The aim of this study is to define academic staff's attitude about Bloom's Revised Cognitive Taxonomy working in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. In accordance with this aim a scale developed by the researcher was applied to the academic staff in August and September 2010. The internal consistency reliability coefficient was calculated for the reliability analysis of scale and Cronbach's Alpha was found .84. The universe of research consisted of academic staff of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. It was tried to contact with 420 academic staff without sampling by sending the developed scale via e-mail. However, 174 academic staff from 28 countries were willing to participate in the research, so the sample of the research consisted of 174 units. 28 countries consisting of the research group were categorized as countries of Europe, Africa, America and Asia. Five groups with Turkey group were formed and statistics were applied to these groups. Finally, in the research it was defined that Bloom's Revised Cognitive Taxonomy was useful and applicable according to academic staff.
Bloom's Taxonomy, Goals, Revised Taxonomy, Curriculum Development.
Educational objectives are desirable characteristics acquired by education (Ertürk, 1997; Varis, 1996). The desirable characteristics are acquirements, skills, capabilities, interests, habits, attitudes, etc. While objectives are the main component and determining factor of the programme, content, educational circumstances and evaluation factors are designed according to the goals (Demirel, 2003; Erden, 1995; Kisakürek, 1983; Sönmez, 2007). Educational objectives have been classified and interpreted in a variety of ways (O'Neil & Murphy, 2010).
Bloom's Original Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain
Being completed in 1956 and published in a book, Bloom's Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain consists of six levels. Each level is subsumed by the higher levels in that it is hierarchical from simple to more complex. As the lowest level of cognitive domain is knowledge, it succesively follows comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Mastery of each "lower" category was a prerequisite for achieving mastery of the next "higher" category. While knowledge, comprehension and application are accepted as lower levels, analyze, synthesis and evaluation are accepted as higher cognitive levels (Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl, 2009; Küçükahmet, 2005; Oliva, 1988; Wulf & Schave, 1984).
Bloom's Original classification is cumulative and hierarchical. It is cumulative as each level consists of behaviours of previous level and hierarchical as the levels are designed from simple to more complex. It is seen some limitations and deficiencies in applying the Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive domain. The very structure of the Taxonomy, moving from the simplest level of knowledge to the most difficult level of evaluation is seen as an important deficiency. For example, some objectives of knowledge level are more complex than some objectives of analyze and evaluation in some situations. In addition to this, it is stated evaluation level isn't more complex than synthesis and synthesis level contains evaluation level (Amer, 2006).
Another criticism about progressive classification is hierarchical classification in that mastery of each "lower" category was a prerequisite for achieving mastery of the next "higher" category. However, in some fields before mastering behaviours belonging to a level, other behaviours belonging to a higher level can be seen. Take a literary critic as an example. Although he can't write an original novel (synthesis level according to taxonomy) he can evaluate a written novel (evaluation level according to taxonomy). Further, according to some experts the hierarchical classification is not regarded proper for each subject field (Senemoglu, 2007).
During the term original taxonomy was published, curriculum and instruction was highly influenced by behaviouralism. …