw_artcl-459.html
  8. Ayvacı, H.Ş., & Türkdoğan, A. (2010). Analysing science and technology course exam
  9. questions according to revised Bloom taxonomy. Turkish Journal of Science Education, 7(1), 13-25. https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/500/430
  10. Balkan-Kıyıcı, F., & Atabek-Yiğit, E. (2023). Examining environmental acquisitions in science curriculum: A comparison of Brazil and Turkey. Trakya Journal of Education, 13(1), 593-605. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/2229792
  11. Başar, T. (2021). Analysis of the learning outcomes in the 2018 science course curriculum in terms of scientific process skills. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 23(1), 218-235. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.756163
  12. Bekdemir, M., & Selim, Y. (2008). Revised Bloom taxonomy and its apllication in algebra area. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 10(2), 185-196. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/67433
  13. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive and affective domains. New York: David McKay.
  14. Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  15. Brooks, S., Dobbins, K., Scott, J.J.A., Rawlinson, M., & Norman, R.I. (2014). Learning about learning outcomes: The student perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 721–733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901964
  16. Bümen, N.T. (2006). A revision of the Bloom’s taxonomy: A turning point in curriculum development. Education and Science, 31(142), 3-14. http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/837
  17. Çepni, S., & Ayvacı, H.Ş. (2006). Measurement and evaluation in science and technology education. S. Çepni (Ed.), Science and technology teaching from theory to practice. In, (pp. 229-248). Pegem Publication.
  18. Çeken, R. (2022). Semantic extention problem in Turkish science curriculum. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(2), 56-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.46762/mamulebd.1186464
  19. Dobbins, K., Brooks, S., Scott, J.J.A., Rawlinson, M., & Norman, R.I. (2016). Understanding and enacting learning outcomes: The academic's perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 41(7), 1217–1235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.966668
  20. Elmas, R., Canbazoğlu-Bilici, S., Adıgüzel-Ulutaş, M., & Yalçın, S. (2022). An international perspective on science curricula: Identifying science teachers’ views in private schools. Bulletin of Educational Studies, 1(1), 19-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.29329/bes.2022.480.03
  21. Güngör Cabbar, B., Gültekin, S., Güneş, E., Aytaç, E., & Daşgın, F. (2020). Analysis of environmental achievements in 2018 science and biology courses curriculum according to the revised Bloom taxonomy. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1), 504-527. http://dx.doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.702537
  22. Kalemkuş, J. (2021). Investigation of science curriculum learning outcomes in terms of 21st century skills. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 11(1), 63-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.800552
  23. Kalkan, Ö., & Tunç, T. (2020). A comparison of physics topics in middle school science curricula released between years 1924 and 2018. Journal of Ihlara Educational Research, 5(2), 294-326. https://doi.org/10.47479/ihead.807957
  24. Kaptan, F. (1999). Science teaching. Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
  25. Karalı, Y., Palancıoğlu, Ö.V., & Aydemir, H. (2021). Comparison of Turkey and Singapore primary school science programs. Journal of İnönü University Education Faculty, 22(1), 866-888. http://dx.doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.883126
  26. 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
  27. Mayer, R.E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226-232. https://web.mit.edu/jrankin/www/teach_transfer/rote_v_meaning.pdf
  28. Turkish Ministry of National Education (MEB), (2006). Primary education science and technology lesson (6th, 7th and 8th grades) curriculum. http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/program2.aspx
  29. Turkish Ministry of National Education (MEB), (2013). Primary education institutions science course (3th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades) curriculum. https://ridvansoydemir.com/2013-fen-bilimleri-ogretim-programi/ Turkish Ministry of National Education (MEB), (2018). Science course (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th) curriculum, Ankara. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201812312311937-FEN%20B%C4%B0L%C4%B0MLER%C4%B0%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20PROGRAMI2018.pdf
  30. Miles, M.B., & Huberman A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd Edition). California: Sage Publications.
  31. Özden, Y. (1997. Learning and teaching. Pegem Punlication.
  32. Roth, C.E. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990s. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
  33. Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding SSI: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
  34. Sağlamöz, F., & Soysal, Y. (2021). Exploration of 2018 primary and elementary sciences course teaching programs outcomes according to the revised Bloom taxonomy. Journal of İstanbul Aydın University Education Faculty, 7(1), 111- 145. https://doi.org/10.17932/IAU.EFD.2015.013/efd_v07i006
  35. Şimşek, H. (2019). Turkish teachers’ opinions on realizability of renewed 5 th grade Turkish lesson curriculum outcomes (example of Kocaeli province). Unpublished master’s thesis. Sakarya: Sakarya University Institute of Educational Sciences.
  36. Tatar, N. (2006). The effect of inquiry-based learning approaches in the education of science in primary school on the science process skills, academic achivement and attitude. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Ankara: Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences.
  37. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons. Tutkun, Ö.F., & Okay, S. (2012). An overview on Bloom’s revised. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 1(3), 14-22. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/192275
  38. Venville, G.J., & Dawson, V.M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-20931-003
  39. Yaşar, Ş., & Duban, N. (2009). Students’ opinions regarding to the inquiry-based learning approach. Elementary Education Online, 8(2), 457- 475.
  40. https://earsiv.anadolu.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11421/11264/11264.pdf?sequence=1
  41. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Seçkin Publication.
  42. Yıldız-Bıçak, C., & Bilir, V. (2023). Evaluation of the information regarding scientists in the science textbooks from the teacher's perspective. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Education, 65, 487-511. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.1107010
  43. Zorluoğlu, S.L., Kızılaslan, A., & Sözbilir, M. (2016). School chemistry curriculum according to revised Bloom taxonomy. Necetibey Education Faculty Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 260-279. https://doi.org/10.17522/nefefmed.22297
  44. Zorluoğlu, S.L., Şahintürk, A., & Bağrıyanık, K.E. (2017). Analysis and evaluation of science course curriculum learning outcomes of the year 2013 according to the revised Bloom taxonomy. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(1), 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.14686/buefad.267190