A revised bloom's taxonomy evaluation of formal written language test items

Q2 Social Sciences

World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues Pub Date : 2022-09-30 DOI:10.18844/wjet.v14i5.7296

Y. Setyowati, S. Susanto, A. Munir

{"title":"A revised bloom's taxonomy evaluation of formal written language test items","authors":"Y. Setyowati, S. Susanto, A. Munir","doi":"10.18844/wjet.v14i5.7296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to portray the appropriateness of test items in language tests according to Bloom's Taxonomy. Thirty written language tests created by EFL lecturers were analyzed. Document analysis was applied, the data were categorized and examined. In the test for remembering, ‘crucial questions was applied, finding specific examples or data, general concepts or ideas, and abstracting themes in comprehension test. Completing particular projects or solve issues in the applying test, whereas SWOT analysis conducted in analyzing test, and strategic plan should be demonstrated in evaluation test, and last, in creating test, new things or idea should be created, generalizing and make conclusion. The findings demonstrated test item using remembering mental level stood at 66%, understanding 16%, applying 2%. While analyzing level gets 9%, evaluating 2%, and creating group 5%. This addresses disparity between LOTs and HOTs usage. Hence, Bloom taxonomy was not distributed well in the language tests.\nKeywords: test items, formal written language tests, Revised Bloom taxonomy","PeriodicalId":36811,"journal":{"name":"World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v14i5.7296","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper aims to portray the appropriateness of test items in language tests according to Bloom's Taxonomy. Thirty written language tests created by EFL lecturers were analyzed. Document analysis was applied, the data were categorized and examined. In the test for remembering, ‘crucial questions was applied, finding specific examples or data, general concepts or ideas, and abstracting themes in comprehension test. Completing particular projects or solve issues in the applying test, whereas SWOT analysis conducted in analyzing test, and strategic plan should be demonstrated in evaluation test, and last, in creating test, new things or idea should be created, generalizing and make conclusion. The findings demonstrated test item using remembering mental level stood at 66%, understanding 16%, applying 2%. While analyzing level gets 9%, evaluating 2%, and creating group 5%. This addresses disparity between LOTs and HOTs usage. Hence, Bloom taxonomy was not distributed well in the language tests. Keywords: test items, formal written language tests, Revised Bloom taxonomy

查看原文本刊更多论文

正式书面语言测试项目的修订布鲁姆分类法评价

本文的目的是根据布鲁姆的分类法来描述语言测试中测试项目的适当性。本文分析了英语讲师设计的30个笔试。采用文献分析法，对资料进行分类和检验。在记忆测试中，运用了“关键问题”，寻找具体的例子或数据，一般的概念或想法，以及抽象理解测试的主题。在应用测试中完成特定的项目或解决问题，而在分析测试中进行SWOT分析，在评估测试中展示战略计划，最后在创建测试中创造新的事物或想法，概括和总结。结果表明，测试项目使用记忆的心理水平为66%，理解为16%，应用为2%。而分析水平占9%，评估占2%，创建小组占5%。这解决了lot和hot使用之间的差异。因此，Bloom分类法在语言测试中分布不好。关键词:测试项目，正式书面语言测试，修订Bloom分类

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues Social Sciences-Education

自引率

0.00%

发文量

135