Analysis of english workbook for SMP/MTS by using revised bloom taxonomy

By

Nana Pratiwi

NIM.109014000171

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHERS TRAINING

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY

JAKARTA

2015

Nama : Nana Pratiwi NIM : 109014000171

Jurusan : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Alamat : Gelanggang Tinggi, Kinari, Kec. Bukit Sundi, Kab. Solok, Sumatera Barat

MENYATAKAN DENGAN SESUNGGUHNYA

Bahwa skripsi yang berjudul Analysis of English Workbook for SMP/MTs by

Using Revised Bloom Taxonomy adalah benar hasil karya sendiri di bawah

bimbingan dosen:

Nama Pembimbing I : Drs. Nasifuddin Djalil, M.Ag

NIP : 19560560 199003 1 002

Nama Pembimbing II : Ummi Kultsum, M.Pd.

NIP : 19790811 200912 2 001

Demikianlah surat pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sesungguhnya dan saya siap menerima segala konsekuensi apabila terbukti bahwa skripsi ini bukan hasil karya sendiri.

Jakarta, 2 Maret 2014 Yang menyatakan,

Using Revised Bloom Taxonomy. Skripsi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2014.

Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian deskriptif kualitatif yang bertujuan untuk mengetahui kesesuaian konten buku latihan dengan dimensi kognitif Revisi Taxonomi Bloom dan dimensi kognitif yang dominan dalam Revisi Taxonomi Bloom.

Penelitian ini difokuskan kepada analisa buku latihan Bahasa Inggris Can Do 2: buku praktik, yang diterbitkan oleh Richmond Publishing. Data dianalisa menggunakan tabel analisa data untuk mengelompokkan aktivitas yang termasuk kedalam pertanyaan atau instruksi, berdasarkan dimensi kognitif, mengingat, memahami, menerapkan, menganalisis, mengevaluasi/menilai, mencipta.

Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan jumlah aktivitas mengingat merupakan persentase tertinggi di buku latihan ini dengan jumlah 33,2 % atau dengan frekuensi 131 dari 395 aktifitas. Aktivitas terbanyak kedua level kognitif adalah memahami dengan persentase 33,2 % atau 131 aktivitas. Frekuensi ketiga terbanyak adalah menerapkan dengan persentase 28,9 % atau 114 aktivitas. Dan aspek terendah adalah mengevaluasi dan mencipta dengan presentase masing-masing 0,2 %. Berdasarkan analisa data, buku latihan Can Do 2 ini dominan pada proses berfikir tingkat rendah, yakni mengingat, memahami, menerapkan dengan total persentase 95,3 %. Ini menunjukkan bahwa buku latihan Can Do 2 tidak sesuai dengan teori dimensi kognitif Revisi Taxonomi Bloom. Penulis buku Can Do 2 tidak seimbang dalam menyajikan semua dimensi di dalam buku tersebut. Hanya 4,7 % yang termasuk dalam proses berfikir tingkat tinggi. Penelitian ini berimplikasi pada sekolah dan guru untuk dapat memilih buku latihan yang tepat bagi siswa.

Tarbiyah and Teacher’s Training of State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2014.

This study is a descriptive qualitative that purposed for knowing the appropriateness of the workbook’s content with the cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom Taxonomy (RBT) and for knowing the dominant cognitive dimension of the Revised Bloom Taxonomy (RBT) in the textbook.

This research is focused on analyzing the English Workbook, “Can Do: 2

practice book”, which is published by Richmond Publishing. The data is analyzed through data analysis table to categorizing the activity with defined as any one of the following: a question or instructional activity, based on cognitive dimension i.e., remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, creating.

This finding implies that the number of activities of remembering is the highest percentage in this workbook, 33.2 %. The frequency of remembering is 131 of 395 activities. The activities that work on the cognitive level of understanding rank second with percentage 33.2 % and the frequency is 131 0f 395 activities. The third most frequency is applying with 114 activities or 28.9 %. And the lowest number cognitive aspect in this textbook are evaluating and creating with percentages 0.2 %. Based on the data analysis, textbook Can Do 2 placed emphasis on the lower thinking processes; remembering, understanding, and applying, with percentage 95.3 %. It shows that the workbook of Can Do 2 does not appropriate with the cognitive dimension theory of Bloom Taxonomy. It

didn’t cover the entire cognitive dimension because here are many uneven cognitive dimensions activities. There are only 4.7 % activities dealing with the high order thinking. This study implies to school and teachers to be selective in choosing the appropriate workbooks for the student.

enormous love and blessings to researcher to finish her skripsi. Peace and blessing from Him be upon to the Prophet Muhammad PBUH, his families, his companions and his followers. In this opportunity, the researcher would like to give my sincere gratitude to all the people who helped and guided during the study and the completion of the skripsi. It would like to dedicate this to:

1. Beloved parents, Yusnidar and Nasrul, who always give prayer, devote endless

love and give motivation for the researcher’s best all the time. my siblings: Dewi Fitria, Elda Wati, Yohannes Putra, Karmila Putri, Hari Kurniawan, Lisa Fitriyana, nephews, nieces, and all big families.

2. Drs. Nasifuddin Djalil, M.Ag and Ummi Kultsum, M. Pd, the advisors who have given guidance, advice, motivation and patience to the researcher in accomplishing of this skripsi.

3. Drs. Syauki, M.Pd., the Head of Department of English Education and the academic advisor.

4. All lectures at English Department for teaching the precious knowledge, sharing the philosophy of live and giving magnificent study experiences.

5. Tarbiyah (a God’s gift) and All of Murobbi (teachers), Liqo’s sisters, especially for Izzatunnisa.

6. Sisters and brothers in ASSALAM SUMBAR, LDK, Ma’had Dzinnurain, and the big family of Justice and Prosperity Party.

7. Febriany Nanci, Nabella Habsari,Siti Zahrotul Fajriyah, Habibah, S.Psi who give the researcher much more helps and motivation.

8. All of friends in Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher’s Training and in the English Education Department, and PPKT’s friends.

perfect masterpiece. Therefore, it is a very precious thing for her to get suggestion and criticism which can make this better.

Jakarta, 2 March 2015

SURAT PERNYATAAN KARYA SENDIRI .……… ii

ABSTRAK ………. iii

ABSTRACT ……….. iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………. v

TABLE OF CONTENT ……… vi

LIST OF TABLES ………...……….……... viii

LIST OF APPENDICES ……… ix

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION……….…….… 1

A. Background of the Study……….………. 1

B. Identification of research problems……….……. 4

C. Limitation the problem ………..………..… 4

D. Formulation of the study……… 4

E. Objectives of the study……….…….……… 4

F. The significance of the study……… 5

CHAPTER 1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK……….. 6

A. Library Study………..……….. 6

1. Workbook ………..… 6

a. Nature of the Workbook ………..………..………… 6

b. The Advantages of the Workbook ………..……… 7

c. The Problems of the Workbook…….………..……… 8

d. How to Use the Workbook …….………..……….…… 8

e. Criteria of the Workbook …….…………..…..……… 9

2. Bloom Taxonomy………..…… ... 10

C. Previous Study………..………..…. 23

CHAPTER III RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY………..……. 26

A. Method and Research Design…….……….………..……… 26

B. Time of the Study ……….………..…….. 26

C. Description of the Data………... 26

D. Technique of Collecting the Data ……….………..…. 28

E. Technique of Data Analysis ………..………... 29

CHAPTER IV FINDING AND DISCUSSION….………... 30

A. Findings ……….……… 31

B. Discussion ……….…… 37

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ……… 39

A. Conclusion ………. 40

B. Suggestion ………. 41

REFERENCES ……….………. 43

Table 3.2 Data Analysis Table of Cognitive Dimension of Revised Bloom

Taxonomy……….………..………..….. 28 Table 4.1 Frequencies and Percentages of the Activities in the Six Levels

of the Cognitive Dimensions in Bloom’s Taxonomy in the

Workbook ‘Can Do 2’ in each units…………...….………. 46

Appendix 2 : Surat Permohonan Pembimbing Skripsi I ………...………. 76

Appendix 3 : Surat Permohonan Pembimbing Skripsi II ………….....…. 77

background of the study, identification of research problem, limitation of the problem, formulation of study, objective of the study, and significance of the study.

A. Background of the Study

In teaching and learning process, the teacher has to develop the student

competence. The teacher needs to know the students’ ability in mastering the

materials given. The teacher also needs to discover which parts of materials that the students find their strengths and weaknesses. To find out those things, the teacher has to design the instructional materials and many activities for the students.

Workbook as one of the instructional materials has the important role in language teaching and learning. It greatly influences planning, teaching, and learning in the classroom. Many teachers design the learning activities in the classroom for the student by using workbook as the source ideas and questions. It helps the teachers because teachers can save a great deal of time.

Teachers also use workbook as the source exercises for students. It can develop student competence that supplies many exercises for students. Not only in the classroom, the students have many chance to practice their ability but also in the home. There is never enough time to teach the students all the important skills and concepts in a subject area. In such a way, workbook can assist the teacher to develop the students’ ability, because students can develop their ability autonomously by using the workbook that supplies many ecercises.

Indonesian national education objective is proved by UU No. 20 Tahun 2003

which states: ‘national education serves to develop skills and form the character and civilization of the nation's dignity in order to achieve the life of the nation, aimed at developing the potential of students to become a man of faith and fear of God Almighty, noble, healthy, knowledgeable, skilled, creative, independent, and

become citizens of a democratic and responsible.1 So, based on the Indonesian national education objective in that act, teaching learning processes are to develop

student’s competence or skills.

To achieve the educational objective in teaching-learning processes, teachers should use an appropriate workbook for students, especially in English. English is a language that is quite complex to study. Learning English is not only learning the elements of language such as grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and so on, but also learning the four skills which consist of reading, listening, writing and speaking. It is not only explaining the theories, but the most important one is also

developing the student’s competence. According to the researcher experience, she found that students just almost remember theory and formulas every day in the school. They did not matter whether they understood or not. And it was happened for almost all of students in each education level. Learning English six years in the school is not successful. They cannot understand and use English in their daily life.

So, it is important to analysis about the workbook that student or teacher used, such as the different level of the instruction, the content compatibility, or language feasibility. Teachers should know the workbook having written accurately to their social function. And one aspect that should be analyzed in the workbook is compatibility of the student’s development level in cognitive domain.

Cognitive domain in educational objectives makes reference to Bloom Taxonomy. Bloom Taxonomy is a concept thinking theory that was introduced by Benjamin S Bloom, an American psychologist.2 It is the hierarchy structure that identifies the skill ranging from low to high level. The aim of taxonomy is very simple; it helps the teacher to achieve the education goal. Essentially, the Revised Bloom Taxonomy is a more authentic tool for curriculum planning, instructional delivery and assessment.

1

Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Islam Depag RI, UU dan Peraturan Pemerintah RI tentang

Pendidikan, (Jakarta: 2006), p. 8-9 2

Retno Utari, Bloom Taxonomy: Apa dan Bagaimana Menggunakannya? (Widyawara

Bloom Taxonomy divided the educational objective to be three domains that can be measured to develop student ability. They are the cognitive domain, affective domain and psychomotor domain. Cognitive domain deals with intellectual or thinking ability. The second domain is affective domain and affective domain deals with feelings, attitudes, interest, preferences, values and emotions. And the third, psychomotor domain deals with feelings attitudes, interest, preferences, values, and emotions.

The most commonly taught and assessed educational objectives are those in the cognitive domain.3 Cognitive assessment involves intellectual activities such as interpreting, problem solving, and thinking critically. Virtually all of the

teacher’s instruction is usually focused on helping students to attain cognitive mastery of some content or subject area. A weekly spelling, a unit test of essay, a worksheet on proper use of lie and lay, and an oral recitation of a poem, all require cognitive behaviors. It is why the researcher in this study will focus on the cognitive domain.

Bloom divided six thinking categories in cognitive domain: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.4 However, in

1990’s, Bloom’s Taxonomy had been revised, the terminology used in the

cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy had been changed into verb

from noun. The cognitive dimension includes remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. The use of verb in the terminology seems more suitable because it shows the thinking process which is the active process rather than the use of noun. The term “knowledge” had been revised into

“remember” because the term “knowledge” shows the product of thinking rather than the thinking process. The use of terminology “synthesis” and “evaluation” had also been changed into “evaluate” and “create”.5

Based on the explanation above, this research is to analyze the workbook for Junior High School, by using Cognitive Process Dimension of Revised Bloom’s

3

Peter W. Airasian, Classroom Assessment. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008), p. 67

4

Anthony J Nitko and Susan M. Brookhart, Educational Assesment of Student, (Boston:

2011), p. 25 5

Taxonomy (RBT). In this research, the workbook of “Can Do 2“is chosen because it is the English workbook that is used in MTsN Pamulang, a school that where the researcher have been practiced as a teacher during the Integrated Pre Service Teaching Profession Practise –Praktik Profesi Keguruan Terpadu(PPKT).

B. Identification of Research Problem

Based on the background of this study, the research problems are:

1. Content of the workbook should appropriate with the cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom Taxonomy (RBT) and critical thinking theory.

2. The instructional items are viewed in terms of the Revised Bloom Taxonomy (RBT) cognitive dimension.

C. Limitation of the Problem

Based on the statement of the problems mentioned above, this research will be focused on the workbook content that appropriates with the Revised Bloom Taxonomy (RBT) cognitive dimension and critical thinking theory.

D. Formulation of the Problem

The formulations of the study of this research are:

1. Does the workbook content of “Can Do 2” appropriate with the cognitive dimensions of Revised Bloom Taxonomy?

2. What is the most dominant cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom Taxonomy in the workbook?

E. Objectives of the Study

The result of this study is expected to discover:

1. The appropriateness of workbook “Can Do 2” with the cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom Taxonomy.

2. The most dominant cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom Taxonomy in the workbook.

F. Significance of the Study

The results of the study are worthwhile for both the teacher and the students. This study is to analyze the book that students are using in learning English. So, It can encourage the English teachers to be selective in choosing the appropriate workbook. The appropriate book can develop the students’ competence and can make the learning process more effectively. It also can encourage the workbook publishers to revise the workbook to be more compatible with student cognitive development level. For compulsory book’s authors, this study is useful to consider

research. It discusses the main parts of the research, such as a workbook and bloom taxonomy. And this chapter explains the thinking theory used in this study that develop the research question.

A. Literature Review

1. Workbook

a. Nature of the Workbook

The workbook is a freestanding manual that addresses materials considered to be incompletely covered within the text.1 Workbook provides varied material practices and exercises for teaching and learning processes. The fundamental principles of language, grammar, and composition skills involve are not often clearly understood in the classroom. All kinds of material can cover by the workbook by giving enough practice.2

The workbook functions in different ways for both teachers and students. For teachers, exercises in the workbook help teachers to examine

student’s ability. Workbook also helps the teacher to determine the learning activity that can improve student’s comprehension in the classroom. The teachers lead the students with many exercises in order to develop the competence.

Many teachers feel difficult to develop the learning activities for student. Teachers often have a limited time to develop new activities. Used of the workbook will essential for helping the teacher and student to cover the problems.

1

Enza Antenos-Conforti and Frank Nuessel, The Workbook in Elementary Italian, Vol. 84,

No. 1 (Spring, American Association of Teachers of Italian, 2007), pp. 42-58 2

Fred G. Walcott, Problems of the Workbook Author, The English Journal,Vol. 22, No. 7

At the present time, many series of textbooks are supplemented by such materials to strengthen their teaching program. Good independent workbooks, designed to accompany no specific textbook. Several types of workbooks are found, but they are all variations of either a text-workbook or one which contains only exercises. Some of the newer workbooks are hybrids, combining both types.

When the possibility of using workbooks is being considered, the teacher should have clearly in mind exactly which functions to achieve the workbook to fulfill.

Workbooks should benefit highly motivated or interested students who, compete themselves. They can also be of benefit to the student who wants extra practice (not extra credit) with material of graded levels of difficulty, outside of the classroom or in addition to any possible conference time.3 Workbooks develop the good study habits and independence learning of student.

b. Advantages of the Workbook

Workbook and other skill practice pages can be valuable learning and teaching resources for students and teachers. Teachers can improve upon workbook pages' effectiveness to make them more than busy work, testing devices, pupil directed practice, or group assignments.

Teacher could save a great deal of time by having each child's work within the covers of an individual book.4 . It saves the time and energy of both teacher and pupil which presents only one problem at a time. The use of the workbook is advisable.

3

David G. Pugh, Writing Workbooks: Teaching Tragedies? College Composition and

Communication, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Oct., 1964), p. 165 4

Margaret Kerr, Teaching with Workbooks, The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 48, No. 4

c. Problems of the Workbook

Much of the workbooks are providing the students the writing part of language but not the oral communication part of the English.5 This shows that, there is a lot of opportunity for the teacher to use oral communication in the classroom to develop listening, reading and speaking skills in the classroom, which the teacher has to develop through various methods and modes of instruction. More opportunities should be provided to students to develop pronunciation, intonation, stress, etc. in the language teaching.

Some teachers believe that workbooks help in developing vocabulary, in reinforcing and maintaining skills, and in individualizing instruction. But other teachers argue that workbooks are too expensive. It takes too long to correct them.

One of the reasons why workbooks have not been successful in many situations is that little thought or planning was given to their selection and use.6 Before any workbook is purchased, the teachers should have an opportunity to examine it in order to determine whether it is designed to meet the specific purposes which they wish to achieve. Workbooks, like textbooks, must have their use carefully planned in order to get the most effective results. No workbook is published with the assumption that will not require intelligent preparation and presentation by the teacher.

d. How to Use the Workbook

There is a significant influence of workbooks and the way they are being used in the classroom on the overall development of English language development in the students. The first step to improving the effectiveness of work book pages is to establish a purpose for using them.

5 _{Paul Douglas, Teacher’s Perception on}

The Learning Difficulties and Development of English Language Skills Among High School Students: Influence of Classroom Teaching and Workbooks. (Http://Www.Aiaer.Net/Ejournal/Vol20108/12.Htm)

6

Margaret Kerr, Teaching with Workbooks, The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 48, No. 4

Workbook pages should provide extra practice needed to help a child master a skill and provide success practice (not trial and error or tests).

Second step to improving the use of workbook pages is to develop effective methodology for carrying out these purposes. Workbook can effectively provide practice and success for pupils who need to master language skills.

A successful program of workbook procedure may be summarized briefly:7

1) Most of the language exercises should be administered orally, even though designed apparently to be written.

2) All grammar worksheets should be accompanied by parallel oral drill; otherwise they will never become functional in oral speech.

3) All punctuation drills should be given simultaneously with written composition projects, in order that their habituation to the semi phonetic processes of writing may be effected.

4) Student correction should be employed whenever possible, the teacher acting only as a mediator when questions arise.

e. Criteria of the Workbook

A suggested list of criteria for workbook selection follows:8

1) Are the exercises included within the workbook appropriate to the needs of the group (not necessarily to the grade)?

2) Are they reasonable enough in extent so that they will not monopolize too much time, to the exclusion of other and varied activities?

3) Are they organized according to a repetitive plan, so as to provide review at ever increasing intervals?

4) Are they organized in series, so as to provide a year-to-year repetition, in a rudimentary-to-complex progression?

5) To what extent are they self-administering and self-directive?

7

Fred G. Walcott, Problems of the Workbook, The English Journal, Vol. 22, No. 7 (Sep, 1933), pp. 578

8 Ibid.

6) Do they include both pretests and follow-up tests by which which their effectiveness can be measured?

2. Bloom’s Taxonomy

a. The Original Bloom Taxonomy

The original Bloom’s Taxonomy was found by Benjamin S. Bloom, an education psychologist who did many research and development in thinking behaviors in learning process. Bloom was born on dated February 21, 1913 in Lansford, Pennsylvania and earned doctorate in education from the University of Chicago in 1942. He is known as a consultant and international activists in education and managed to make major changes in the system education in India. He founded the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, the IEA, developed the Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistical Analysis (MESA) program at the University of Chicago.9

At 1950’s, in the Conference of American Psychologist Association, Bloom reported that based on the evaluation of the result study which has arranged in the school, the most percentage is the question just allowed to memorize of lessons. Bloom argued that memorizing or remembering is the lowest hierarchy in the thinking behaviors.10

Finally in 1956, Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwoll, successfully introduced thinking skills framework concept called Bloom's Taxonomy.11 It is hierarchy structure that identifies the skills ranging from low level to high level. Of course, to achieve the goal higher, lower level must be met first.

Taxonomy is derived from two words in the Greek language, they are tassein and nomos. Tassein means classify and nomos means rule. 12 So

9

Elliot W. Eisner, Profiles of Famous Education: Benjamin Bloom 1913 – 1999,Prospects, vol. XXX, no. 3, September 2000. p. 1

10

Retno Utari, Taxonomy Bloom: Apa dan Bagaimana Menggunakannya? (Widyawara

Pusdiklat KNPK), p. 2. 11

Ibid

12 ibid

taxonomy means classification hierarchy over basic principles or rules. The term was later used by Benjamin S. Bloom in the teaching learning process.

He proposed taxonomy for thinking based on increasingly complex or high order categories. This taxonomy has been extremely influential in education for the past 50 years.13 It had an enormous influence on how people think of educational goals and on teaching practice.

In framework of this concept, Bloom divided the purpose of education into three domains of intellectual behaviors.14 They are cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The first domain is cognitive domain that deals with intellectual or thinking ability, the second domain is affective domain, and

affective domain deals with value. Bloom’s taxonomy is often named by

Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy because the cognitive domain often applies only to develop.

The cognitive domain in the original taxonomy is divided into six categories. They are knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. 15

No. Cognitive Dimension Definition

1 Knowledge It is how to memorize and recall information. It involves the recall of specifics and universals, the recall of a pattern, structure, or setting. For measurement purposes, the recall situation involves little more than bringing to mind the appropriate material.

2 Comprehension It is how to interpret information in one’s own words. It refers to a type of

13

Dian Musial. et al, Foundation of Meaningful Education Assessment, (New York: McGraw

Hill, 2009), p. 84 14

Peter W. Airasian and Michael K Russell, Classroom Assessment, (New York: Mc-Graw

Hill, 2008), p. 69 15

understanding or apprehension such as the individual knows what is being communicated and can make use of the material or idea being communicated without necessarily relating it to other material or seeing its fullest implication. It represents the lowest level of understanding.

3 Application It is how to apply knowledge to new situations. It involves the use of abstraction in particular and concrete situation (to solve new or novel problems). The abstraction may be in the form of general ideas, rules of procedure, or generalized methods. The abstraction may also be technical principles, ideas, and theories, which must be remembered and applied.

4 Analysis It is how to breakdown knowledge into parts and show relationship among parts. It involves the breakdown of a communication into its constituent elements or parts such that the relative hierarchy of ideas is made clear and/or the relations between the ideas expressed are made explicit. Such analyses are intended to clarify the communication, to indicate how the communication is organized, and the way in which it manages to convey its effects, as well as its basis and arrangements.

5 Synthesis Synthesis is how to bring together parts of knowledge to form a whole; build

relationships for new situations. It involves the putting together of elements and parts so as to form a whole. This involves the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, and so on, and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clear before.

6 Evaluation Evaluation is how to make judgments on basis of criteria. It requires judgments the value of material and methods for given purposes, quantitative and qualitative judgments about the extent to which materials and methods satisfy criteria, and the use of a standard of appraisal. The criteria may be those determined by the student or given to him.

b. Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

In 1990’s, Bloom’s Taxonomy had been revised by Lorin Anderson, one

of the Bloom’s student. The result of the revised was published at 2001 by the

name of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.16

The revised taxonomy improves the original by adding a two-dimensional framework. The two dimensions are Cognitive Process Dimension and Knowledge Dimension.

Cognitive Dimension is very much like the original Bloom’s Taxonomy. It includes remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.17 The terminology used in the Cognitive Dimension of Revised

Bloom’s Taxonomy had been changed into verb from noun. The use of verb

in the terminology seems more suitable because it shows the thinking process which is the active process rather than the use of noun. The term

16

David Krathwohl, Theory into Practise, Vol. 41, Number 4 auntumn (2002), p. 211.

17

BLOOM’S

TAXONOMY (Original domain)

 Knowledge  Comprehension  Application  Analysis  Synthesis  Evaluation

“knowledge” had been revised into “remember” because the term

“knowledge” shows the product of thinking rather than the thinking process. The use of terminology “synthesis” and “evaluation” had also been changed into “evaluate” and “create”.18 These changes are also more appropriate because they reflect better sequence of thinking classification.

Figure 2.1 the Differences of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

Knowledge dimension contains the type of content learning targets refering to: a fact, a concept, a procedure, or a metacognition. It has four categories. They include factual knowledge, conceptual procedural, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge.19

1. Factual Knowledge

This category of learning targets asks students to learn facts. 2. Conceptual Knowledge

18

David Krathwohl, Theory into Practise, Vol.41 Number 4 Auntumn (2002), p. 215.

19

Peter W. Airasian, Classroom Assessment, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008), p. 26

REVISED BLOOM’S

TAXONOMY (New Domain)

 Remembering  Understanding  Applying  Analyzing  Evaluating  Creating

This category of learning targets asks students to learn ideas, generalizations, and/or theories.

3. Procedural knowledge

This category of learning targets asks students to demonstrate procedures or ways of doing things.

4. Metacognitive Knowledge

This category of learning targets asks students to be aware of and understand what they know. Metacognition encompasses knowledge about one’s own thought processes, self regulation and monitoring what one is doing, why one is doing it and how one is doing whether helps to solve the problems (or not). 20

The most commonly taught and assessed educational objectives are those in the cognitive domain.21 Cognitive assessment involves intellectual activities such as interpreting, problem solving, and thinking critically. Virtually all of the tests that students take in the school are intended to

measure one or more of this cognitive activities. Teachers’ instruction is usually focused on helping students to attain cognitive mastery of some content or subject area. A weekly spelling test, a unit test of essay, a worksheet on proper use of lie and lay, and an oral recitation of poems; all require cognitive behaviors.

3. The Cognitive Dimension Process

Cognitive levels of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy deal with students’ thinking,

these cognitive levels include low order thinking and high order thinking. The highest three levels are included in high order thinking. It means the top three of

cognitive processes in Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy are considered as higher order

thinking skills (analyzing, evaluating, and creating). This also means that the low order thinking occupies the three lowest levels of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Remembering, Understanding, and Applying). This Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

20

Daniel Muijs and David Reynolds, Effective teaching, second edition, (London: Sage publication, Ltd, 2005), p. 122

21

is often used in formulate the educational objective that we known as C1 until C6.22

C 1 - Remembering Categories &

Cognitive Processes

Alternative Names

Definition

Remember Retrieve knowledge from

long-term memory

Recognizing Identifying Locating knowledge in long-term memory that is consistent with presented material

Recalling Retrieving Retrieving relevant knowledge from long-term memory

C 2 - Understanding Categories &

Cognitive Processes

Alternative Names

Definition

Understand Construct meaning from

instructional messages, including oral, written, and graphic communication Interpreting Clarifying

Paraphrasing Representing Translating

Changing from one form of representation to another

Exemplifying Illustrating Instantiating

Finding a specific example or illustration of a concept or principle

Classifying Categorizing Determining that something

22

Retno Utari, Taxonomy Bloom: Apa dan Bagaimana Menggunakannya? (Widyaswara

Subsuming belongs to a category Summarizing Abstracting

Generalizing

Abstracting a general theme or major point(s)

Inferring Concluding

Extrapolating Interpolating Predicting

Drawing a logical conclusion from presented information

Comparing Contrasting Mapping Matching

Detecting correspondences between two ideas, objects, and the like

Explaining Constructing models

Constructing a cause and effect model of a system

C 3 – Applying

Categories & Cognitive Processes

Alternative Names

Definition

Apply Applying a procedure to a

familiar task

Executing Carrying out Applying a procedure to a familiar task

Implementing Using Applying a procedure to an unfamiliar task

C 4 – Analyzing

Analyze Break material into its

constituent parts and

determine how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose Differentiating Discriminating Distinguishing relevant from

Distinguishing Focusing Selecting

irrelevant parts or important from unimportant parts of presented material

Organizing Finding coherence Integrating

Outlining Parsing Structuring

Determining how elements fit or function within a structure

Attributing Deconstructing Determine a point of view, bias, values, or intent underlying presented material

C 5 – Evaluating

Evaluate Make judgments based on

criteria and standards

Checking Coordinating

Detecting Monitoring Testing

Detecting inconsistencies or fallacies within a process or product; determining whether a process or product has internal consistency; detecting the

effectiveness of a procedure as it is being implemented

Critiquing Judging Detecting inconsistencies between a product and external criteria; determining whether a product has external consistency; detecting the appropriateness of a procedure for a given problem

Categories & Cognitive Processes

Alternative Names

Definition

Creating Put elements together to form

a coherent or functional whole; reorganize elements into a new pattern or structure

Generating Hypothesizing Coming up with alternative hypotheses based on criteria Planning Designing Devising a procedure for

accomplishing some task Producing Constructing Inventing a product

Potential activities; instructional verbs and questioning stems that includes of each category are:

N o.

Cognitive

Dimension Instructional Verbs

23

Questioning Stems 1 Remembering Memorize

Relate Show Give example Reproduce Repeat Label Group Read Write Outline Group Choose Recite Review Record Match Select Underline Cite Listen

 What happened after...?  How many...?

 What is...?

 Who was it that...?  Name ...

 Find the definition of…

 Describe what happened

after…

 Who spoke to...?

 Which is true or false...?

2. Understanding Restate Describe • Explain why…

23

Denise Tarlinton, Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, Presented in Pupil Free Day, 2003,

Identify Discuss Retell Research Translate Give examples of Paraphrase Reorganize Associate Summarizes Report Recognize Review Observe Interpret Give main

idea

• Write in your own

words…

• How would you

explain…?

• Write a brief outline...

• What do you think could have happened next...?

• Who do you think...?

• What was the main idea...?

• Clarify… • Illustrate… 3 Applying Interpret

Make Practice Apply Operate Interview Discover Change Sequence Show Solve Collect Demon-strate Use Draw

• Explain another instance

where…

• Group by characteristics

such as…

• Which factors would you

change if…?

• What questions would you

ask of…?

• From the information given, develop a set of

instructions about…

4. Analyzing Distinguish Question Separate Inquire Arrange Compare Contrast Survey Detect Group

• Which events could not have happened?

• If ... happened, what might the ending have been?

Investigate Research Calculate Criticize Discrimi-nate Order Sequence Test Debate Analyse Diagram Relate Categorise

• How is...similar to...?

• What do you see as other possible outcomes?

• Why did...changes occur?

• Explain what must have happened when...

• What are some or the problems of...?

• Distinguish between...

• What were some of the motives behind..?

• What was the turning point?

• What was the problem with...?

5. Evaluating Judge Rate Predict Assess Score Revise Infer Determine Tell why Compare Evaluate Measure Choose Conclude Deduce Justify Recom-mend Discrimi-nate Appraise Probe Argue Decide Criticize

• Judge the value of...

• What do you think about...?

• Defend your position about...

• Do you think...is a good or bad thing?

• How would you have handled...?

• What changes to… would

you recommend?

• Do you believe...? How would you feel if...?

• How effective are...?

consequences...?

• What influence

will....have on our lives?

• What are the pros and cons of....?

• Why is....of value?

• What are the alternatives?

• Who will gain & who will lose?

6. Creating Compose Organize Compile Improve Invent Produce Construct Plan Prepare Develop Formulate

Imagine Generate Predict Devise Design Revise

• Design a...to...

• Devise a possible solution to...

• If you had access to all resources, how would you deal with...?

• Devise your own way to...

• What would happen if...?

• How many ways can you...?

• Create new and unusual uses for...

• Develop a proposal which would...

B. Thinking Theory

Workbook plays an important role to achieve teaching learning objective. It can help the student to improve student ability. Bloom taxonomy is a basis of developing educational objectives. Statements of educational objectives describe in a relatively specific manner what a student should be able to do or produce, or what a characteristics are that the student should posses. Bloom taxonomy levels

become the classification basis of question difficulty levels, from questions or activities that examine the student’s knowledge and ability. Thus, the exercises represented in the workbook should measure all levels of student thinking process. Because of its important, it needs to analyze or evaluate the workbook used. According to National Education Standard Agency (Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan/BSNP), the important aspect of workbook to be analyzed is the compatibility of student cognitive level. In this case the researcher do a study the

appropriateness of textbook “Can Do 2” with the cognitive domains of Revised

Bloom Taxonomy and to know the most dominant domain of the cognitive of Revised Bloom Taxonomy in the workbook.

C. Previous Study

There are three relevants studies that the researcher had read in order to help her writing this reaseach proposal. The first one is the study with the title “An Analysis on Reading Exercises in the second Grade SMU Textbooks Based on

Bloom’sTaxonomy of Cognitive Domain”, which is written by Siti Muslimah, a

student of English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Jakarta.24 This study focused to the reading exercises in the second grade SMU textbook in order to be classified based on cognitive Bloom Taxonomy. Textbooks that were analyzed are ‘Window on the World Book’ (book I) and

‘English for Senior high School Book’ (book II). The result of this study is comprehension is being the most dominant aspect in book 1 and knowledge is being the most dominant aspect in the book 2. It has implication for teacher and authors about the importance of designing exercises based on cognitive Bloom Taxonomy which touch the whole difficulty levels, not only the low levels but also the high levels.

24

Siti Muslimah, An Analysis on Reading Exercises in the Second Grade SMU Textbooks

Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Domain, English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Jakarta. 2002.

Second is the research entitled: ’A Content Analysis of the Reading and Listening Activities in the EFL Textbook of Master Class’.25 This study dealt with analysis of the textbook Master Class for 10th-grade students studying English at the 5-unit level. Content analysis was performed to determine to what extent the activities in the reading and listening units emphasizing high and low-level thinking. The study attempted to answer the following questions: 1. to what extent are the cognitive levels of the activities in the Mastering Reading and Mastering Listening sections of the textbook Master Class varied? 2. To what extent do the activities in the two sections of reading and listening of Master Class textbook lead students towards levels that demand higher thinking such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation? Content analysis was conducted for the Mastering Reading and Mastering Listening sections of each unit. The activities that were defined as units for analysis were Wh-questions, Yes/No questions, Multiple Choice questions, Complete the sentence, and statement and request questions. The activities were collected, listed, and analyzed according to Bloom's Taxonomy: low order thinking skills: knowledge, comprehension, and application, and high order thinking skills: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. The researchers then calculated the percentage and frequencies in which each level of cognition appeared for each separate unit and for all six units combined. The results indicated that the research tools used by the two researchers were valid and reliable. The results showed that 114 activities emphasized levels of cognition representing lower order thinking skills, while only 59 activities emphasized the three higher order thinking skills. The activities in the Master Class textbook place a great deal of emphasis upon comprehension, which is one of the lower order thinking skills.

The third is ‘Evaluation of Learning Objectives in Iranian High-School and Pre-University English Textbooks Using Bloom’s Taxonomy’.26 This paper

25_{Ibtihal Assaly, Abdul Kareem Igbaria. ‘A Content Analysis of the Reading and Listening} Activities in the EFL Textbook of Master Class,’ Education Journal. Vol. 3, No. 2, 2014, pp. 24-38. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20140302.11

26

A. Mehdi Riazi and Narjes Mosalanejad, The Electronic Journal for English as a Second

reports a study that investigated the types of learning objectives represented in Iranian senior high school and pre-university English textbooks using Bloom’s taxonomy of learning objectives. Three high-school textbooks and the sole pre-university textbook were included in the analysis. To codify the learning objectives, a coding scheme was developed based on Bloom’s taxonomy of learning objectives. The exercises and tasks of the textbooks were codified and the frequencies and percentages of occurrence of different learning objectives were calculated. Results of the study indicate that in all grades lower-order cognitive skills were more prevalent than higher order ones. Furthermore, the difference between the senior high school and the pre-university textbooks in terms of the levels of the taxonomy were significant insofar as the pre-university textbook used some degrees of higher-order learning objectives. Results of this study have implications both for teaching and materials development.

Based on the previous studies, this skripsi is intended to do the research focused on analysis of the English workbook that used for student at SMP/MTs. It analyze by using Revised Bloom Taxonomy. Therefore, the title is Analysis of English Workbook for SMP/MTs by Using Revised Bloom Taxonomy.

research design, time of the study, description of the data, instruments, and technique of data analysis.

A. Method and Research Design

This research method is qualitative, used the descriptive analytical study which describe and elaborate the data followed by analyzing. Researcher used content analysis as the tools. This means that this study analyzes the English workbook, Can Do 2, by using cognitive domain levels of Revised Bloom Taxonomy.

The workbook were analyzed according to cognitive level of Revised

Bloom’s Taxonomy table in order to know which level they comprise:

remembering (C1), understanding (C2), applying (C3), analyzing (C4), evaluating (C5), or creating (C6). It will be found out the cognitive level of Revised Bloom Taxonomy that is applied most dominantly, less dominantly, and least dominantly in the English book.

B. Time of the Study

This research was conducted in May 2014, without being determined the exact place.

C. Description of the Data

Data used in this study was the document of English workbook for 10th grade of Junior High School (SMP/MTs). This research is focused on analyzing the English Workbook, “Can Do: 2 practice book”, which is published in Indonesia by PT. Asta Ilmu Sukses. Since originally this book was published by Richmond Publishing. Richmond Publishing is an English Language Teaching publisher with publishing centers and companies across the world. It is the publisher company

that committed to the development of high quality materials in student and teacher-friendly formats and the provision of additional educational services relevant to the local needs.1 So, this workbook has customized to Indonesian’s needs, alignment with UN, and exam practices.

Richmond and Asta's joint launch of the secondary course “Can Do” in Indonesia at 18 February 2012, have three level course for teenagers. They are

“Can Do 1”, “Can Do 2”, and “Can Do 3”. It integrates the specifications of the CEF and giving student’s confidence by showing them what they can do in English.2

This book is written by Michael Downie, David Gray, and Juan Manuel Jimenez. Can Do has been supervised by Paul Seligson, a highly prestigious ELT teacher trainer and author of various series. It has been carefully developed to balance the four skills whilst also providing thorough treatment of grammar and vocabulary to achieve communicative competency. This book is contained with 14 units, 3 dossiers and 3 stories for evaluation, in 104 pages.

Table 3.1 Unit and Topic in the workbook Can Do 2 Unit Topic

1 You and Me 2 Boys and Girls

My Dossier 1 3 Good Company 4 London Diaries 5 Film Fan

Story 1 6 A Tall Story 7 A Bright Future

My Dossier 2 8 Play safe

1

http://www.richmondelt.com/about-us 2

9 Good Friends 10 Sweet Dreams

Story 2 11 Opinions 12 Don’t Litter

My Dossier 3 13 Last Minute 14 The Concert

Story 3

Can Do _{integrates the specifications of The Common European}

Framework of Reference for Languages into a fresh new approach to teaching

English to teenagers. Can Do _offers:

1. Clear and explicit teaching and learning goals at every stage

2. An action-oriented approach that engages students in fun, effective learning 3. Stimulating evaluation tasks that allow teachers and students to monitor

progress continuously

4. 70 photocopiable worksheets, giving teachers the opportunity to provide specific reinforcement or extension work as needed

5. Dossiers and Language Passports that encourage creative use of language

and student self-evaluation

A complete set of tests for each level with term and final tests in the format of the Cambridge KET (Key English Test) and PET (Preliminary English Test) examination3

D. Technique of Collecting Data

This study is analyzed each unit activity in the Can Do 2, with defined as any one of the following: a question or instructional activity. It used data analysis

3

table to categorizing the activity according the cognitive level of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Table 3.2 Data Analysis Table of Cognitive Dimension of Revised Bloom Taxonomy

No.

Activities (Instructional Verbs or Questioning

Stems)

Cognitive Level

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

The number

of the test item

Instructional verbs or questioning stems stated on the

workbook.

The appropriate cognitive level of the instructional item based on Revised

Bloom’s Taxonomy

E. Technique of Data Analysis

The points of data analysis techniques are given in the followings below: 1. To read the instructional item or questioning stems used.

2. To group the instructional items/ questioning stems according to cognitive level of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy in order to know which level they cover: remembering (C1), understanding (C2), applying (C3), analyzing (C4), evaluating (C5), or creating (C6). The data were analyzed per unit or topic. 3. To count the number of the instructional items/questioning stems included in

each category.

The classification of instructional items of the workbook according to cognitive domain was employing some instrument in the form of illustrative verbs and sample phrase drafts, and data analysis table. The results of this study are shown in the table 4.1 which shows the level of the activity, the frequency, and the percentage in the six levels of the cognitive dimensions in each of the nineteen units of the workbook Can Do 2.

Table 4.1 Frequencies and Percentages of the Activities

in the Six Levels of the Cognitive Dimensions in the Workbook Can Do 2

No Unit (Theme)

Cognitive Dimensions

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

1.

Unit 1: You and Me 12 42.9 %

8 28.6 %

7 25 %

1 3.6 %

- -

2. Unit 2: Boys and Girls 14 58.3% 6 26.1 % 3 12.5 % - - -

3. My Dossier 1 4

80 %

- 1

20 %

- - -

4. Unit 3: Good Company 4 18.2 % 7 31.8 % 9 40.9 % 2 9 % - -

5. Unit 4: London Diaries 10 33.3 % 13 43.3 % 6 20 % 1 3.3 % - -

6. Unit 5: Film Fan 16 53.3 % 5 16.7 % 7 23.3 % 2 6.7 % - -

7. Story 1: The Lost Pyramid - 1 16.7 %

5 83.3 %

8. Unit 6: A Tall Story 1 4.5 % 8 36.4 % 13 59.1 % - - -

9. Unit 7: A Bright Future 6 31.6 % 6 31.6 % 7 36.8 % - - -

10 My Dossier 2 18

85.7 % 3 14,3 %

- - - -

11 Unit 8: Play Safe 2 8 % 14 56 % 7 28 % 2 8 % - -

12 Unit 9: Good Friends 2 10.5 % 9 47.4 % 6 31.6 % 2 10.5 % - -

13 Unit 10: Sweet Dreams 7 28 % 6 24 % 12 48 % - - -

14 Story 2: Rock n Roll: Never Die 4 40 % 3 30 % 2 20 % 1 10 % - -

15 Unit 11: Opinions 5 21.7 % 8 34.8 % 10 43.5 % - - -

16 Unit 12: Don’t Litter 4 22.2 % 9 50 % 4 22.2 % 1 5.6 % - -

17 My Dossier 3: You and Your Environment Project

1 20 %

3 60 %

- - - 1

20 % 18 Unit 13: Last Minute 12

40 % 11 36.7 % 7 23.3 % - - -

19 Unit 14: The Concert 3 14.3 % 7 33.3 % 6 28.6 % 4 19 % 1 4.8% -

20 Story 3: Hope Mountains 7 53.8 % 3 23.1 % 2 15.4 % 1 7.7 % - -

Total = 395 132 130 114 17 1 1

Percentage = 100% 33.4

% 33 % 28.9 % 4.3 % 0.2 % 0.2 %

C1: Remembering C3: Applying C5: Evaluating

C2: Understanding C4: Analyzing C6: Creating

The data were analyzed per unit. This study covers 14 unit, 3 my dossier, and 3 story. There are 395 activities analyzed. The activities spread over 132 (33.4 %) remembering, 131 (33.2 %) understanding, 114 (28.9 %) applying, 17 (4.3 %) analyzing, 1 (0.25 %) evaluating, and 1(0.25 %) creating.

Table 4.1 indicates the Workbook Can Do 2 do not distribute the activity into complete cognitive level in each unit. There is a dominant dimension activity of the cognitive of the Revised Bloom Taxonomy in each unit in the workbook Can Do 2.

This finding implies that the number of activities that call for the cognitive level of remembering is the highest aspect in this workbook with percentage 33.4 %. The frequency of remembering is 132 of 395 activities. The activities that work on the cognitive level of understanding rank second with percentage 33 % and the frequency is 130 0f 395 activities. This level is one step beyond the simple remembering of material. The third most frequency is applying with 114 activities or 28.9 %.

And the lowest number cognitive aspect in this workbook are evaluating and creating. They have same frequencies and percentage that only have 1 of 382 activities with percentages 0.25 %. There is no evaluating activity except in the unit 14. And the creating activity is only in my dossier 3. Whereas the analyzing is more, there are 17 activities with percentage 4.3 %.

The following explanations are the analysis of workbook Can Do 2 in each unit as demonstrated in appendix 1.

Unit 1: You and Me

Unit 1 with the theme ‘You and Me’ has 28 activities. 12 activities are included of remembering, 6 activities are included of understanding, 8 activities are included of applying, and 2 activities are included of analyzing. The analyses are:

1. The activities of number 7, 8, 9, 10 a, 10 b, 10 c, 10 d, 10 e, 14, 15, 16, and 23 are included to remembering level.

2. The activities of number 3, 6, 7, 17, 21, and 22 are included to understanding level.

3. The activities of number 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 15, 19, and 20 are included to applying level.

4. The activities of number 11 and 12 are included to analyzing level.

Unit 2: Boys and Girls

Unit 2 has 23 activities. The most dominant level is remembering which number are15 activities. 6 activities in unit 2 are included of understanding and 2 activities are included of applying. The analyses are:

1. The activities of number 11 and 12 are included to analyzing level. 2. The activities of number 11 and 12 are included to analyzing level. 3. The activities of number 11 and 12 are included to analyzing level.

My Dossier 1

My dossier 1 has 5 activities. 4 activities are presented at remembering level and 1 activity are presented at applying level. The analyses are:

1. The activities of number 1, 2, 3, and 4 are included to remembering level. 2. The activity of number 5 is included to applying level.

Unit 3: Good Company

Unit 3 has 22 activities. 4 activities are included of remembering, 9 activities are included of understanding, 7 activities are included of applying, and 2 activities are included of analyzing. The analyses are:

1. The activities of number 3, 10, 15, and 21 are included to remembering level. 2. The activities of number 5, 6, 11, 16, 17, 18, 2, and 23 are included to

understanding level.

4. The activities of number 12, 19, and 22 are included to analyzing level.

Unit 4: London Diaries

Unit 4 has 30 activities. 10 activities are included of remembering, 14 activities are included of understanding, 5 activities are included of applying, and 1 activity is included of analyzing. The analyses are:

1. The activities of number 2, 6, 10d, 10e, 10h, and 10i are included to remembering level.

2. The activities of number 1, 3, 7, 10a, 10b, 10c, 10f, 10g, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, and 22 are included to understanding level.

3. The activities of number 4, 5, 8, 12 and 23 are included to applying level. 4. The activity of number 9 is included to analyzing level.

Unit 5: Film Fan

Unit 5 has 30 activities. 16 activities are included of remembering, 5 activities are included of understanding, 7 activities are included of applying, and 2 activities are included of analyzing. The analyses are:

1. The activities of number 1, 5, 7, 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, 11f, 13, 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d are included to remembering level.

2. The activities of number 2, 3, 8, 14, and 16 are included to understanding level. 3. The activities of number 4, 9, 12, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are included to applying

level.

4. The activities of number 6 and 10 are included to analyzing level.

Story 1: The Lost Pyramid

Story 1 has 6 activities. 1 activity is included of understanding and 5 activities are included of applying. The analyses are:

1. The activity of number 5 is included to understanding level.

Unit 6: A Tall Story

Unit 6 has 22 activities. 1 activity is included of remembering, 8 activities are included of understanding, and 13 activities are included of applying. The analyses are:

1. The activity of number 12 is included to remembering level.

2. The activities of number 3, 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 20 are included to understanding level.

3. The activities of number 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, 21 and 22 are included to applying level.

Unit 7: A Bright Future

Unit 7 has 19 activities. 6 activities are included of remembering, 6 activities are included of understanding, and 7 activities are included of applying. The analyses are: 1. The activities of number 5, 6, 13, 15, 16, and 19 are included to remembering

level.

2. The activities of number 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 are included to understanding level.

3. The activities of number 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 14 are included to applying level.

My Dossier 2

My dossier 2 has 21 activities. 18 activities are included of remembering, 3 activities are included of understanding. The analyses are:

1. The activities of number 1, 2, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e, 7f, 7g, 7h, are included to applying level.

Unit 8: Play Safe

Unit 8 has 25 activities. 2 activities are included of remembering, 14 activities are included of understanding, 7 activities are included of applying, and 2 activities are included of analyzing. The analyses are:

1. The activities of number 1and 3 are included to remembering level.

2. The activities of number 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, and 25 are included to understanding level.

3. The activities of number 9, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 24 are included to applying level.

4. The activities of number 10 and 15 are included to analyzing level.

Unit 9: Good Friends

Unit 9 has 19 activities. 2 activities are included of remembering, 9 activities are included of understanding, 6 activities are included of applying, and 2 activities are included of analyzing. The analyses are:

1. The activities of number 4 and 10 are included to remembering level.

2. The activities of number 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, and 18 are included to understanding level.

3. The activities of number 3, 7, 14, 15, 16, and 19 are included to applying level. 4. The activities of number 8 and 14 are included to analyzing level.

Unit 10: Sweet Dreams

Unit 10 has 21 activities. 3 activities are included of remembering, 6 activities are included of understanding, and 12 activities are included of applying. The analyses are:

1. The activities of number 1, 11, and 12 are included to remembering level.

2. The activities of number 2, 5, 10, 16, 18, and 21 are included to understanding level.

3. The activities of number 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are included to applying level.

Story 2: Rock n Roll: Never Die

Story 2 has 7 activities. 4 activities are included of understanding, 2 activities are included of applying, and 1 activity is included of analyzing. The analyses are:

1. The activities of number 1, 4, 5, and 7 are included to understanding level. 2. The activities of number 2 and 6 are included to applying level.

3. The activity of number 3 is included to analyzing level.

Unit 11: Opinions

Unit 11 has 23 activities. 5 activities are included of remembering, 8 activities are included of understanding, and 10 activities are included of applying. The analyses are:

1. The activities of number 7, 8, 18, 22, and 23 are included to remembering level. 2. The activities of number 1, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 16, and 17 are included to

understanding level.

3. The activities of number 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, and 21 are included to applying level.

Unit 12: Don’t Litter

Unit 12 has 18 activities. 4 activities are included of remembering, 9 activities are included of understanding, 4 activities are included of applying, and 1 activity is included of analyzing. The analyses are:

1. The activities of number 6, 9, 10, and 15 are included to remembering level. 2. The activities of number 1, 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18 are included to

understanding level.

3. The activities of number 7, 8, 11, and 17 are included to applying level. 4. The activity of number 4 is included to analyzing level.

My Dossier 3: You and Your Environment Project

My dossier 3 has 5 activities. 1 activity is included of remembering, 3 activities are included of understanding, and 1 activity is included of creating. The analyses are:

1. The activity of number 3 is included to remembering level.

2. The activities of number 1, 2, and 4 are included to understanding level. 3. The activity of number 5 is included to creating level.

Unit 13: Last Minute

Unit 13 has 30 activities. 12 activities are included of remembering, 11 activities are included of understanding, and 7 activities are included of applying. The analyses are:

1. The activities of number 3, 8, 11 a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, 11f, 11g, 11h, 15, and 23 are included to remembering level.

2. The activities of number 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 22 are included to understanding level.

3. The activities of number 1, 4, 7, 9, 19, 20, and 21 are included to applying level.

Unit 14: The Concert

Unit 14 has 21 activities. 12 activities are included of remembering, 6 activities are included of understanding, 8 activities are included of applying, and 2 activities are included of analyzing. The analyses are:

1. The activities of number 11a, 11b, and 12 are included to remembering level. 2. The activities of number 2, 3, 4, 10, 13, 14, and 15 are included to understanding

level.

3. The activities of number 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 17 are included to applying level. 4. The activities of number 9, 18, 19, and 20 are included to analyzing level. 5. The activity of number 16 is included to analyzing level.

Story 3: Hope Mountains

Story 3 has 7 activities. 1 activity is included of remembering, 3 activities are included of understanding, 2 activities are included of applying, and 1 activities are included of analyzing. The analyses are:

2. The activities of number 1, 2, and 6 are included to understanding level. 3. The activities of number 3 and 7 are included to applying level.

4. The activity of number 5 is included to analyzing level.

It concludes as the following table that demonstrates the frequencies and percentage the distribution of the cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom taxonomy.

Table 3. Cognitive Dimension Distribution in the Workbook Can Do 2

No. Cognitive Dimension Level Frequencies Percentage

1.

Low Or

de

r

Thinki

ng

Remembering 132 33.2 %

2 Understanding 130 33.2 %

3. Applying 114 28.9 %

4.

High Or

de

r

Thinki

ng

Analyzing 17 4.3 %

5. Evaluating 1 0.25 %

6. Creating 1 0.25 %

Total 395 100%

As mentioned in chapter II, understanding, remembering, and applying are included to three low order thinking. And the total number of activities that relate to low order thinking reach to 94.94 % with the frequency 375 of 395 activities. Evaluating, creating, and analyzing that include the high order thinking are only having 5.06 % or 20 activities out of to 395.

B. DISCUSSION

Based on the data analysis toward workbook Can Do 2, there is a tendency that the most dominant dimensions of the cognitive of Revised Bloom Taxonomy in the workbook is remembering. It means recalling previously taught material is dominant in teaching learning process in this workbook. It can be seen from the analysis result table that has shown 132 activities of 395 activities are remembering. It appeared most frequently, 33.4 % activities.

Understanding level occupies the second position after remembering. 130 of 395 activities or 33 % are included to remembering. It showed that there are 33 % activities supposed the student to grasp the meaning of material, translate the material, and interpret the material form one form to another. This is the lowest level of the material comprehension of the student.

There are 114 activities that included to applying in the workbook Can Do 2. It means 28.9 % activities supposed student to use and implement their knowledge in familiar task, to apply their knowledge in appropriate situations, and to execute the theories.

Whereas there are only few activities that relate to analyzing level, it is only 17 of 395 with percentage 4.3 %. Its total number is underneath applying. Cognitive dimensions that are not frequently found are evaluating with one activity and creating with one activity. They are the lowest number of cognitive aspect in the workbook Can Do 2 with percentage 0.25 % in each. Although these levels implemented in this book, the amount of them is not sufficient. The limited numbers of the three aspects; analyzing, evaluating, and creating, show the uneven activities distribution into complete cognitive aspects. They are varied in each unit.

The result implies that the author of Can Do 2 placed emphasis on the lower thinking process that the most total number is remembering aspect. This number is contradicting with the high order thinking. There are so few high orders thinking in this workbook Can Do 2. It is not give student to develop their thinking skill.

As demonstrated of the data, the workbook of Can Do 2 does not appropriate

with the cognitive dimension theory of Bloom Taxonomy. It didn’t cover the entire cognitive dimension, especially in the three high order thinking, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. They are only 5.6 % activities.

result and some suggestions for students and teachers, the publishers, and workbooks’ authors.

A. CONCLUSION

Workbook plays an important role in teaching learning process. It greatly influences the learning outcome of students. This study attempted to discover the appropriateness of workbook Can Do 2 with the cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom Taxonomy and the dominant aspect of the cognitive of revised bloom taxonomy. The activities that were defined as units for analysis were instructional verbs and questioning stem. They are collected, listed, and analyzed according to

cognitive dimensions of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Based on the data analysis, the conclusion of this study is the workbook does not appropriate with Revised Bloom Taxonomy. It did not cover the entire cognitive dimension of the Revised Bloom Taxonomy in each unit. It shows there are uneven activities distributions in the six level of cognitive dimension. The amount of them is not sufficient.

Regarding the cognitive dimensions in the workbook, the author of Can Do 2 placed emphasis on the lower thinking processes of remembering. However the total number of remembering is not too different with understanding and applying. They are being spread evenly in each dimension level. Especially in applying, it has great quantities activities which reach 29 % from entire activities. It means the authors have given more attention to understanding and applying too, although they are underneath remembering.

Due to this reason, this book is proper for the student in the 8th grade. It is sufficient to achieve the goals of the teaching and learning process in this grade, that student could be applying, using, and implementing the knowledge. On the other

hand, it is a basic of the knowledge. It should be increased the number of the activities that deal with higher thinking process. It will give the students opportunities to interact effectively in a variety of situations.

B. SUGGESTION

After doing this research, the writer would like to offer some suggestions:

1. For the school, it will be better for the school to give more attention to the content compatibility of the cognitive levels of the workbook. It is need to be selective in choosing the appropriate workbook that can develop student’s competence.

2. Through this research, teachers can see which cognitive dimension that has appropriate and which cognitive dimension that should improved with compatible activities. Teachers have to revise the existing exercises for supplementing the insufficient aspect.

3. For the students, it will lead them more directly to rote learning. They have learn to apply their knowledge in their daily life, not only remembering the lessons, but also can create something new to make it useful for many people.

4. It also encourages for the readers to not accustom to superficial learning and thinking, but it can concern with the more complex thinking to develop immediately their ability.

REFERENCES

Airasian, Peter W. Classroom Assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008

Allington, Richard. Michael Strange, Learning Through Reading in the Content Areas. Lexington: Dc. Heath and Company. 1980.

Amer, Aly. Reflections on Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy: Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology. No 8, Vol 4 (1), 2006.

Antenos-Conforti, Enza., Nuessel, Frank. The Workbook in Elementary Italian, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Spring, American Association of Teachers of Italian, 2007).

Assaly, Ibtihal., Abdul Kareem Igbaria. A Content Analysis of the Reading and Listening Activities in the EFL Textbook of Master Class. Education Journal. Vol. 3, No. 2, 2014, pp. 24-38. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20140302.11

Nitko, Anthony J and Susan M. Brookhart. Educational Assesment of Student. Boston. 2011.

Bachman ,Lyle. Interfaces Between Second Language Acquasition and Language testing research. New York, 1998.

Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Islam Depag R. UU dan Peraturan Pemerintah RI tentang Pendidikan. Jakarta, 2006.

Douglas, Paul. Teacher’s Perception on The Learning Difficulties and Development of English Language Skills Among High School Students: Influence of Classroom Teaching and Workbooks. (Http://Www.Aiaer.Net/Ejournal/Vol20108/12.Htm)

Duc, Nguyen Chi. Using Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy to Design In-Class Reading Questions for Intermediate Students in The Context of Vietnam. VNU Journal of Science, Foreign Languages 24. p.175-183, 2008.

Eisner, Elliot W. Profiles of Famous Education: Benjamin Bloom 1913 – 1999, Prospects, vol. XXX, no. 3, September 2000.

Fagan, Edward R. Textbook and the Teaching English, The English Journal vol 9 No. 5, 1980.

Fraenkel, Jack R and Norman E. Wallen. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2007.

Genesee, Fred and John A. Upshur. Classroom-Based Evaluation in Second Language Education. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Kerr, Margaret. Teaching with Workbooks. The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Dec., 1947).

Krathwohl, David. Theory into Practise, vol.41 number 4 Auntumn, 2002.

Muijs, Daniel and David Reynolds, Effective Teaching, Second Edition. London: Sage publication Ltd. 2005.

Musiall, Diann. Foundations of Meaningful Educational Assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.

Nitko, Anthony J. Educational Assessment of Student. Boston: Pearson Education, 2011.

Osborn, Jean et.al., Reading Education: Foundation for a Literate America. Lexington: Dc. Heath and Company. 1985.

Peter W. Airasian. Classroom Assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2008.

Pugh, David G. Writing Workbooks: Teaching Tragedies? College Composition and Communication. Vol. 15, No. 3 (Oct., 1964).

Rafikah, Nurul. Test of Literature Course and Their Relevance with Revised Taxonomy Bloom. Jakarta: Universitas Negeri Jakarta, 2011.

Retno Utari, Bloom Taxonomy: Apa dan Bagaimana Menggunakannya? Widyawara Pusdiklat KNPK.

Riazi, A. Mehdi and Narjes Mosalanejad. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, March 2010 – Volume 13, Number 4.

Senguin, Roger. The Elaboration of the School Textbooks, (UNESCO, 1989). Swan, Michael. ‘The Textbook”: Bridge Wall?”, in Roger Browers and Christoper

Brumfit (eds.), Applied Linguistics and English Language Teaching. London: Mc Millan Publishers Limited. 1994.

Tarlinton, Denise. “Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy”, Presented in Pupil Free Day,

Monday,14 July, 2003,

(www.qacps.schoolwires.net/cms/lib02/MD01001006/Centricity/Domain/521/ BloomsPres.ppt). 13 February 2013

Walcot, Fred G. Problems of the Workbook. The English Journal, Vol. 22, No. 7 (Sep, 1933)

www.richmondelt.com/about-us. 20, 4 January 2014.

www.richmondelt.com/international/events /indonesialaunch, 4 January 2014. www.richmondelt.com/spain/english/catalogue/secondary/can_do.htm, 4 January

Appendix 1: Frequencies and Percentage of the Activities in the Six levels of the

Cognitive Dimensions in Bloom’s Taxonomy in the Workbook ‘Can Do 2’ in

each units

Unit 1: You and Me

No Activities (Instructional Items

or Questioning Stems)

Cognitive Level

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

1. Complete the sentences. V

2. Read the email and complete the dialog

V

3. Classify with the words in the snake

V

4. Write the question and complete the form.

V

5. Complete the dialogue V

6. Identify the free time activities V 7. Write the questions and answers. V 8. Complete with yes or no. Then

writes sentences.

V

9. Read and complete the chart. V 10. Answer the question.

a. Where’s Helena From? b. How old is Katsuo

c. Does Helena like heavy metal? d. Does Donna like animals? e. What does Helena love?

V V V V V 11 Who is the best keypal for

Donna? Why?

Unit 14: The Concert

No Instructional Items (Illustrative Verbs or Phrases)

Cognitive Dimension

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

1. Put the verbs in the past simple. V 2. Look at 1 and classify the verbs. V

3. Correct the sentences. V

4. Tick the questions that you can answer. Then put them in order.

V

5. Embarrassing moments. Complete the sentences using when or while.

V

6. Complete the gaps with the verbs in brackets.

V

7. What do you think? V

8. Complete the sentences in a suitable way.

V

9. Unscramble the clauses. V

10. Match the clauses in 4 to make conditional sentences.

V

11 Read the texts below quickly. a. Which give a positive

opinion of the CD? b. Which give a negative

one?

V

V

12 Read the text again. Are these statements true or false?

V

13 Find the words in the texts and match them with their definitions.

14 Listen and mark the statements true or false.

V

15 What kind of music do you like? Why do you like it? What is your favorite song?

v

16 Write a review of a CD you have listened to recently.

V

17 Complete the text with the verbs in the past simple.

V

18 Correct the mistakes. V

19 Unscramble the questions and answer them about you.

V

20 Underline the correct verb form. V

Total = 21 3 7 6 4 1 -

Story 3: Hope Mountains

No Instructional Items (Illustrative Verbs or Phrases)

Cognitive Dimension

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

1. Match the phrases to form complete sentences.

V

2. Lisa is talking about their trip. Label the girl’s route on the map.

V

3. Do you remember her Grandad’s

advice?

Correct the statements using must and mustn’t.

V

4. Read the story in the student’s book and answer the questions.

a.What did the girls hear when they were walking up the slope? b.What did they see on the

ground?

c.What did they see from the top of the slope?

d.Who did they see? e.What was he holding? f. What did he do?

g.How did the girls escape?

V

V

V

V V V V 5. Unscramble the words in brackets

and complete the text.

V

6. Match the verbs in 5 to the pictures.

V

7. Write the story for to newspaper headlines.

V

Total = 13 7 3 2 1 - -

Appendix 4: Researcher Profile

Name : Nana Pratiwi Place and Date of Birth : Solok, 29 Juni 1991

Permanent Address : Gelanggang Tinggi, Kinari, Kec Bukit Sundi, Kab. Solok, Sumatera Barat

Nationality : Indonesian

Religion : Muslim

Sex : Female

Ideal : English Teacher and Volunteer of Education and Social