Learning Objectives of IELTS Listening and Reading Tests: Focusing on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
الموضوعات : Research in English Language PedagogySamira Baghaei 1 , Mohammad Sadegh Bagheri 2 , Mortaza Yamini 3
1 - Department of English Language, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Shiraz branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran.
3 - Zand Institute of Higher Education, Shiraz, Iran
الکلمات المفتاحية: Learning objective, listening, IELTS Learning objective, Reading, Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy,
ملخص المقالة :
The quantitative-qualitative content analysis study reported in this paper investigated if there was any significant difference between the listening and reading sections of IELTS tests with regard to the representation of learning objectives of Revised Bloom’s taxonomy. For this purpose, 16 Academic IELTS listening and reading tests from Cambridge IELTS Academic: Authentic Practice Tests (IELTS 12, 13, 14, and 15) were selected as the material of the study. The content of the tests was codified based on a coding scheme developed by the researchers. The reliability of the coding was evaluated through the inter-coder and intra-coder reliability analyses. The frequency, Chi-square and Cramer's V tests were employed to analyze the data.The results indicated that IELTS listening and reading tests mostly included Understanding Factual and Conceptual Knowledge, respectively. Furthermore, the results showed that there was a substantial difference between IELTS listening and reading tests with regard to the inclusion of learning objectives. It was concluded that the listening and reading tests of IELTS assessed different learning objectives. The implications of the study suggest that IELTS candidates, teachers, and researchers should take the different learning objectives represented in IELTS listening and reading tests into consideration.
Alderson, J. C., & Lukmani, Y. (1989). Cognition and reading: Cognitive levels as embodied in test questions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 5(2), 253–270.
Altman, D. G. (1999). Practical statistics for medical research. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Aryadoust, A. (2012). Differential item functioning in while-listening performance tests: the case of international English language testing system (IELTS) listening module. International Journal of Listening, 26(1), 40–60.
Aryadoust, V. (2013). Building a validity argument for a listening test of academic proficiency. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Aryadoust, V., & Goh, C. (2009). A Rasch analysis of an international English language testing system sample listening test. Paper presented at The 3rd Redesigning Pedagogy International Conference, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Baghaei, P., Zohoorian, Z., & Ghahramanlou, M. (2016). Understanding the cognitive processes underlying performance in the IELTS listening comprehension test. Language and Translation Studies Quarterly, 2, 97-112.
Baghaei, S., Bagheri, M. S., & Yamini, M. (2020). Analysis of IELTS and TOEFL reading and listening tests in terms of revised bloom’s taxonomy. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1-23. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2020.1720939
Bax, S. (2013). The cognitive processing of candidates during reading tests: Evidence from eye-tracking. Language Testing, 30(4), 441–465.
Bax, S. (2015). Using eye-tracking to research the cognitive processes of multinational readers during an IELTS reading test. IELTS Research Report Series, 2, 1-21.
Brown, J. D. (2000). Observing pragmatics: Testing and data gathering techniques. Pragmatics Matters, 1(2), 5-6.
Cambridge IELTS (2017). Cambridge IELTS 12 academic: Authentic examination papers. Cambridge: Cambridge Press and UCLES.
Cambridge IELTS (2018). Cambridge IELTS 13 academic: Authentic examination papers. Cambridge: Cambridge Press and UCLES.
Cambridge IELTS (2019). Cambridge IELTS 14 academic: Authentic Practice Tests. Cambridge: Cambridge Press and UCLES.
Cambridge IELTS (2020). Cambridge IELTS 15 academic: Authentic Practice Tests. Cambridge: Cambridge Press and UCLES.
Chan, S., Bax, S., & Weir, C. )2017(. Researching participants taking IELTS Academic Writing Task 2 (AWT2) in paper mode and in computer mode in terms of score equivalence, cognitive validity and other factors. IELTS Research Reports Online Series, 4, 1-47.
Coe, K., & Scacco, J. M. (2017). Content analysis, quantitative. In Matthes, J. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication research Methods (pp. 346-356). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ebadi, S., & Shahbazian, F. (2015). Exploring the cognitive level of final exams in Iranian high schools: Focusing on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(4), 1-11.
Field, J. (2009). A cognitive validation of the lecture-listening component of the IELTS Listening paper. In P. Thompson (Ed.), IELTS research report (Vol. 9), (pp. 17-66). UK and Australia: British Council and IELTS Australia.
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
IELTS (2015). IELTS guide for educational institutions, governments, professional bodies and commercial organizations. Retrieved from https://www.ielts.org/-/media/publications/guide-for-institutions/ielts-guide-for-institutions-2015-uk.ashx?la=en
Khalifa, H., & Weir, C. (2009). Examining reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krippendorf, K. (2004). Content analysis an introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Loschert, K. (2000). Raising the ante for students, teachers, and schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved from http://217.160.35.246/fqs-texte/2-00/2- 00mayring-e.pdf.
Mizbani, M. & Chalack, A. (2017). Analyzing reading and writing activities of Iranian EFL textbook Prospect 3 based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research. 4(2), 13-27.
Mizbani, M., Salehi, H., & Tabatabaei, O. (2020). Content evaluation of Iranian EFL textbook vision 1 based on Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy of cognitive domain. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Research, 8(29), 11-24.
Momsen, J., Offerdahl, E., Kryjevskaia, M., Montplaisir, L., Anderson, E., & Grosz, N. (2013). Using assessments to investigate and compare the nature of learning in undergraduate science courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12, 239–249.
Owen, N. (2016). An evidence-centered approach to reverse Engineering: Comparative analysis of IELTS and TOEFL iBT reading sections. (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis), University of Leicester.
Rawadieh, S. M. (1998). An analysis of the cognitive levels of questions in Jordanian secondary social studies textbooks according to Bloom taxonomy. (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation). Ohio University, Japan.
Razmjoo, S. A., & Kazempourfard, E. (2012). On the representation of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy in Interchange course books. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 4(1), 171-204.
Suryaningsih, H. (2014). Students' perceptions of International English Language Testing System (IELTS) and Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) tests. (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana.
Taylor, L., & Weir, C. J. (2012). IELTS collected papers 2: Research in reading and listening assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weir, C., Hawkey, R., Green, T., & Devi, S. (2009). The cognitive processes underlying the academic reading construct as measured by IELTS. British Council/IDP Australia IELTS Research Reports, 9(4), 157–189.
