1

Shiraz University

Faculty of Literature and Humanities

M.A. Thesis in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)

ON THE REPRESENTATION OF BLOOM'S REVISED TAXONOMY IN INTERCHANGE TEXTBOOKS

By ELAHEH KAZEMPOURFARD

Supervised by Dr. Seyed Ayatollah RAZMJOO

March 2010

2

3

In the Name of Allah

4

In the Name of God

Declaration

The undersigned ELAHEH KAZEMPOURFARD, the student of Teaching English as a Foreign Language at Shiraz University Collage of Literature and Humanities, hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my own research, and whatever, in this thesis other, peoples’ sources have been used I have given their exact address and specifications in the reference section. I also assert that my research and its topic are not the repetition of other peoples’ works, and I commit myself not to publish or let others have access to the achievement of the thesis without the prior permission of the university. In conformity with the regulations of mental and intellectual ownership, Shiraz University reserves all the rights of the present work.

Name: ELAHEH KAZEMPOURFARD Signature and date:1389/12/20

5

6

Acknowledgement

First and for most I thank Allah for giving me the ability and the strength to complete this work. Second, I wish to acknowledge the contributions of many people to my final outcome of this work. Special thanks are due to my academic advisor and dissertation director Dr, Razmjoo for his patience guidance and encouragement. Without his direction, this work would not have been possible. I would also like to express my special thanks and appreciation to the members of my committee: Dr.Rashid and Dr.Khormaee. Their thoughtful suggestions and constructive criticism and encouragement were invaluable in shaping and facilitating this work. Their influence on my academic development, however, has far exceeded their role "on the committee". It is for this that I am most thankful. Likewise I am indebted to the PhD students who as coders worked with me in codifying the exercises. I am grateful to their interest and enthusiasm. Lastly, to my family I owe the most special thanks of all, for their support and encouragement. My deepest appreciation and gratitude are extended to my mother and father for their prayers, love, wisdom and encouragement.

V

ABSTRACT

ON THE REPRESENTATION OF BLOOM'S REVISED TAXONOMY IN INTERCHANGE TEXTBOOKS

BY

ELAHEH KAZEMPOURFARD

This study intends to evaluate Interchange series (2005) in terms of learning objectives in Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (2001) to see which levels of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy were more emphasized in these textbooks. For this purpose the contents of Interchange textbooks were codified based on a coding scheme designed by the researcher. The coding scheme was based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy of learning objectives. The data were then analyzed and the frequencies and percentages of occurrence of different learning objectives were calculated. The results of the study revealed that Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS), the three low levels in Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, were the most prevalent learning levels in these books. Moreover, a significant difference was also found between the textbooks in their inclusion of different levels of learning objectives. As a final point, some implications for teachers and textbook developers were recommended.

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.0. Introduction............................................................................................... 2 1.1. Preliminaries.............................................................................................. 2 1.2. Objectives and Research Questions of the Study........................................ 4 1.3. Significance of the Study........................................................................... 4 1.4. Bloom's Taxonomy and Bloom's Revised Taxonomy................................. 5 1.4.1. The background to Bloom's taxonomy .............................................. 5 1.4.2. Bloom's Revised Taxonomy as the theoretical framework of the

study...................................................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0. Introduction............................................................................................... 15 2.1. Studies based on Bloom's Taxonomy and Bloom's Revised Taxonomy...... 15 2.1.1. Studies based on Bloom's Taxonomy ............................................... 15 2.1.2. Studies based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy.................................. 20 2.1.3. Bloom's Taxonomy and Bloom's Revised Taxonomy in Textbook

evaluation .............................................................................................................. 22 2.2. Material, Materials Evaluation and Research on textbook evaluation ......... 23 2.2.1. Materials .......................................................................................... 23 2.2.2. Materials Evaluation ........................................................................ 25 2.2.3. Research on textbook evaluation ...................................................... 26 2.2.3.1. Foreign studies done on textbook evaluation .............................. 27 2.2.3.2. Iranian studies on textbook evaluation........................................ 29 CHAPTER THREE: DESIGN AND METHODS OF THE STUDY 3.0. Introduction............................................................................................... 36 3.1. Research Design ........................................................................................ 36 3.2. Materials.................................................................................................... 37 3.3. Coding scheme .......................................................................................... 38 3.4. Data Collection and analysis procedures .................................................... 43

VII

CONTENTS PAGE 3.4.1. Coding a sample of the textbook ...................................................... 43 3.4.2. Reliability of the coding scheme ...................................................... 48 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ABD DISCUSSIONS 4.0. Introduction............................................................................................... 51 4.1. Overall Features of Interchange textbooks ................................................. 51 4.2. Learning Objectives in Interchange textbooks in terms of Bloom's Revised

Taxonomy.............................................................................................................. 54 4.3. Discussion ................................................................................................. 60 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 5.0. Introduction............................................................................................... 64 5.1. Summary of the Study ............................................................................... 64 5.2. Conclusions ............................................................................................... 65 5.2.1. Research question 1 ......................................................................... 65 5.2.2. Research question 2 ......................................................................... 67 5.2.3. Research question 3 ......................................................................... 67 5.3. Limitation of the study............................................................................... 68 5.4. Pedagogical implications ........................................................................... 69 5.5. Recommendations for future research ........................................................ 69 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 71

VIII

LIST OF TABLES

List of Tables page

Table 1.1: The Knowledge Dimension ................................................................... 11 Table 1.2: The Cognitive Dimension ...................................................................... 12 Table 3.1: The coding scheme based on Bloom's Revise taxonomy........................ 38 Table 3.2: The detailed coding scheme based on Bloom's Revise taxonomy........... 39 Table 3.3: The Codification of the Concepts used for the Cognitive Process of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy................................................................................... 40 Table 3.4: Generic Skills, Sample Verbs and Sample questions forThe Cognitive process Dimension ................................................................................................. 41 Table 4.1: Overall Features of Interchange textbooks ............................................. 52 Table 4.2: Learning Objectives in Interchange textbooks ........................................ 54 Table 4.3: Lower and higher order cognitive skills in Interchange textbooks........... 59 Table 4.4: Chi-square test for four textbooks of Interchange in terms of learning objectives............................................................................................................... 59 Table 4.5: Chi-square test for four textbooks of Interchange in terms of higher and lower order thinking skills (HOTS and LOTS)................................................. 60

1

CHAPTER ONE

2

INTRODUCTION

1.0.Introduction The current chapter consists of four parts. The very first part is concerned with some scholars' views toward textbook and textbook evaluation. The second and the third part deal with the objectives and significance of the study. And finally in the fourth part, first a background of Bloom's Taxonomy is presented, and then Bloom's revised taxonomy is fully introduced as the theoretical framework of the study.

1.1. Preliminaries The textbook plays an important role in English Language Teaching (ELT), particularly in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom where it provides the primary form of linguistic input (Kim & Hall, 2002). Textbooks are also considered to be an integral part of most education systems because they serve as a bridge between teachers and students.

There are a number of varied views towards textbook which are sometimes quite contradictory. A number of theorists (O'Neil 1982; Sheldon 1988; Hutchinson and Torres 1994; Cunningsworth 1995; and Haycroft 1998) consider textbook as the vital element in the ESL/EFL classrooms and programs. O'Neil (1982) for example, considers textbooks efficient in terms of time and money. Textbooks are also regarded as generally sensitive to students' needs, even if not designed specifically for them. Or Cunningsworth (1995) believes that textbooks have potentials for serving several other roles in the ELT curriculum. He argues that they are an efficient resource for autonomous learning, an effective resource for presentation material, a source of ideas and activities, a good source of reference for students, a syllabus where they mirror pre-determined learning objectives, and support for less experienced teachers who have yet to gain in confidence. However, other researchers such as Porreca (1984), Florent and Walter (1989), Clarke and Clarke (1990), and Carrell and Korwitz (1994) have criticized textbooks for their inherent social and cultural biases. They showed that many EFL/ESL textbooks still have rampant examples of gender bias, sexism, and

3

stereotyping. They describe such gender-related biases as: the relative invisibility of female characters, the unrealistic and sexist portrayals of both men and women, stereotypes involving social roles, occupations, relationships and actions as well as linguistic biases such as 'gendered' English and sexist language. So we can conclude that our teaching materials do have problems, but the necessity of textbook can not be ignored at all. In fact it is extremely important for us as teachers to evaluate, select and adapt teaching materials to meet our teaching and students' learning needs in order to get the most out of learning potentials. As a matter of fact, textbook analysis and evaluation can help teachers to gain good and useful insights into the nature of the material.

In spite of its great importance, materials development and evaluation has been a new trend in the process of language teaching. It does not have a long history. Tomlinson (2001) explains that the study of materials development was not given any real importance until the 1990s when books on this subject started to be published. A few books came out in the 1980s. Tomlinson mentions for example Cunningsworth (1984) and Sheldon (1987), but with these exceptions, materials development was treated as a sub-category of methodology. He believed that the interest in materials development increased because of two reasons. One of them was the realization that by making teachers aware of the process of materials development, it would be easier for them to understand and apply theories of language learning. It would also help teachers to develop personally and professionally. The other reason could be said to be the understanding that no coursebook can be appropriate for any kind of learners. Therefore teachers need to be able to evaluate, adapt and produce materials that would be appropriate for their particular class. These realizations have increased materials development research as well as the occurrence of materials development courses for teachers.

Using checklist based on supposedly generalizable criteria is perhaps one of the frequent ways to evaluate a textbook (Tucker, 1975; Cunningsworth, 1984; Skierso, 1991; Ur, 1996). Besides checklists, Jayakaran (2003) suggested using teacher reflective journal and the concordance software as additional instruments for textbook evaluation. There are also different taxonomies which have been developed. These taxonomies are not necessarily designed for textbook evaluation but some have been proved to give good results. Bloom's taxonomy and Bloom’s revised taxonomy of educational objectives are two examples of such taxonomies. Bloom’s revised taxonomy which is used as the theoretical framework of the current study is mainly about the learning objective and can evaluate the cognitive demands of the activities included in Interchange textbooks. Bloom's Taxonomy has so far been used as a framework for textbook evaluation in a number of studies. Hoeppel (1980), Amin (2004), Mosallanezad (2008) and Gordani (2008)

4

are some of those; however, to the best of the researcher's knowledge, Bloom's revised taxonomy has not been used in this field at all and this makes this study quite distinctive.

1.2. Objectives and Research Questions of the Study This study aimed at evaluating Interchange (2005) in terms of learning objectives. The evaluation took place based on the six levels of learning objectives in Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (2001). The study intended to investigate which levels of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy were more emphasized in these textbooks. Having assessed the textbooks, the researcher provided some suggestions on how the textbooks could become more effective.

The current study, therefore, seeks to answer the following questions: 1. To what extent levels of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy are represented in

Interchange textbooks? 2. Which of the four textbooks satisfy the highest levels of learning, i.e.,

analyzing, evaluating and creating? 3. How can the English textbooks be made more effective? In other words,

what suggestions can be provided to promote the content of the textbooks to higher levels of learning objectives?

1.3. Significance of the Study Textbooks play a vital role in many language classrooms and after teachers they are considered to be the next important factor in the second/foreign language classrooms (Riazi, 2003). Therefore, the importance of selecting and preparing materials which match the desired features and the needs of the learners in the target situation demonstrates the significance of the kinds of studies such as this study that deals with the evaluation of the textbooks which are used in the language learning classes. These studies are also very useful in teacher development and professional growth. On the other hand, Interchange textbooks are such fundamental textbooks in the EFL curriculum in Iran and have been widely used in many language institutes in Shiraz. So that an evaluation of the textbook is somehow necessary and it is worth investigating the learning objectives and the cognitive demands of the activities included in these textbooks.

As it was clear from the aforementioned section, there has not been much

5

research trying to evaluate textbooks based on Bloom's Taxonomy and specifically Bloom's Revised Taxonomy. Therefore, the present study gains significance as the results can help material developers augment their views towards higher levels of learning. The results of this investigation will hopefully help teachers and institutes that have chosen Interchange Third Edition series as teaching material modify their practice and materials in such a way as to achieve higher order levels of learning objectives.

1.4. Bloom's Taxonomy and Bloom's Revised Taxonomy This part looks at the development of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy in the history. For this purpose, first the background to Bloom's taxonomy is presented. Bloom's Revised Taxonomy as the theoretical framework of this study is then fully introduced and explained.

1.4.1. The background to Bloom's taxonomy One of the fundamental questions that face educators has always been "Where do we begin in seeking to improve human thinking?" (Houghton, 2004, cited in Forehead, 2005). In the late 1950s into the early 1970s there were attempts to dissect and classify the varied domains of human learning, namely, cognitive (knowing, head), affective (feeling, heart) and psychomotor (doing, hand/body). The consequential attempts yield a series of taxonomies in each area. A taxonomy is actually a word for a form of classification. In other words, Taxonomy means 'a set of classification principles', or 'structure'. The most common and earliest of these is Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956), adapted more recently by Anderson et al. (2001).

In the 1950s, Bloom and his colleagues at the University of Chicago created the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives as a tool for identifying, classifying and qualitatively expressing different kinds of thinking. Bloom's taxonomy was a classification of the different objectives and skills that educators define for students (learning objectives). This Taxonomy divides educational objectives into three domains: Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor. The cognitive and affective domains offered a way to classify thinking skills into six levels, from the most basic to levels that are more complex. It was a one-dimensional cumulative hierarchy, in which the accomplishment at each lower level considered essential

6

to move up to the next level (Anderson, 2006). The Bloom’s taxonomy authors organized themselves into committees to

study the domains separately. Bloom (1956) was the primary editor of the cognitive domain book, along with Engelhart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl. The cognitive domain consists of knowledge and the development of intellectual skills. This includes the remembering or recognition of specific facts, procedural patterns, and concepts that serve in the development of intellectual abilities and skills. The cognitive theory talks about a change in thinking and understanding that take place in the learner. Within the taxonomy, learning at the higher levels depend on having achieved prerequisite knowledge and skills at lower levels .The purpose of Bloom's Taxonomy is to inspire educators to center on all three domains, creating a more holistic form of education.

There are six main categories which start from the simplest behavior to the most complex one. The categories can be considered as degrees of difficulties. This means that the first one must be mastered before the next one can occur.

Figure (2.1) is the original taxonomy presented by Bloom (1956):

Figure 2.1: Bloom's Original Taxonomy adopted from Churches, 2007

Since the initial publication of Bloom’s taxonomy, a number of studies have

examined the theoretical validity of Bloom’s taxonomy with varied results. For comprehensive reviews of the studies, see (c.f., Furst, 1981; Seddon, 1978). However, Bloom’s taxonomy is broadly accepted in a variety of research areas and has had substantial effect in the field of learning.

Bloom’s classic taxonomy is on every teacher, educator and curriculum developer’s mind as he or she works with future teachers or with a new curriculum. His hierarchy has been a major aid to educators planning for and

7

considering all levels of thinking and focusing on the inclusion of higher-order thinking in lessons, units of instruction, and even statewide and national curricula. Its emphasis on cognitive objectives has helped educators create meaningful learning events and, consequently, worthwhile learning outcomes in students. Some history will help explain why Bloom’s original taxonomy was developed and ultimately became so important. Before the 1950s, one of the major problems with educational literature was a lack of consensus regarding the meaning of some important words. For example, the verb “to know” was used by different educators to mean vastly different things. One person might use “know” to mean remembering some facts (a low cognitive skill); another educator might mean that a person must really “know” an entire discipline in all its complexity, modes of inquiry, scope, and sequence (a highly sophisticated set of awarenesses). Bloom’s taxonomy managed to create a common language between and among educators. Not long before, Tyler (1949, cited in Conklin, 2005) had already discussed the importance of objectives as tools teachers should use to promote and evaluate student learning. He accentuated the value of having teachers think about the behaviors that learners would be able to perform after a learning event as opposed to thinking about the content to be taught. Others had already discussed the hidden nature of learning—that we could not look into a student’s brain and that we required ways to recognize that a student had learned. Tyler nicely argued that if we created clear objectives, we could “see” or “hear” what the student had learned. At this stage in our educational history educators needed a vehicle to identify different levels of learning and their related behaviors. Bloom and his colleagues set out to solve these problems, among others, and created a working and valuable tool for educators to think about objectives, talk to each other, and create curriculum.

Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives assists educators in formulating objectives at different levels and for different kinds of behaviors (Bloom, 1956). Ferris and Azizi (2005) in their study suggest the development of Bloom's taxonomy provides a different approach to the determination of educational objectives based on the behaviorists' perspective of identifying what the student is able to do with the education. They also stress that the competence of the student to do things is dependant on the educational process and development of capabilities, and not only providing knowledge.

Kim (1996) proposes that Bloom's Taxonomy has been found helpful in improving students' cognitive skills. He recommends that a mixture of questions at various levels of the taxonomy may result in the greatest learning at higher levels. In addition, Kim proves that the hierarchical levels of student learning could be used to determine the extent to which educators emphasize both lower

8

and higher order thinking behaviors. Because of these reasons, curriculum designers and educators have broadly used the taxonomic model of learning.

1.4.2. Bloom's Revised Taxonomy as the theoretical framework of the study The theoretical framework of the current study is the Bloom's Revised Taxonomy which emerged out of Bloom's Original Taxonomy in 2001. As a matter of fact during the 1990's, a former student of Bloom's, Anderson, led a new assembly which met for the purpose of updating the taxonomy, hoping to add relevance for 21st century students and teachers. This time "representatives of three groups were present: cognitive psychologists, curriculum theorists and instructional researchers, and testing and assessment specialists" (Anderson, & Krathwohl, 2001, p. xxviii). Published in 2001, the revision includes some changes which appear to be trivial yet they are truly quite significant changes. Changes made in terminology include renaming the six major cognitive process categories from noun to verb forms. Because cognition is thinking and thinking is an active process, the authors chose verbs as better descriptors of actions for the new taxonomy. They also replaced the new subcategories of the six major categories by verbs and reorganized some subcategories. The authors renamed the knowledge category, for instance, remembering, because knowledge is an outcome of thinking—not a form of thinking. The authors also renamed the categories comprehension and synthesis as understanding and creating, respectively. They also made other changes to the cognitive categories in the order of increased complexity. As a result, the authors interchanged the order of synthesis (create in the new taxonomy) and evaluation (evaluate in the new taxonomy) because they believed that creative thinking is a more complex cognitive process than is critical thinking. In other words, one can be critical without necessarily being creative, but creative production often requires critical thinking. It is believed that where synthesis is a process of combining ideas, to create implies the ability to evaluate the relative merits of the thing one is creating. This would suggest that creating is more complex than evaluating. Figure 2.2 below shows the cognitive dimension of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy.

9

Figure 2.2: Bloom's Revised Taxonomy adopted from Churches, 2007

There is a significant change in the new taxonomy. The new taxonomy is now

two-dimensional, identifying both the kind of knowledge to be learned (knowledge dimension) and the kind of learning expected from students (cognitive processes) to help teachers and administrators improve alignment and rigor in the classroom. Interestingly enough, when the knowledge dimension is combined with the cognitive process dimension, we'll have a 24-cell matrix in which one can link cognitive process to the type of knowledge required.

It is worth mentioning that the new taxonomy is a framework for aligning learning objectives, curriculum, and assessment that match the complexity of learning while addressing important aspects of subject matter-specific instruction. The revised taxonomy unites both the knowledge domains in which the learner is operating and cognitive processes, thereby creating a two-dimensional model that addresses more complex forms of learning. The revision of Bloom's taxonomy implies that it is now appropriate to evaluate both learning outcomes and the cognitive process used by learners to complete a task. This taxonomy will certainly aid educators to improve instruction, to ensure that their lessons and assessments are aligned with one another and with the state standards, that their lessons are cognitively rich, and that instructional opportunities are not missed. Figure 2.3 below shows the structure of Bloom’s revised taxonomy:

10

Figure 2.3: The structure of Bloom’s revised taxonomy

Unlike the original taxonomy, the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (RBT) is not a

cumulative hierarchy anymore. Rather, the six phases are viewed as a “cognitive processing” dimension. The present concepts of learning view students as active and dynamic participants in the learning process. Students select the information to which they attend and make their own meanings from the chosen information. This is a constructivist perspective of learning and such a perspective accentuates how learners cognitively process new knowledge as they engage in meaningful learning. Accordingly, the cognitive process dimension shows students’ cognitive and metacognitive activity as shown within the opportunities and constraints of the learning setting.

In addition to the cognitive processing dimension, the RBT authors identified four general types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive which make up the Knowledge Dimension. Inside the knowledge dimension is basic information that learners must remember to be familiar with a discipline or solve a problem. Factual knowledge may include terminology of the discipline or knowledge of specific details. Factual knowledge comprises the discrete facts and basic elements that experts use when communicating about their discipline, understanding it, and organizing it systematically; factual knowledge in fact has little abstraction. Conceptual knowledge is said to be more complex than factual knowledge and includes three subtypes: 1) knowledge of classifications and categories, 2) knowledge of principles and generalizations, and 3) knowledge of theories, models, and structure. When students are able to explain the concepts in their own words and transfer information to new situations they have acquired conceptual knowledge.

Both factual and conceptual knowledge are related to products, however