COGNITIVE FEATURE STAGES OF TASKS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION 3 STUDENT’S BOOK BY AMERICAN CORNER UNTAN: A REVISED BLOOM’S TAXONOMY ANALYSIS

Yosephine Fransiska Nawawi, Sudarsono Sudarsono, Dwi Riyanti

Abstract


This descriptive and qualitative study aims to assess the relevance of the students' materials to the revised Bloom's taxonomy cognitive domain and the prominent cognition aspect in the lesson book. This study focuses on the English student's book "International Communication 3," brought out by American Corner UNTAN. The proof was reviewed using a proof inventory diagram based on the cognitive dimension to categorize the action as either a query or an instructional activity. The outcome revealed that the textbook has 102 activities. The tasks were divided into 80 (78.4%) remembering, 4 (3.9%) understanding, 10 (9.8%) applying, 4 (3.9%) analyzing, 4 (3.9%) evaluating, and 1 (0.98%) creating. The main bulk task was remembering the lowest section of the revised Bloom taxonomy's cognitive pitch. The quantity of low- and high-order thinking skill tasks in every unit is also variable. As a result, it is essential to do more than employ an English lesson book as a teaching tool to upgrade students' critical thinking skills.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2011). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy. In International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Vol. 14, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2010.538192

Aspers, P., & Corte, U. (2021). What is Qualitative in Research. In Qualitative Sociology (Vol. 44, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-021-09497-w

Assarroudi, A., Heshmati Nabavi, F., Armat, M. R., Ebadi, A., & Vaismoradi, M. (2018). Directed qualitative content analysis: the description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and data analysis process. Journal of Research in Nursing, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987117741667

Astuti, D. W. (2017). The Content Analysis Of English Workbook Used In SMKN 1 Gombong. JELE (Journal of English Language and Education), 3(1). https://doi.org/10.26486/jele.v3i1.263

Becker, H. S. (2017). Creativity Is Not a Scarce Commodity*. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(12). https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764217734277

Birlik, S. (2015). Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain: An Example of Architectural Education Program. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.993

Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. In Handbook I: Cognitive Domain.

DagienÄ—, V., HromkoviÄ, J., & Lacher, R. (2021). Designing Informatics Curriculum for K-12 Education: From Concepts to Implementations. Informatics in Education, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2021.22

Damayanti, I. (2018). An Evaluation of English Textbook for Grade X of Senior High School. International Seminar and Annual Meeting BKS-PTN Wilayah Barat, 1(1), 330–333. http://conference.unsri.ac.id

Febriyani, R. A., Yunita, W., & Damayanti, I. (2020). An Analysis on Higher Order Thinking Skill (HOTS) in Compulsory English Textbook for the Twelfth Grade of Indonesian Senior High Schools. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.4.2.170-183

Hartini, P., Setiadi, H., & Ernawati, E. (2021). Cognitive domain analysis (LOTS and HOTS) assessment instruments made by primary school teachers. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.21831/pep.v25i1.34411

Heer, R. (2012). A Model of Learning Objectives. Iowa State University. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Kadiyala, S., Gavini, S., Kumar, Ds., Kiranmayi, V., & Rao, P. V. L. Ns. (2017). Applying Bloom's taxonomy in framing MCQs: An innovative method for formative assessment in medical students. Journal of Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-8632.208010

Mahboob, U. (2019). Deliberations on the contemporary assessment system: A Narrative Review. Journalism, 2(3), 369–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365020

Miles, M. B., Huberman, M. a, & Saldana, J. (2014). Drawing and Verifying Conclusions. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook.

Nasir, C., Yusuf, Y. Q., & Wardana, A. (2019). A qualitative study of teacher talks in an EFL classroom interaction in Aceh Tengah, Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i3.15251

Seddighi, H., Sajjadi, H., Yousefzadeh, S., López López, M., Vameghi, M., Rafiey, H., & Khankeh, H. R. (2021). Representation of disasters in school textbooks for children with intellectual disabilities in Iran: A qualitative content analysis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101987

Shabatura, J. (2022). Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Write Effective Learning Outcomes. University of Arkansas. https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/

Sugiyono. (2015). Metode Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pendekatan Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan R&D. In Metode Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pendekatan Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan R&D.

Sukma, D., Rozimela, Y., & Ratmanida. (2020). Reading tasks analysis and students’ perception: An approach to task-based language teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1102.17

Syafryadin, Harahap, A., Haryani, & Astrid, A. (2021). Boosting classroom interaction based on higher order thinking skills (Hots) in English learning for beginners. International Journal of Language Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.26858/IJOLE.V5I1.15211

Wang, D. (2022). The Mechanism of Teacher Influence on the Learning Engagement of Students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(21). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i21.35109

Yang, D. C., & Sianturi, I. A. (2017). An Analysis of Singaporean versus Indonesian textbooks based on trigonometry content. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7). https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00760a

Zhou, B., & Krott, A. (2016). Data trimming procedures can eliminate bilingual cognitive advantage. In Psychonomic Bulletin and Review (Vol. 23, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0981-6




DOI: https://doi.org/10.31932/jees.v6i2.2374

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 487 times
PDF - 315 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.