Review of Education (2007) 53:439–455 Ó Springer 2007

DOI 10.1007/s11159-007-9052-1

EFFECTS OF THE ORIGINAL VERSUS REVISED BLOOM’S

TAXONOMY ON LESSON PLANNING SKILLS: A TURKISH
STUDY AMONG PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS

NILAY T. BÜMEN

Abstract – The original taxonomy of educational objectives, developed by Benjamin

S. Bloom and his associates in the 1950s, was revised several decades later by a group of
educationists and cognitive psychologists, who developed a revised taxonomy (RT).
This article describes a Turkish study carried out among a group of pre-service teachers
in order to compare the influence of the two systems on lesson planning skills. The
results confirmed other studies that have indicated a number of advantages of the
revised system over the earlier one.

Résumé – LES EFFETS DE LA TAXONOMIE RÉVISÉE DE BLOOM SUR LES

TECHNIQUES DE PLANIFICATION DES LEÇONS – La taxonomie des objectifs
éducatifs, développée à l
origine par Benjamin S. Bloom et ses associés dans les années
50, a été remise à jour plusieurs décennies plus tard par un groupe d
éducateurs et de
psychologues de la cognition ayant développé une taxonomie révisée (revised taxonomy:
RT). Cet article décrit une étude turque effectuée parmi un groupe d
enseignants en
formation afin de comparer l
influence des deux systèmes sur les techniques de planifi-
cation de leçons. Les résultats ont confirmé d
autres études ayant indiqué un certain
nombre d
avantages du système révisé par rapport à celui d
origine.

Zusammenfassung – DIE ANWENDUNG DER ÜBERARBEITETEN BLOOM
-

SCHEN TAXONOMIE AUF DIE UNTERRICHTSPLANUNG – Die ursprüngliche
Taxonomie für Unterrichtszwecke, von Benjamin S. Bloom und Mitarbeitern in den
1950er Jahren entwickelt, wurde einige Jahrzehnte später durch eine Gruppe Erzie-
hungswissenschaftler und kognitiver Psychologen überarbeitet, die auch eine Neufas-
sung erstellten (RT). Der Artikel stellt eine türkische Studie über die Fähigkeit zur
Unterrichtsplanung von Lehramtsanwärtern dar, die zum Zweck des Vergleichs der
beiden Systeme durchgeführt wurde. Durch die Ergebnisse werden andere Studien
bestätigt, die in der Neufassung der Taxonomie eine Reihe von Vorteilen gegenüber der
Ursprungsfassung erkennen.

Resumen – TAXONOMÍA DEL DOMINIO COGNITIVO, DE BLOOM; EFECTOS

DE LA REVISIÓN – La taxonomı́a original de dominios del aprendizaje, desarrollada
por S. Bloom y sus colegas en los años 50, fue revisada varias décadas después por un
grupo de educadores y de psicólogos cognitivos, que desarrollaron una taxonomı́a
revisada. Este artı́culo describe un estudio realizado en Turquı́a entre un grupo de
docentes incipientes, a efectos de comparar la influencia de estos dos sistemas sobre la
capacidad de planificar lecciones. El resultado confirmó los de otros estudios, que
indicaban un número de ventajas del segundo sistema revisado frente al primero, el más
antiguo.
440 Nilay T. Bümen

–
– -
- , .
1950- , -
- , -
(RT). ,
- -
. - -
, - -
– - .

Bloom
s taxonomy in its original and revised forms

The original taxonomy (OT) was published by Benjamin S. Bloom and his
associates in 1956 in their work entitled Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,
Handbook 1: The Cognitive Domain (Bloom et al. 1956). Since its publication
over 40 years ago, the Handbook has been translated into more than twenty
languages (Krathwohl 2002) and has provided a basis for test design and
curriculum development not only in the United States but throughout the
world (Levy and Bathory 1994). The OT was intended to provide for classifi-
cation of educational system goals, especially to help teachers, administra-
tors, professional specialists, and research workers to discuss curricular and
evaluation problems with greater precision. The OT included six major
categories in the cognitive domain: knowledge, comprehension, application,
analysis, synthesis and evaluation. It was assumed that mastery of each sim-
pler category was prerequisite to mastery of the next more complex one
(Krathwohl 2002).
A group of cognitive psychologists, curriculum and instructional research-
ers, and assessment specialists revised the OT (Anderson et al. 2001). The
Revised Taxonomy (RT) has to take into consideration the recent develop-
ments in the educational and psychological literature. Anderson et al. (2001)
revealed that there were two reasons for revising the OT: First, there is a
need to refocus educators
attention on the value of the original Handbook,
not only as a historical document but also as one that in many respects was
‘‘ahead of its time’’ (Rohwer and Sloane 1994). Second, there is a need to
incorporate new knowledge and thought into the framework. The increases
in knowledge about thinking, teaching and assessing support the need for a
revision.
The RT is a two-dimensional framework: Knowledge and Cognitive
processes. The former most resembles the sub-categories of the original
Knowledge category. The latter resembles the six categories of the OT with
the Knowledge category named Remember, the Comprehension category
named Understand, Synthesis renamed Create and made the top category,
and the remaining categories changed to their verb forms: Apply, Analyze,
 A Turkish study among pre-service teachers 441

and Evaluate. They are arranged in a hierarchical structure, but not as

rigidly as in the OT (Krathwohl 2002). The Knowledge dimension in the RT
includes four instead of three categories. The new names for those three
Knowledge categories are: Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, and Metacognitive
(Anderson et al. 2001). The important differences between the OT and the
RT can be seen in Figure 1.
The move from one dimension to two dimensions in the RT has led to
another notable change in the structure of the taxonomy, i.e., the formation
of the two-dimensional Taxonomy Table (TT). This table is the analytical
tool of the RT. Having two dimensions to guide the processes of stating
objectives, planning and guiding instruction leads to sharper, more clearly
defined assessments and a stronger connection of assessment to both objec-
tives and instruction. The TT can be used to: (a) analyze and reflect the
objectives of a unit or a syllabus, (b) help teachers not to confuse activities
with objectives, (c) help teachers realize the relationship between assessment
and teaching/learning activities, and (d) examine the curriculum alignment
(Amer 2006).
Anderson (2002) also proposes that the TT can be useful framework for
estimating curriculum alignment in all subject matters at virtually every
grade or school level. Curriculum alignment is the process of organizing

Figure 1. The important differences between the OT and the RT. (Adapted from
Anderson and Krathwohl 2001: 263–268)

The Important Differences Between the OT and the RT

Four changes in emphasis Four changes in terminology Four changes in structure

1. The revision’s emphasizes
the use of the Taxonomy in
planning curriculum,
instruction, assessment, and the
alignment of these three.
2. The RT is designed to be of
use to teachers at all grade
levels whereas the OT was
aimed largely at higher
education.
3. The revision includes sample
assessment tasks (e.g.,
performance tasks) primarily to
help illustrate and clarify the
meaning of the various
categories.
4. While the OT emphasized the
six major categories rather than
their subcategories, the RT
emerge most clearly from the
extensive description and
illustration of the subcategories.
1. The RT relabel cognitive
process dimensions in their
verb forms (e.g., Apply,
Analyze, etc.) to reflect the
verb-noun relationship.
2. The Knowledge
subcategories reframed as four
types of knowledge: Factual,
conceptual, procedural and
metacognitive knowledge.
3. The RT replaced by verbs the
subcategories of the cognitive
process categories (e.g.,
interpreting, exemplifying,
inferring).
4. The RT retitled two of the
major categories:
Comprehension became
Understand and Synthesis
became Create.
1. The RT seperated the noun
and verb components implicit
in the original Knowledge
category. The verb aspect of
Knowledge became the
category Remember.
2. The two dimensions are the
basis for our analytical tool,
taxonomy table. When
objectives, activities and
assessment tasks are examined
in the context of the table,
issues of alignment can be
addressed.
3. The process categories are
arranged in a hierarchical
structure, but not as rigidly as
in the OT.
4. The order of Synthesis
/Create and Evaluation/
Evaluate was interchanged.
442 Nilay T. Bümen

three key elements in a classroom so that they are closely matched (aligned).
The three elements are (a) instruction and materials, (b) objectives and stan-
dards and (c) tests. The supposition is that the most efficient and effective
student learning will result when classroom instruction and materials align
with objectives or standards and these align with tests (Gorin and Blanchard
2004). A research on curriculum alignment tends to favor alignment as a
positive influence on achievement (English and Steffy 2001). The TT help to
teachers can examine the cells that contain an objective, instructional activi-
ties, assessments, and various combinations of these. Cells that contain an
objective, one or more instructional activities, and some aspect of assessment
indicate a high degree of alignment. Based on the analysis using the TT, a
teacher can make changes in the statement of an objective, instructional
activities or assessment tasks or evaluation criteria to increase the overall
alignment (Anderson et al. 2001).
When the literature was examined, there were a limited number of publi-
cations about the RT although there were several publications about the OT
(Carter 1985; Solman and Rosen 1986; Athanassiou et al. 2003). While a few
of these RT studies are research (Su et al. 2004, 2005; Noble 2004), most of
them are about the description and discussions about the RT (Anderson
2002; Andrich 2002; Byrd 2002; Ferguson 2002; Krathwohl 2002; Mayer
2002; Pintrich 2002; Amer 2006).
Although the introduction of the taxonomy to Turkish education was
quite parallel to its development in the United States, it took some time for
it to be implemented in practice. In the fields of curriculum development and
teacher education, the teaching and the use of the taxonomy were mostly
theoretical in nature, whereas in the field of assessment more practical appli-
cations and concrete examples of its use (Ertürk 1972; Sönmez 1985; Özçelik
1989) were observed. In general, it can be concluded that, with a gap of 5 to
10 years, the developments in the use of the taxonomy are followed quite
closely in Turkey (Özçelik et al. 1993).
The purpose of this two-phase, sequential mixed methods (Creswell 2003)
study was to obtain statistical, quantitative results from a sample and then
follow up with few individuals to explore those results in depth. In the first
phase, a quantitative research hypothesis was constructed in order to com-
pare the effects of using the RT and the OT on pre-service teachers
lesson
planning skills. In the second phase, interviews and document analysis were
done with the pre-service teachers in the experimental group and with their
lecturer in order to explore different aspects of planning via the RT.
It was hypothesized that there would be significant difference between les-
son planning skills of those pre-service teachers using the RT and those pre-
service teachers using the OT. The lecturer of the experimental group was
interviewed, pre-service teachers in this group were asked open-ended ques-
tions and their lesson plans were analyzed. Three questions were asked for
the second phase: (a) what rows and columns were completed more fully in
the taxonomy tables of lesson plans which were prepared with the RT and
 A Turkish study among pre-service teachers 443

how was the curriculum alignment? (b) What are the pre-service teachers

opinions about planning via the RT? (c) What are the lecturer
s opinions
about planning via the RT?
This study can contribute to the literature since there are few experimental
studies related to the RT and planning skills. Moreover, the findings of this
research might start to guide the attempts to develop planning skills at
pre-service and inservice teacher education by using the RT.

Method

Sequential explanatory strategy, which is one of the mixed method strategies,

was used in this study (Creswell 2003). The purpose of this design typically
is to use qualitative results to assist in explaining and interpreting the
findings of a primarily quantitative study (Morse 1991). According to this
strategy, posttest-only control-group design, which is a type of experimental
design, was used. The lesson plans of experimental and control group were
scored using the same rubric by three experts. The mean scores of the
groups were compared by the researcher. At the end of treatment, opinions
of the pre-service teachers and their lecturer in the experimental group about
the process of planning were recorded and the lesson plans prepared accord-
ing to the RT were analyzed.

Participants

Participants were 54 second year pre-service teachers (26 female and 28

male) who were in the Computer Education and Instructional Technology
department in Ege and Dokuz Eylül Universities. I randomly assigned one
of the classes as the experimental group (n = 30) and the other as the con-
trol group (n = 24). The mean ages of the pre-service teachers in the experi-
mental group and the control group were 20.96 years and 21.16 years,
respectively. Since the participants were selected from two different cam-
puses, the following comparative procedures were administered before the
treatment:
a) Admission to higher education is achieved through a nation-wide Stu-
dent Selection Examination (SSE) in Turkey, which is administered by the
Student Selection and Placement Center (SSPC) every year in June. Candi-
dates gain access to higher education institutions based on their scores from
the examination combined with their high school grade point averages.
Being similar to SAT or GRE, this (SSE) test is the most appropriate crite-
ria in comparing pre-service teachers
general cognitive ability. The pre-
service teachers were asked to write their national identification number and
the year they took SSE on an information form. With this information,
every student
s scores were obtained from the web site of SSPC <http://
sonuc.osym.gov.tr> and put in a table. Independent samples t-test was used
444 Nilay T. Bümen

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for SSE scores and independent samples t-test for
equality of mean scores

Group n M SD SEM t df p (2-tailed)

Control 24 259.77 10.55 2.15 0.06 52 >0.95

Experimental 30 259.93 6.70 1.22

to determine if there was any statistically significant difference between two

groups (Table 1).
As can be seen in Table 1, the mean scores of the experimental group is
259.93 (SD = 6.70) and that of control group is 259.77 (SD = 10.55). Find-
ings of the t-test [t(52) = 0.06, p > 0.05] is not statistically significant.
According to this result, it can be said that pre-service teachers in the experi-
mental and control groups are similar in respect to their SSE scores.
b) The researcher administered a pretest of Instructional Planning and
Evaluation (IPE) course content to determine comparable levels of under-
standing of the content prior to the experiment. The pretest of IPE was
developed by Bümen (2006) and contains 50 items. Its content validity was
identified by the experts and it was developed by considering the results of
item analyses of the pilot study. The KR-20 reliability coefficient of the pre-
test is 0.73. The scores that were obtained from the pretest of IPE are exam-
ined by using independent samples t-test in order to determine if there is any
statistically significant difference between the two groups (Table 2).
As can be seen on Table 2, the mean of the pretest scores of the experi-
mental group is 43.07 (SD = 6.64) and that of the control group is 44.33
(SD = 9.39). The t-test, which was done with the means of the pretest
scores [t(52) = 0.56, p > 0.05] is not statistically significant. According to this
result, it can be said that experimental and control groups are not different
in respect to the pretest that was applied at the beginning of the semester.
The course in the experimental and control group were taught by two dif-
ferent lecturers other than the researcher. Since two lecturers have Ph.D.
degree in the Curriculum and Instruction department of the same university
and they were teaching this course the second time, it can be assumed that
the course was taught in a similar fashion.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for IPE achievement test and independent samples
t-test for equality of achievement means

Group n M SD SEM t df p (2-tailed)

Control 24 44.33 9.39 1.91 0.56 52 >0.56

Experimental 30 43.07 6.64 1.21
 A Turkish study among pre-service teachers 445

Instruments

While scoring lesson plans of the pre-service teachers in both groups, a rubric
developed by the researcher was used. An analytic rubric was prepared since
analytical rubrics are suggested in situations in which more than one rater
assesses a product (Kan 2006: 341). Next, lesson plan rubric examples in the
literature were searched and examined. A set of criteria that would be used to
assess a lesson plan was determined. In this rubric preparation process,
Goodrich
s (2001) steps to prepare scoring instructions were followed and the
precautions suggested by Moskal (2003) and Airasian (1996) were taken into
consideration. The initial rubric, prepared in a form that would enable
scoring in a range from 0 to 5, was examined by two measurement and evalu-
ation experts. After discussions with the experts, the rubric was changed in a
way to score in the range from 0 to 3. Because of the distinction between the
level of performance and definitions were very difficult it was changed from a
6-point scale to a 4-point scale. This draft of the rubric was tested on lesson
plans prepared by 13 pre-service teachers. This test enabled instructions, level
of performance, and definitions to be changed in this first draft. Thus, the
second draft of rubric was prepared and submitted to three professors of
Curriculum and Instruction and two professors from the department of Mea-
surement and Evaluation in Education for re-examination. According to the
feedbacks obtained from the professors, performance level and definitions of
every single criterion were re-examined and the rubric took its final shape.
The rubric has nine components: (a) brief description of classroom context,
(b) materials/resources, (c) instructional objectives, (d) introductory activities,
(e) instructional strategies/student activities, (f) closure, (g) assessment, (h)
duration and (i) alignment/consistency. The scores that would be obtained
from the rubric are between 0 and 27.
At the end of the treatment, a survey containing four open-ended questions
were asked of the pre-service teachers in the experimental group in order to
have their opinions about preparing lesson plans with the help of the RT.
Six open-ended questions, which would be used in the semi-structured inter-
view with the lecturer of the experimental group, were prepared after taking
opinions of an expert.

Procedure

After giving information about the OT to the experimental group, a slide-

show explaining the RT in detail was presented. This PowerPoint slide show
contains information and examples explaining the changes in the original
taxonomy and the reasons for these changes. Next, the features and impor-
tance of every category in the cognitive process dimension was explained and
their relationship with the taxonomy table was stressed. After giving some
exercises containing 20 questions, pre-service teachers were asked to match
objectives and the cognitive categories. They were also asked to write at least
446 Nilay T. Bümen

one question related to every sub-category in the cognitive process dimen-

sion. Then, the knowledge categories were explained with examples via slide-
show. They were asked to give two factual, conceptual, and procedural
knowledge examples from their subject area. Since metacognitive knowledge
was new for them, the instruction continued at a slow pace and every single
sub-category was explained thoroughly. After explanations and discussions
about these sub-categories, various activities were done and they were asked
some questions.
Pre-service teachers were shown how to use the taxonomy table and to
locate example objectives that had been selected from the elementary and
secondary school curriculum (Ministry of National Education [MNE] 1998,
2000) in the TT. Next, they wrote objectives related to their own subject
area and placed them into the TT. Finally, they were presented a lesson plan
format that would help them to prepare their own lesson plans by using the
RT. This lesson plan format also contained a TT along with the items that
are usually found in a regular lesson plan.
In the control group, the course was instructed in a traditional way with
the methods of lecture, question-answer, and discussion and pre-service
teachers were given traditional information about how to prepare lesson
plans. The lecturer first asked them to examine example lesson plans and he
gave them feedback about the lesson plans they had prepared. Those pre-
service teachers preparing lesson plans in the same topic worked collabora-
tively. Some pre-service teachers discussed with some school teachers and
examined the lesson plans.

Data analysis

Three experts having a Ph.D. degree in Curriculum and Instruction

scored the lesson plans of the pre-service teachers in the experimental
and control group using the same rubric for four weeks. These three
experts were given information about this research, the experiment, and
the rubric before they made the scoring. The means of total scores that
had been obtained from three experts are calculated for each group. The
analysis of MANOVA and univariate ANOVA were done to investigate
whether there is a significant difference or not between groups in respect
to components in the rubric. In order to examine the lesson plans of the
experimental group frequency and percentage were calculated. Descriptive
analysis (Strauss and Corbin 1990) was used for the answers to the open-
ended questions of the experimental group and for the interview with the
lecturer of them.
In order to test inter-rater reliability of the scores obtained from the
experts who assessed the lesson plans in the experimental group, analysis of
variance – ANOVA (Thorndike 1990; Goodwin 2001) was done. As can be
seen in Table 3, the ANOVA test which was done and intraclass correlation
coefficient based on Spearman-Brown formula is 0.94.
 A Turkish study among pre-service teachers 447

Table 3. ANOVA results for inter-rater reliability and intraclass correlation coefficient

SS df MS r k

Rows 2235.75 53 42.18 0.94

Columns 89.42 2 44.71
Residual 262.58 106 2.48
Total 2587.75 161 –

Results

Comparision of planning skills of the groups

In order to investigate any significant difference in the lesson plans of the

pre-service teachers in the control and experimental group in respect to com-
ponents in the rubric, multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were
done. The F ratio for MANOVA indicated that the differences between the
two groups
mean scores were statistically significant at the 0.01 level,
(L) = 0.465, F(9, 44) = 5.62, p < 0.01. That is, the experimental and con-
trol groups had statistically significant mean scores on the collective depen-
dent variables. The multivariate eta squared of 0.535 (based on Wilks
s
lambda) implied that the magnitude of the difference between the groups
was not small (Cohen 1988). That value indicated that 53% of multivariate
variance of the dependent variables was associated with the treatment.
Because a statistically significant MANOVA F was obtained for the col-
lective dependent variables, univariate ANOVA was conducted to further
understand how the two groups would be affected by the interventions
regarding each of the dependent variables on rubric scores. Table 4 displays
results of the univariate ANOVA analyses on pre-service teachers
subscale
scores. As shown in Table 4, a statistically significant mean difference existed
between the groups with respect to closure, assessment, duration and align-
ment/consistency (p < 0.05, p < 0.01). When the mean scores in Table 4
were examined, it was found that pre-service teachers in the experimental
group had higher mean scores on these dependent measures. Nevertheless,
there is no statistically significant mean difference existing between the
groups with respect to brief description of classroom context, materials/
resources, instructional objectives, introductory activities and instructional
strategies/student activities (p > 0.05).

Inspection of the taxonomy tables prepared by the experimental group

The taxonomy tables (TT) prepared by the pre-service teachers in the experi-
mental group was examined from two points of view: (1) which rows and
columns contain the majority of the objectives (n = 94) in the table? (2)
How is the alignment (meaning that the objectives, activities, and assessment
448 Nilay T. Bümen

Table 4. ANOVA results of the two groups for the components of rubric

Components Group n M SD df F p

Brief description of classroom Experimental 30 3.00 0.00 1–52 1.256 0.268

context Control 24 2.98 0.06
Materials/resources Experimental 30 2.84 0.24 1–52 2.521 0.118
Control 24 2.62 0.71
Instructional objectives Experimental 30 2.24 0.45 1–52 0.868 0.356
Control 24 2.36 0.44
Introductory activities Experimental 30 2.70 0.42 1–52 0.663 0.419
Control 24 2.58 0.62
Instructional strategies/student Experimental 30 2.15 0.95 1–52 0.034 0.854
activities Control 24 2.11 0.75
Closure Experimental 30 2.54 0.58 1–52 32.573 0.000
Control 24 1.43 0.84
Assessment Experimental 30 2.02 0.55 1–52 6.480 0.014
Control 24 1.58 0.71
Duration Experimental 30 2.77 0.49 1–52 4.825 .033
Control 24 2.45 0.58
Alignment/consistency Experimental 30 2.63 0.34 1–52 13.664 0.001
Control 24 2.01 0.83
Total Experimental 30 2.54 0.29 1–52 9.05 0.004
Control 24 2.23 0.45

techniques are in the same cell) in the tables? To answer the first question, a
tally was created by examining the cells containing the objectives in TT.
Frequencies were written in the Table 5 below showing the results better:
As can be seen in Table 5, pre-service teachers mostly wrote objectives
about the applying procedural knowledge. When the sum of rows is looked
at, it can be seen that there are mostly objectives about procedural knowledge
and when the sum of columns is inspected, there are mostly objectives about
apply. In general, the least worked (visited) rows are said to be related to

Table 5. Frequencies of the objectives in the taxonomy tables

The knowledge The cognitive process dimension

dimension
Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create Total

Factual knowledge 14 3 2 19
Conceptual 4 10 5 3 1 23
knowledge
Procedural 4 3 34 1 2 3 47
knowledge
Meta-cognitive 1 3 1 5
knowledge
Total 22 16 40 4 8 4 94
 A Turkish study among pre-service teachers 449

metacognitive knowledge and the least worked columns are said to be related
to analyze and create.
When the alignment in the TT is examined, it can be seen that only five
tables (17%) have partial alignment (meaning that objectives, activities, and
assessment techniques are in the same cell) and the remaining 25 tables
(83%) have strong alignment. This finding is consistent with the differences
between two groups with respect to alignment/consistency in lesson plans (in
Table 4).

Pre-service teachers
opinions about the planning with the RT

Pre-service teachers stated that the RT had positive effects on their studies
on lesson planning. While only two pre-service teachers pointed out that the
RT created some difficulties while preparing lesson plans, others mentioned
the contributions of the RT:

I believe that the RT is very useful in planning even though using the RT seems
to be complex and difficult. 5
While writing the objectives by using the OT is easier, I am having difficulty plac-
ing objectives on the TT by using the RT. 8

When pre-service teachers were asked the tasks they enjoyed or had most
difficulty while preparing lesson plans with the RT, they stated that the most
enjoyed task was to fill in the TT. Even though they pointed out that they
had some difficulty in filling the TT, they stressed that they really enjoyed
filling in the TT collaboratively and they got excited as if they were curiously
solving a puzzle.

It was delightful and stimulating. Completing the TT by thinking about and ana-
lyzing our own knowledge each time was more amusing than making something
by using memory.16
Placing every single objective into the TT and writing activities and assessments
for them were like solving a puzzle. I enjoyed that a lot.21

When the pre-service teachers
answers are examined, it can be said that all
of them had difficulty in filling in the TT. However, it cannot be concluded
this process has negative inferences since this process is interesting and
enjoyable at the same time. According to pre-service teachers, the most time
consuming task is to determine the place of objectives in the dimension of
knowledge and cognitive process. They also found that the following tasks
were time consuming: distinguishing conceptual and factual knowledge,
deciding where to place which objective in which cognitive process, placing
objectives, activities, and assessments in the appropriate cells, writing suit-
able assessment techniques for the cognitive process, writing objectives con-
taining metacognitive knowledge, and insufficient Turkish publications about
the RT.
450 Nilay T. Bümen

The last questions asked of pre-service teachers were ‘‘How can you
summarize your experiences while preparing the lesson plan? What are the
effects of contributions of this approach to planning task?’’ According to the
responses, although they found preparing lesson plans with the RT a little
confusing at the beginning, they started to enjoy preparing their lesson plans
because of the examples given at the course and the discussions:

When I first saw the table, I was afraid of being unsuccessful since it seemed con-
fusing. However, I understood that the task is not that diffucult. Moreover, I real-
ized that preparing lesson plans with the aid of the RT will not take much effort
since determining activities and assessments were much easier after completing the
objectives. 36
Preparing lesson plans with the RT gave me opportunites to prepare more
detailed plans and to think deeply. I believe that I can prepare clearer, more
understandable, and more valid lesson plans. 37

The opinions of the lecturer about the planning with the RT

The lecturer pointed out that pre-service teachers were curious and interested
in preparing lesson plans with the RT. She observed high motivation
towards making lesson plans and she thinks that this motivation caused by
the structure of the RT (using two dimensional table) and that they knew
that they were studying something new. According to her, they enjoyed most
determining the knowledge dimension of objectives and filling in the TT.
The lecturer
s perception is parallel with the pre-service teachers
ideas:

We had a hard time while discussing what knowledge should have been in what
dimension of the table, but these discussions were also the most enjoyable tasks.
While discussing, they exchanged their ideas by giving examples and worked
collaboratively.

The lecturer pointed out that writing objectives was not something the pre-
service teachers used to do. Objectives were analyzed in detail since they had
opportunity to analyze and control their work:

Before we would care only if objectives were appropriate to the principles of writ-
ing and if objectives were expressed according to the levels; but now we are exam-
ining if the objectives are in the correct cell and if objectives can meet the
properties of that cell as the type of knowledge or that level of cognitive process.
Later, we come back to objectives and show three elements all together, which
enable us to think more deeply.

According to the lecturer, the most difficult task in planning was to separate
factual knowledge from conceptual knowledge and to understand metacogni-
tive knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge is a little hard to understand since
it is a new concept that was not taught in any other course before. The lec-
turer stated that since they were studying in the field of computer education,
 A Turkish study among pre-service teachers 451

lesson plans mostly contain the type of objectives about the applying proce-
dural knowledge. Moreover, she pointed out that they rarely used those
objectives containing metacognitive knowledge since pre-service teachers
were having some trouble understanding this type of knowledge. In general
she thinks that planning with the RT is effective and joyful even though it is
more time consuming and requires more effort. It can be said that she has a
positive attitude towards planning teaching with the RT:

I think that even if they use the OT, they will think deeply about the coherance
among elements and the types of knowledge since they spent a lot of time on coh-
erance and the types of knowledge. I think that RT enabled them to be aware of
metacognition and they will try to develop their students in this area, too.

Discussion

The main result of this study is that it is harmonious with and confirms
those studies discussing potential benefits of planning of the teaching with
the RT (Anderson 2002; Andrich 2002; Ferguson 2002; Krathwohl 2002;
Mayer 2002; Pintrich 2002; Su et al. 2004, 2005; Amer 2006). It can be said
that there are several improvements in curricular development by the appli-
cation of the RT in global education arena. The RT can be accepted as a
turning point in developing the metacognitive skills, emphasizing the reflec-
tive teaching, and providing internal consistency of instructional planning.
The taxonomy table may provide a framework within which prospective
teachers as well as teachers can model not only the way they teach but also
the way they examine and analyze their teaching. They should learn that
they can only judge the effectiveness of their teaching in terms of what stu-
dents actually learn. Hence, the RT moves prospective teachers away from a
‘‘best practice’’ approach to teaching (Byrd 2002: 248). Prospective teachers,
as well as teachers, should collaboratively engage in meaningful dialogues
about answers to such questions: ‘‘What is the student supposed to learn
from his or her participation in this activity? What knowledge is to be
acquired or constructed? What cognitive processes are to be employed?’’
Without answers to these questions, it is impossible to properly classify
instructional activities in terms of the taxonomy table. This provides a good
exercise in reflective practice.
It is important that there are significant differences in the components of
closure, assessment, duration, and alignment/consistency in the plans of pre-
service teachers in two groups. These components are planned in such a way
that they are connected and related to the components of instructional
objectives, materials, introductory activities, and instructional strategies.
That 83% of the experimental group desired strong alignment in their TT
confirms this result. In other words, preparing lesson plans via RT presents
important advantages in realizing the curriculum alignment. This result also
agrees with the ideas of authors who stress and pay attention to curriculum
452 Nilay T. Bümen

alignment (Anderson et al. 2001; Anderson 2002; Gorin and Blanchard 2004;
English and Steffy 2001). It can be predicted that those teacher candidates,
who are concerned whether three items are in the same cell in their TT, can
develop their critical or reflective thinking skills and think deeply about
missed educational opportunities.
It is reasonable and natural for those pre-service teachers to aim mostly at
the applying procedural knowledge in computer education. The qualitative
and quantitative findings also indicate that they rarely wrote metacognitive
objectives and they had difficulty writing such objectives. Although there is
extensive literature about the concept of metacognition (Flavell 1979;
Brasford et al. 1999; Pintrich et al. 2000; Pintrich 2002), it seems that this con-
cept does not occur very much in teacher education programs in Turkey. Su
et al. (2004) stated that making metacognitive awareness of thinking strategies
manifest as learning objectives not only requires conscious effort by the lec-
turer, but also helps pre-service teachers learn to take greater control of their
own learning. For this reason, the RT and especially the concept of metacog-
nition should take place during inservice and pre-service teacher education
curricula. Moreover, those books used at the teacher education can be revised
to contain example lesson plans and resources that will be useful to teachers.
There is study done by Azizoğlu (1989) in Turkey revealing that teachers
usually believe that preparing lesson plans is not useful and they find them-
selves inadequate about planning. Yıldırım and Gündoğdu (2004) stated that
while teachers have consensus about the necessity of yearly plans, they have
different opinions about the unit plans. Teachers wish to make unit plans sim-
plier or abolish them by preparing more detailed yearly plans. The pre-service
teachers in this research stated that they enjoyed preparing lesson plans
though they had difficulty at planning. This fact is important for the potential
to change the results obtained by Azizoğlu (1989) and Yıldırım and Gündoğdu
(2004). If teachers enjoy and get excited while planning, it can be said that the
possibility of conducting an ineffective and unproductive lesson decreases.
The Ministry of Turkish National Education (MNE) initiated a reform
that would change all the books and the curricula of first through fifth grade
in 2005. According to this plan, textbooks, workbooks, and teacher guides
were printed. That teacher guides include objectives, the activities that will
be used in teaching, some instructional tools, and assessment examples
caused discussion about the obligation of preparing daily lesson plans. Next,
the MNE abolished the obligation to prepare daily lesson plans for those
courses that have teacher guide books in the elementary schools with the
code 2575 (MNE 2005). This hasty decision of the MNE contradicts with
the teachers
opinions presented in the research of Yıldırım and Öztürk (2002)
in which 65% of the teachers argue that daily lesson plans have an important
role in increasing the effectiveness of teaching and these plans should be
prepared by teacher themselves. In addition, teachers tend to consider their
students
characteristics (age, skills etc.) more while preparing lesson plans. It
is obviously clear that, those teacher guides prepared by some publishers can
 A Turkish study among pre-service teachers 453

not be appropriate to all regions of Turkey and every characteristic of

students. This decision of the MNE can easily create important problems
since considering teacher guides can not develop teachers
creativity and
reflective thinking. Moreover, the new curricula and the teacher guides do not
have any information about the RT and they can alienate teachers from using
effective and actual tools in educational planning.
A number of issues should be addressed in future studies: First, further
research on effects of the RT on planning, teaching and/or assessing needs to
be continued. Second, the RT and TT need to be tested with both inservice
teachers and pre-service teachers across different settings and different
subject-areas. Finally, investigation of the drawbacks of lesson planning,
teaching and/or assessing through the RT should be conducted.

Acknowledgements

Sincere thanks are extended to Professor Makbule - Alper Basbay, Eda

Erdem, Bünyamin Yurdakul, and Hakan Atılgan for their contributions.

References

Airasian, Peter W. 1996. Assessment in the Classroom. New York: McGraw Hill.
Amer, Aly. 2006. Reflections on Bloom
s Revised Taxonomy. Electronic Journal of
Research in Educational Psychology 8(4): 213–230.
Anderson, Lorin W. 2002. Curricular Alignment: A Re-examination. Theory into
Practice 41(4): 255–260.
Anderson, Lorin.W., and D. Krathwohl (eds.). 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning,
Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom
s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
U.S.: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Athanassiou, N., J. M. McNett, and C. Harvey. 2003. Critical Thinking in the
Management Classroom: Bloom
s Taxonomy as a Learning Tool. Journal of Manage-
ment Education 27(5): 533–555.
Azizoğlu, H. 1989. Ankara Merkez Ilkokul Öğretmenlerinin Öğretim Planları
Hakkındaki Görüsleri. [Opinions of the Central Ankara Classroom Teachers
about
the Instructional Planning] Unpublished Master
s Thesis, Hacettepe University,
Ankara, Turkey.
Bloom, Benjamin S., Max D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl.
1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1: The Cognitive Domain. New
York: Longman.
Bransford, J., A. Brown, and R. Cocking. 1999. How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bümen, Nilay T. 2006. The Evaluation of Doctoral Level ‘‘Development and Learning’’
and ‘‘Instructional Planning and Evaluation. Courses Theory into Practice: Educational
Sciences 6(1): 7–52.
454 Nilay T. Bümen

Byrd, P. A. 2002. The Revised Taxonomy and Prospective Teachers. Theory into
Practice 41(4): 244–248.
Carter, R. 1985. A Taxonomy of Objectives for Professional Education. Studies in
Higher Education 10(2): 135–149.
Creswell, J. W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method
Approaches. USA: Sage Publications.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
English, F., and B. Steffy. 2001. Deep Curriculum Alignment. Lanham, Maryland:
Scarecrow.
Ertürk, S. 1972. Eğitimde ‘‘Program’’ Gelistirme. [Curriculum Development in Educa-
tion] Ankara: Meteksan A.S.
Ferguson, C. 2002. Using the Revised Taxonomy to Plan and Deliver Team- Taught
Integrated, Thematic Units. Theory into Practice 41(4): 238–243.
Flavell, J. 1979. Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-
Developmental Inquiry. American Psychologist 34: 906–911.
Goodrich, Andrade H. 2001, April 17. The Effects of Instructional Rubrics on Learning
to Write. Current Issues in Education [On-line] 4(4). Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/
volume4/number4/.
Goodwin, L. D. 2001. Interrater Agreement and Reliability. Measurement in Physical
Education and Exercise Science 5(1): 13–14.
Gorin, J. and J. Blanchard. 2004, April. The Effect of Curriculum Alignment on
Elementary Mathematics and Reading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Kan, A. 2006. Ödev ve Projeler. In Atılgan, H. (ed). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme
[Measurement and Evaluation in Education], 327–352. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Krathwohl, D. W. 2002. A Revision of Bloom
s Taxonomy: An Overwiew. Theory into
Practice 41(4): 212–218.
Levy, A., and Z. Bathory. 1994. The Taxonomy of Objectives in Continental Europe,
Mediterranean, the Middle East. In: Bloom
s Taxonomy: A Forty-year Retrospective,
ed. by W. Lorin Anderson and L.A. Sosniak 146–163. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Mayer, R. E. 2002. Rote versus Meaningful Learning. Theory into Practice 41(4): 226–232.
_
Ministry of National Education (MNE). 1998. Ilköğretim Okulları Seçmeli Bilgisayar
Dersi 1–5 Öğretim Programı. [Elective Computer Lessons Curriculum for Grade 1–5]
Tebliğler Dergisi 2492: 579–584.
MNE. 2000. Lise Bilgisayar I Dersi Öğretim Programı. [Curriculum for High School
Computer Lessons] Ankara: TTK.
MNE. 2005. Eğitim Öğretim Çalısmalarının Planlı Yapılmasına Dair Yönergede Değis
iklik Yapılmasına Dair Yönerge [A Directive about Modification for Instructional
Planning] Tebliğler Dergisi 2575: 603.
Morse, J. M. 1991. Approaches to Qualitative – Quantitative Methodological
Triangulation. Nursing Research 40(1): 120–123.
 A Turkish study among pre-service teachers 455

Moskal, B. M. 2003. Recommendations for Developing Classroom Performance

Assessment and Scoring Rubric. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 8: 14.
Noble, T. 2004. Integrated the Revised Taxonomy with Multiple Intelligences: A
Planning Tool for Curriculum Differentiation. Teachers College Record 106(1): 193–211.
Özçelik, D. A. 1989. Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim. [Curriculum and Instruction]
Ankara: ÖSYM yayınları.
Özçelik, D. A., M. Aksu, G. Berberoğlu, and F. Paykoç. 1993. The Use of the
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in Turkey. Studies in Educational Evaluation 19(1):
25–34.
Pintrich, P. 2002. The role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and
Assessing. Theory into Practice 41(4): 119–225.
Pintrich, P., C. Wolters, and G. Baxter.. 2000. Assessing Metacognition and Self-
Regulated Learning. In: Issues in the Measurement of Metacognition, ed. by G. Schraw
and J. Impara 43–97. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institude of Mental Measurements.
Rohwer, W. D. Jr., and K. Sloane. 1994. Psychological Perspectives. In: Bloom
s
Taxonomy: A Forty-year Retrospective, ed. by W. Lorin Anderson and L.A. Sosniak
41–63. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Solman, R., and G. Rosen. 1986. Blooms
s Six Cognitive Levels Represent Two Levels
of Performance. Educational Psychology 6(3): 243–263.
Sönmez, V. 1985. Program Gelistirmede Öğretmen Elkitabı. [A Handbook for Teachers
in Curriculum Development] Ankara: PegemA yayıncılık.
Strauss, A. L., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Su, W. M., P. J. Osisek, and B. Starnes. 2004. Applying the Revised Bloom
s Taxonomy
to a Medical-surgical Nursing Lesson. Nurse Educator 29(3): 116–120.
Su, W. M., P. J. Osisek, and B. Starnes. 2005. Using the Revised Bloom
s Taxonomy in
the Clinical Laboratory Thinking Skills Involved in Diagnostic Reasoning. Nurse
Educator 30(3): 117–122.
Thorndike, R. L. 1990. Reliability. In: The International Encylopedia of Educational
Evaluation, ed. by J. H. Walberg and D. G. Haertel 260–273. USA: Pergamon Press.
Yıldırım, A., and K. Gündoğdu. 2004. Uzun Dönemli Öğretim Planlarına Iliskin
Öğretmen Algıları. [Teacher Perceptions of Long Term Instructional Plans] Education
and Science 29(133): 11–19 .
Yıldırım, A., and E. Öztürk. 2002. Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Günlük Planlarla Ilgili
Algıları: Öncelikler, Sorunlar ve Öneriler. [Classroom Teacher Perceptions of Daily
_
Instructional Plans: Priorities, Problems and Suggestions] Ilköğretim Online 1(1): 17–27.

The author

Nilay T. Bümen is an Assistant Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at the

Education Faculty, Ege University in Izmir. Her major research interests
include education in relation to curriculum development, effective teaching and
teacher education.
Contact address: Ege University, Education Faculty, Educational Sciences,
Bornova, 35040, Izmir, Turkey. E-mail: nilay.bumen@ege.edu.tr