CONTENT ANALYSIS OF COGNITIVE DOMAIN IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEXTBOOK
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53682/eclue.v10i1.4447Keywords:
Cognitive Domain, Wh Questions, Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, Textbook.Abstract
The purpose of this study is to determine the types of cognitive domain, in Senior High School English Textbook uses Wh questions based on Revised Bloom's Taxonomy, as well as the distribution of higher and lower order thinking skills in Wh questions. The descriptive qualitative method uses to perform this investigation. The data of this research are Wh questions in Buku Guru Bahasa Inggris for grade 10th Senior High School with 2013 Curiculum published by Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, After examining the data, the findings of this study reveal that the Wh questions in the textbook did not cover all of the cognitive domains: (C1) 66.66%, (C2) 33.33%, (C3), (C4), (C5) and (C6) 0%. The distribution of low-order thinking, Remembering (C1) 28 questions and understanding (C2) 14 questions, include 42 questions 100%. There are no issues in the distribution of high-order thinking skill such as analyzing, evaluating, and creating (0%). It finds that the ditribution of high and low thinking skills in Wh questions in Buku Guru Bahasa Inggris for grade 10th Senior High School is unbalance.
References
Alexander, M. E., Commander, N., Greenberg, D., & Ward, T. (2010). Using the four-questions technique to enhance critical thinking in online discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 409-415.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., &Razavieh, A. (2010).Introduction to research in education 8th edition. Canada: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Arikunto, S. (2019). Prosedur penelitian suatu pendekatan praktik. Gramedia.
Igbaria, A. K. (2013). A Content Analysis of the WH-Questions in the EFL Textbook of" Horizons". International Education Studies, 6(7), 200-224.
Kamagi, S., Oroh, E. Z., Rantung, R., Wowor, D. J.(2018). A Study on Verbal Phrases in Tagulandang Dialect of Sangirese. 1st International Conference on Social Sciences ICSS 2018. Vol. 226. P. 847-849.https//doi.org/10.299/icss-18.2018.174.
Karisi, Y., Pelenkahu, N., & Maru, M. G. (2021). Students’perception of The Use of Youtube In Translation Class. SoCul: International Journal of Research in Social Cultural Issues, 1(2), 126-138.
Lalogiroth, A., & Tatipang, D. P. (2020). An Analysis of English National Exam and English Teachers’ perception Using Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Journal of English Culture, Language, Literature and Education, 8(1), 1-19.
Lengkoan, F., Rombepajung, P., Hampp, P., & Andries, F. (2019). The Application of Special Self-Made Word Card for Vocabulary Teaching Particularly Irregular Verbs. International Conference on Social Science 2019 (ICSS 2019), 17-18 October 2019., Surabaya.
Lengkoan, F., & Rombepajung, P. (2022). Teachers’ Perception of Online Learning in The Pandemic Era. Jurnal Lingua Idea, 13(1).
Liando, N. (2009). Success in learning English as a foreign language. Litera, 8(2).
Liando, N., & Tatipang, D. (2022). English or Indonesian Language? Parents’ Perception Toward Children Second Language Learning Context. Jurnal Lingua Idea, 13(1). doi:10.20884/1.jli.2022.13.1.5749.
Orey, M. (2010). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and technology (pp. 56-61). North Charleston: CreateSpace.
Paranduk, R., Rombepajung, P., & Karisi, Y. (2021). Enhancing Students’ Speaking Skill in Facing the Revolution Era 4.0. Journal of English Culture, Language, Literature and Education, 9(2), 103-116.
Rombepajung, P. (2019). Use of Jigsaw Model in Improving Reading Understanding in FBS UNIMA English Student. JELLT.Vol.4. P. 35-42. DOI: 10.36412/jellt.v4il.941.
Thorndahl, K. L., & Stentoft, D. (2020). Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking and Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: A Scoping Review. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 14(1), n1.
Ur, P. (2009). A course in Language Teaching: Practice of theory. (M. Williams & T. Wright, Eds.).
Submission Guidelines
