The findings showed that among the objectives, instructional activities and assessment questions in LSCC, there were nine objectives with complete alignment, 17 objectives in partial alignment and three objectives with misalignment.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the analytical research design is used to conduct a curriculum alignment analysis on the Life Sciences Course Curriculum (LSCC) for 3rd-grade according to Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBT).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Class instructional activities and assessment questions were taken from the Life Sciences course book for 3rd-grade students, published by Evren Publishing and approved by the Board of Education and Discipline.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings showed that among the objectives, instructional activities and assessment questions in LSCC, there were nine objectives with complete alignment, 17 objectives in partial alignment and three objectives with misalignment.
In this study, the analytical research design is used to conduct a curriculum alignment analysis on the Life Sciences Course Curriculum (LSCC) for 3rd-grade according to Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBT). Objective elements were sampled from LSCC. Class instructional activities and assessment questions were taken from the Life Sciences course book for 3rd-grade students, published by Evren Publishing and approved by the Board of Education and Discipline. In this research, 29 cognitive objectives were studied in addition to 134 instructional activities and 90 assessment questions relating to those cognitive objectives. These elements were analyzed by two researchers and using RBT matrix. The findings showed that among the objectives, instructional activities and assessment questions in LSCC, there were nine objectives with complete alignment, 17 objectives in partial alignment and three objectives with misalignment.
SUNKUR, M. Ö., YILMAZ, F. (2022). A Curriculum Alignment Analysis: A Sample of Life Sciences Course Curriculum (2018) for 3rd-Grade Students. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 2021 - Sayı: 27, 279–297. https://ajindex.com/articles/496934
Airasian, P. W., & Miranda, H. (2002). The role of assessment in the revised taxonomy. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 249-254. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_8
Akin, A., & Abaci, R. (2011). Bilis otesi [Beyond cognition]. Ankara:
Nobel Akademik Publishing. Aktan, O. (2020). Investigation of primary school mathematics curriculum lesson acquisitions according to renewed Bloom taxonomy. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 48, 15-36. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.523545
Aktay, S., & Cetin, H. S. (2019). 2015, 2017 and 2018 life sciences course teaching programs. Eskisehir Osmangazi University Journal of Social Sciences, 20, 577-600. https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.548537
Annevirta, T., & Vauras, M. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in primary grades: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(2), 257-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173029
Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., P.W., A., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., … Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Aslan, M., & Atik, U. (2018). Investigation of 2015 and 2017 primary school Turkish curricula objectives according to revised Bloom's taxonomy. International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture Education, 7(1), 528-547.
Baysal, Z. N., Tezcan, O., & Arac, K. E. (2018). Comparison of life science courses in turkey and Germany-Hamburg: A general outlook. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 11(1), 117-134. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.380762
Bekdemir, M., & Selim, Y. (2008). Revised Bloom taxonomy and its application in algebra area. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 10(2), 185-196.
Bennett, J. (2001). Practical work of the upper high school level: The evaluation of a new model of assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (1), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690119244