Analysis of Evaluative Questions in Eighth Grade Mathematics Textbook according to Bloom's Cognitive Domain Levels

Muhannad Farhan Ahmed  Alqudah

doi:10.35516/edu.v49i3.1942

Authors

Muhannad Farhan Ahmed Alqudah The Ministry of Education, Jordan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9410-6767

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35516/edu.v49i3.1942

Keywords:

Mathematics textbook, content analysis, evaluative questions, Bloom's classifications.

Abstract

Objectives: The study aims to analyze evaluative questions included in eighth grade mathematics textbook in Jordan.

Methods: The researcher used a descriptive and analytical approach represented in content analysis. Evaluation items were built based on Bloom’s cognitive levels.

Results: The results show that the rates of availability of Bloom's cognitive levels in the eighth grade book were as follows: (30.74%) for the level of recall, (38.97%) for the level of comprehension, (11.93%) for the level of application, (11.84%) for the level of analysis, (1.18%) for the synthesis level, and (5.33%) for the evaluation level. The percentage of evaluative questions that measure the lower levels is (69.71%), and the percentage of questions that measure the intermediate levels is (11.93%), while the percentage of questions that measure the higher levels is (18.36%).

Conclusions: Based on the results above, the study recommends adding more evaluative questions that measure the levels of application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation to textbooks.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ornstein, A.C., & Hunkins, F.P. (2016). Curriculum foundations, principles and issues. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Doran, R., Chan, F., & Tamir, P. (1998). Science educator’s guide to assessment, Arlington. VA: National Science Teachers Association.

Dede, Y. (2016). Mathematical Values Conveyed by High School Mathematics Textbooks. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 6(1), 118-132.

Brophy, J. (1992). The de facto Notional curriculum in U.S., elementary social studies: Critique of representative example. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24, 401-447.

Wang, V., & Farmer, L. (2008). Adult teaching methods in China and Bloom’s Taxonomy. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2 (2), 1-17.

Marazano, R., Pickering, D., & Mctigh, J. (2011). Assessing Student Outcomes. New York: ASCD.

Tatyana, V. (2017). On Pedagogy of Personality Assessment: Application of Bloom' Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99, 146-152.

Fisher, D. (2007). Instructional design: The taxonomy table. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. Retrieved October 4, 2020, from: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/coursedev/models/id/taxonomy/#table.