Interpretation of standards with Bloom's revised taxonomy: A comparison of teachers and assessment experts

International Journal of Research and Method in Education

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 39-51

  Näsström, Gunilla ^a  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Bloom's revised taxonomy; Inter judge consistency; Intrajudge consistency; Standards

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449578749     PISSN: 1743727X     EISSN: 17437288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17437270902749262     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Anderson, L.W., and D.R. Krathwohl, eds. 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
2. Bhola, D.S., J.C. Impara, and C.W. Buckendahl. 2003. Aligning tests with states' content standards: Methods and issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and practice 22, no. 3: 21-9.
3. Biggs, J. 2003. Teaching for quality learning at university. Glasgow: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
4. Bloom, B.S., ed. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
5. Bybee, R.W. 2003. Improving technology education: Understanding reform - Assuming responsibility. Technology Teacher 62, no. 8: 22-5.
6. D'Agostino, J.V., M.E. Welsh, A.D. Cimetta, L.D. Falco, S. Smith, W. Hester VanWinkle, and S.J. Powers 2008. The rating and matching item-objective alignment methods. Applied Measurement in Education 21, no. 1: 1-21.
7. de Jong, T., and M.G.M. Ferguson-Hessler. 1996. Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist 31, no. 2: 105-13.
8. Fairbrother, R.W. 1975. The reliability of teachers' judgement of the abilities being tested by multiple choice items. Educational Research 17, no. 3: 202-10.
9. Fleiss, J.L. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin 76, no. 5: 378-82.
10. Guilford, J.P. 1967. The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
11. Hanna, W. 2007. The new Bloom's taxonomy: Implications for music education. Arts Education Policy Review 108, no. 4: 7-16.
12. Hauenstein, A.D. 1998. A conceptual framework for educational objectives: A holistic approach to traditional taxonomies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
13. Herman, J.L., N.M. Webb, and S.A. Zuniga. 2007. Measurement issues in the alignment of standards and assessments: A case study. Applied Measurement in Education 20, no. 1: 101-26.
14. Landis, J.R., and G.G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, no. 1: 159-74.
15. Luft, P., C.M. Brown, and L.J. Slutherin. 2007. Are you and your students bored with the benchmarks? Sinking under the standards? Then transform your teaching through transition. Teaching Exceptional Children 39, no. 6: 39-46.
16. Marzano, R.J., and J.S. Kendall. 2007. The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
17. Mullis, I.V.S., M.O. Martin, T.A. Smith, R.A. Garden, K.D. Gregory, E.J. Gonzales, S.J. Chrostowski, and K. M. O'Connor. 2001. TIMSS assessment frameworks and specifications 2003. Chestnut Hill: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
18. Näsström, G., and W. Henriksson. 2008. Alignment of standards and assessment: A theoretical and empirical study of methods for alignment. Educational Journal of Research in Educational Psychology 6, no. 3: 667-90.
19. OECD. 1999. Measuring student knowledge and skills: A new framework for assessment. Paris: OECD.
20. Pickard, M.J. 2007. The new Bloom's taxonomy: An overview for family and consumer sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education 25, no. 1: 45-55.
21. Poole, R.L. 1971. Characteristics of the taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive domain. Psychology in the Schools 8, no. 4: 379-85.
22. Popham, W.J. 2003. Test better, teach better: The instructional role of assessment Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
23. Porter, A.C. 2002. Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher 31, no. 7: 3-14.
24. Porter, A.C., and J.L. Smithson. 2001. Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the States, ed. S.H. Fuhrmans, 60-80. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education, University of Chicago Press.
25. Seddon, G.M. 1978. The properties of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives for the cognitive domain. Review of Educational Research 48, no. 2: 303-23.
26. Skolverket. 2007-08. Upper secondary school. Mathematics. http://www3.skolverket.se/ki03/front.aspx?sprak=EN&ar=0708&infotyp=8&skolform=21&id=MA&extrald= and http://www3.skolverket.se/ki03/info.aspx?sprak=EN&id=MA&skolform=21&ar=0708&infotyp=17 (accessed March 4, 2008).
27. Stemler, S.E. 2004. A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 9, no. 4.
28. Stephens, J.-P., G.A. Vos, E.M. Stevens, and J.S. Moore. 2006. Test-retest repeatability of the strain index. Applied Ergonomics 37: 275-81.
29. Su, W.M., P.J. Osisek, and B. Starnes 2004. Applying the revised Bloom's taxonomy to a medical-surgical nursing lesson. Nurse Educator 29, no. 3: 116-20.
30. Watkins, M.W., and M. Pacheco. 2000. Interobserver agreement in behavioural research: Importance and calculation. Journal of Behavioral Education 10, no. 4: 205-12.
31. Webb, N.L. 2002. An analysis of the alignment between mathematics standards and assessments for three states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 1-5, in New Orleans, LA.
32. Webb, N.L. 2007. Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments. Applied Measurement in Education 20, no. 1: 7-25.
33. Webb, N.M., J.L. Herman, and N.L. Webb 2007. Alignment of mathematics state-level standards and assessments: The role of reviewer agreement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 26, no. 2: 17-29.