A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF EDUCATIONAL TAXONOMIES FOR ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN DEVELOPING SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE AMONG SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
2
Author(s):
REVATI. N, DR. K P MEERA
Vol - 9, Issue- 7 ,
Page(s) : 23 - 35
(2018 )
DOI : https://doi.org/10.32804/IRJMST
Abstract
Science education develops certain abilities, which every student requires like, reasoning, curiosity, creativity, scientific attitude, problem-solving approach etc. Science and technology education is the backbone of countries’ economic stability and growth (Kalra,1972). For the achievement of broad aims of education, objectives are set which are specific and realizable portions of aims. Classification of learning objectives in an ordered system is called Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. SOLO taxonomy, Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and Mc Cormack and Yager’s Taxonomy are three different taxonomies of learning objectives.In the present study,investigator took classes to three experimental groups based on the three taxonomies, Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy,Mc Cormack and Yager’s Taxonomy and SOLO Taxonomy to compare its effectiveness in developing Scientific attitude among secondary school students. Study found out that instructions based on SOLO taxonomy, Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and Mc Cormack and Yager’s Taxonomy is effective for the development of Scientific Attitude among Secondary school students. Mc Cormack and Yager’s Taxonomy is more effective to develop Scientific Attitude among secondary school students and then comes SOLO Taxonomy for developing Scientific Attitude followed by Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.The sample consists of 210 secondary school students of Kottayam and experimental method is used to study the problem
- Almerico, G. M., & Baker, R. K. (2004). Bloom’s Taxonomy Illustrative Verbs: Developing a Comprehensive List for Educator Use. Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal 1(4), 1-10.
- Baytak, A., Akbiyik, C., & Usak, M. (2012). Parents’ Perception over Use of ICT in Education Techniques. Technologies of Education Management (TTEM), 7(3), 1158-1167.
- Lawson, A.E. (1982). The reality of general cognitive operations. Science education journal, 66(2), 229-241.
- Munby, H. (1983).Thirty studies involving the “scientific attitude inventory”: What confidence can we have in this instrument? Journal of research in science teaching, 20(2), 141-162.
- Moore, R. W., Leigh, R., & Foy, H. (1997). The scientific attitude inventory: A revision (SAI II) Journal of research in science teaching. 34(4), 327-336.
- Gardner, P.L. (1995). Measuring Attitudes to Science: Unidimensionality and Internal Consistency Revisited. Research in Science Education. 25(3), 283-289.
- Osborne, J., Simson, S. & Collins, S. (2003). Attitude towards Science: A Review of the Literature and its Implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049 – 1079.
- Yager, R.E. (2007). How are we stacking up. IOWA Science teaching journal, 34 (3), 19-25
- Mc Cormack, A. J., & Yager, R. E. (1989). A New Taxonomy of Science Education. Science Teacher, 56(2), 47-48.
- Handlesman,J. (2004). Scientific Thinking. WH Freeman publisher.
- Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications ( 3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
- Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
- Biggs, J. & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO taxonomy. New York. Academy Press.
- Kalra, R.M. (1995). Science Education - A Case for Humanizing It. Journal of Indian Education. 20 (5), 5-12.
- Cobern, W.W. (1998). Constructivism for science teachers. Scientific literacy and cultural studies project.
|