Analyzing Vision3 through Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy

Subject Areas : All areas of language and translation

Hanane  Shabani ¹ (South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran)
Hossein  Rahmanpanah ² (South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran)
Ahmad  Mohseni ³ (South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran)

Received: 2021-09-20 Accepted : 2022-04-26 Published : 2023-04-01

Keywords: English textbook, Bloom’s revised taxonomy, Iranian Senior high school,

Abstract :

As developing material is an ongoing process that needs to be analyzed in a multidimensional manner, the present study focuses explicitly on English Textbook Vision3 in Iranian senior high schools to investigate to what extent this English textbook involves the domains of learning objectives defined by Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy (1985) each of which contains several subcategories investigated through the study in details. Considering gained tables on analyzing Information Load and Significance Factor of the English textbook Vision3 (Student’s and Workbook) within cognitive, affective and psycho-motor domains of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy using Shannon Entropy Method, it is concluded that regarding cognitive domain,“Evaluation” in the first, “Application” in the second, “Synthesis” in the third “Knowledge” in the fourth, “Analysis” in the fifth and “Comprehension” is in the sixth place of significance and none of six defined cognitive subcategories are neglected within developing the textbook as the last English textbook of senior high school program in Iranian Educational Curriculum. However, statistical results show that among affective domain’s subcategories only“Responding” and “Receiving” are put into practice, while higher levels of affective domain including “Valuing”, “Organizing” and “Characterization” are neglected throughout the both student’s and the workbook. Furthermore, studying the psycho-motor domain of the considered English textbook it seems that “Guided Response”, “Mindset” are the only subcategories which are noticed through strategies In general, tables reveal that the most frequent involved domain among Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy belongs to cognitive one and the other two domains (affective and psychomotor) play little role through their higher subdivisions.

References:

Berelson, B. (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research: New York, The Free Press.
Bamberger, M.., Rugh, J., & Marby, L. (2006). Real-World Evaluation: London, Sage Publication.
Fathi, K. (2001). In-Service Training of the Instructors: Tehran, SAMT Publication.
Fuzat, A. (2014). Principles of Educational Curriculum: Tehran, Virayesh Publi-cation.
Gordani, Y. (2010). An Analysis of English Textbooks used at Iranian Guidance schools in terms of Bloom’s Taxon-omy. The Journal of Asia TEFL,7(2), 1-359.
Havemeyer, U. (1991, August 3-11). Imple-menting Activity-Based Learning in Ele-mentary Science: Origin, Design, and Current Status of Project IMPACT. Pa-per presented at the annual convention of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Fontana, WI.
Mizbani, M., & Chalak, A. (2017). Analyzing Reading and Writing Activities of Irani-an EFL Textbook Prospect 3 Based on Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Re-search. 12(4). 231-245.
Pourzahir, A. (2014). Educational Curricu-lum: Tehran, SAMT Publication.
Razmjoo, S., & Kazmpourfard, E. (2012). On the Representation of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy in Interchange Coursebooks. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills. 31(1).
Shabani, H. (2014). Teaching Methods and Techniques: Tehran, SAMT Publication.
Sudmadafshar, H., & Sohrabi, A. (2019). Ana-lyzing Vision Series English Textbook considering cultural points: Tehran, Zabano Farhang Publication.
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory, In Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Academic Press.
Van Den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum Per-spectives: Dordrecht Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Zais, R. (1976). Curriculum Principals and Foundations: New York: Harper Col-lins Publisher.