Bloom’s vs. Fink’s taxonomy: students’ achievement in science proficiency at primary level in Pakistan
List of Authors
  • Muhammad Faisal

Keyword
  • Taxonomy, traditional method, science proficiency, posttest, random sampling, t-test

Abstract
  • The purpose of this study was to find out the effect of Bloom’s vs. Fink’s taxonomy on the students’ achievement in science proficiency at primary level in Pakistan as compared to the traditional teaching method. This study was conducted in a posttest only format; where both the experimental and one control group were subjected to a post intervention assessment. In this study (n=30) 5th grade students were randomly selected. From those (n=30) students, three groups were made: Control group, Experimental group 1, and Experimental group 2; with each group encompassing (n=10) students. The students were selected by a random sampling technique. Control group was taught by the usual traditional method that their science instructor had been using to teach them, whereas, both the experimental groups 1 and 2 were taught by Bloom’s and Fink’s taxonomy respectively, for one science lesson. The data that was obtained from the posttest activity worksheet was statically analyzed through a paired samples t-test for further scrutiny. The results obtained exhibited significantly higher achievement in science proficiency by both the experimental groups when compared to the traditional method’s results, but when compared to each other, the results were not significantly different. This study has implications for action researchers and teachers to independently apply the two taxonomies to check the variance in the proficiency of their students over a longer period of time.

Reference
  • 1. Sheeba, M. N. (2013). An anatomy of science process skills in the light of the challenges to realize science instruction leading to global excellence in education. Educationia Confab, 2(4), 108-123.

    2. Lord, T., &Baviskar, S. (2007). Moving Students from Information Recitation to Information Understanding: Exploiting Bloom's Taxonomy in Creating Science Questions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 40-44. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42992686

    3. Schneps, M.H., & P.M. Sadler. (1988). A private universe, minds of our own. Pyramid Films.

    4. Wiggens, G., & J. McTighe. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    5. Kem P. Krueger, Mark A. Russell, and Jason Bischoff. (2011). A Health Policy Course Based on Fink's Taxonomy of Significant Learning. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education.75:1

    6. Krathwohl, D. (2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477405

    7. 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 (Complete edition). New York: Longman.

    8. Hamblen, K. (1984). An Art Criticism Questioning Strategy within the Framework of Bloom's Taxonomy. Studies in Art Education, 26(1), 41-50. doi: 10.2307/1320799.

    9. Phipps, R. (1981). An example of teaching natural lines: An instructional sequence on use of commas in lists based on the hierarchies of Piaget, Bloom, Krathwohl and Harrow. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 204 784).

    10. Vaccaro, A. (2010). “Effective Service Learning Reflection: Harnessing the Power of Bloom’s

    11. Taxonomy.” In Quick Hits for Service-Learning: Successful Strategies by Award-Winning Teachers, edited by M. A. Cooksey, and K. T. Olivares, 154–156. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    12. Frankfort-Nachmias, C., &Nachmias, D. (1992). Research methods in the social sciences (4th Ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press.

    13. Asunda, P., & Ware, S. (2015). Applying the Congruence Principle of Bloom’s Taxonomy to Develop an Integrated STEM Experience through Engineering Design. The Journal of Technology Studies, 41(2), 88-100. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/90003811

    14. Chyung, S. Y., &Stepich, D. (2003). Applying the “congruence” principle of Bloom’s taxonomy to designing online instruction, Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4(3), 317-330.

    15. Ormell, C. P (1974,). Bloom's taxonomy and the objectives of education. Educational Research, 17, 3-18.

    16. Furst, E. (1981). Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives for the Cognitive Domain: Philosophical and Educational Issues. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 441-453. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170361

    17. Wagler, R. (2010). Using Science Teaching Case Narratives to Evaluate the Level of Acceptance of Scientific Inquiry Teaching in Preservice Elementary Teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(2), 215-226. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43156784

    18. Fink, D.L. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    19. Kelley, B. (2006). Design for Change: Creating Significant Learning Experiences in the Music Classroom. College Music Symposium, 46, 64-76. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40374440

    20. Fink, D. (n.d.). Theoretical Framework: Fink's Taxonomy of Significant Learning [Taxonomy of Significant Learning]. Retrieved May 22, 2019, Retrieved from http://www.seethewriting.com/blog/2014/7/12/theoretical-framework-finks-taxonomy-on-significant-learning

    21. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    22. Seels, B. (1997). Taxonomic Issues and the Development of Theory in Instructional Technology. Educational Technology, 37(1), 12-21. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44428381

    23. Martin, B., & Briggs, L. J. (1986). The affective and cognitive domains: Integration for instruction and research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    24. Molee, L. M., M. E. Henry, V. I. Sessa, and E. R. McKinney-Prupis. (2010). Assessing Learning in Service-Learning Courses through Critical Reflection. Journal of Experimental Education, 33(3): 239–257.

    25. Akani, O. (2015). Levels of possession of science process skills by final year students of colleges of education in south-eastern states of Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(27), 94-101.

    26. Majeed, S., & Rana, R.A. (2017). Effect of jigsaw vs. traditional group work on 8th graders’ basic science process skills achievement in laboratory. Pakistan Journal of Education, 34(2), 55-72.

    27. Madaus, G., Woods, E., & Nuttall, R. (1973). A Causal Model Analysis of Bloom's Taxonomy. American Educational Research Journal, 10(4), 253-262. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1161657

    28. Davis, O. L., Morse, K. R., Rogers, V. M., & Tinsley, D. C. (1969). Studying the cognitive emphases of teachers' classroom questions. Educational Leadership, 26, 711-717.

    29. Hamblen, K. A. (1983). The cognitive umbrella. Studies in Art Education, 24, 177-183.

    30. Hirst, P. H (1974). Knowledge and the curriculum: A collection of philosophical papers. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    31. Guo, S., Freeman, S., Lawhorn, J., & Zheng, A. (2008). Science Education: Should Facts Come First? Science, 320(5879), 1012-1012. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20054768.

    32. Meghan E. Barnes & Kathryn Caprino (2016) Analyzing service-learning reflections through Fink's taxonomy, Teaching in Higher Education, 21(5), 557 575, DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2016.1160221.

    33. Anderson, J. B., K. J. Swick, and J. Yff, eds. (2001). Service-Learning in Teacher Education: Enhancing the Growth of New Teachers, Their Students, and Communities, New York: American Associations of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2(3). 321-324.

    34. Glaser, S. R. (1983). Interpersonal communication instruction: A behavioral competency approach, Communication Education, 32, 221.

    35. Wilkinson, L., and the Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999).Statistical methods in psychology journals. American Psychologist, 54(8), 594–604.

    36. Gravetter, F. J., &Wallnau, L. B. (2007). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (7th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning.

    37. Barkley, E. F., & Major, C.H. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    38. Bowdon, M. A., & Billig, S. H. (2008). Scholarship for sustaining service-learning and civic engagement. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    39. Bruffe, K. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence and the authority of knowledge (2nd Ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    40. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of learning: How to learn in harmony with your brain. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

    41. Roberts, N. (1976). Further Verification of Bloom's Taxonomy. The Journal of Experimental Education, 45(1), 16-19. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20151121.

    42. Ackerson, C. (1992). Affective objectives: A discussion of some controversies. Instructional Developments, Journal of the School of Education at Syracuse University, 3(1), 7 11.

    43. Postlethwaite, T. N. (1994). Validity vs. utilitiy: Personal experiences with the taxonomy. In L. W. Anderson & L. A. Sosniak (Eds.), Bloom's taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective (pp. 174-180). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    44. Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating Significant Learning Outcomes: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    45. Hume, A. 2009. “Promoting Higher Levels of Reflective Writing in Student Journals.” Higher Education Research and Development,28 (3): 247–260.

    46. Lee, S., and S. Moon. 2013. “Teacher Reflection in Literacy Education.” International Journal of Higher Education, 2 (4): 157–164.