Author
Listed:
- Sitta Syahri Ramdhani
(Biology Education Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)
- Rahmi Susanti
(Biology Education Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)
- Meilinda
(Biology Education Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the cognitive level of the content in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) questions. This research method described the cognitive level of scientific literacy PISA questions. The cognitive level used in this study was based on the revised Bloom’s taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl, which includes C1 (remembering), C2 (understanding), C3 (applying), C4 (analyzing), C5 (evaluating), and C6 (creating). The PISA questions were arranged according to a predetermined theoretical framework: competence, context, knowledge, and attitude. The subjects of this research were scientific PISA questions released in 2006 and 2015, with 45 questions about the content of living systems of biological materials. The analysis of the cognitive level was presented in the form of a table and then made into a diagram so that a conclusion could be made. The results of this study indicated that PISA questions were dispersed across several cognitive levels according to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy, with the most dominant percentage of 38.24% being the cognitive analysis level (C4) in 2006 PISA and 36.36% in 2015 PISA. This study only analyzes PISA questions in the years that only focus on scientific literacy, so it needs to be analyzed in other years as well; then, it was hoped that teachers could make PISA model assessment questions with a higher cognitive level and increase the questions of students’ conceptual knowledge.
Suggested Citation
Sitta Syahri Ramdhani & Rahmi Susanti & Meilinda, 2024.
"Cognitive Level of Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) Questions Based on the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy,"
European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, European Open Science, vol. 5(2), pages 104-112, March.
Handle:
RePEc:epw:ejedu0:v:5:y:2024:i:2:id:30785
DOI: 10.24018/ejedu.2024.5.2.785
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:epw:ejedu0:v:5:y:2024:i:2:id:30785. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://eu-opensci.org/index.php/ejedu .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.