Global Journal of Human Social Science, G: Linguistics and Education, Volume 22 Issue 9

© 2022 Global Journals Volume XXII Issue IX Version I 9 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2022 G The Status and the Specifications of the Questions of an Achievement Exam from the Points of View of the Teaching Staff- Members of Palestine Technical University- Kadoorie (PTUK)\Tulkarm-Campus indicates that "Knowledge is probably the most common level tested in higher education because instructors can simply use a textbook to determine what "knowledge" students must learn and create exams targeted to a textbooks' contents. "Chandio, Pandhiani & Iqbal, (2016) explain that all" The questions asked in these papers are classified and analyzed from the vintage point of Bloom’s Taxonomy to determine whether the present assessment system focuses on the lower degrees of learning like remembering, understanding, applying or it transcends to the higher degrees such as analyzing, evaluating and creating." Chandio, Pandhiani & Iqbal, (2016) further explain that "It can be concluded that Pakistan’s secondary boards need a paradigm shift where there is a dire need of expert and experienced examiners to induct more questions catering to the higher order thinking skills of Bloom’s Taxonomy while setting examination papers. Also, more time should be given to the examiners and it should be made sure that the questions are not repeated. "Köksal & Ulum (2018) conclude that "the analyzed exam papers lacked the higher level cognitive skills contained in Bloom’s Taxonomy." Köksal & Ulum (2018) also assert that "the exam questions include only knowledge and comprehension levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. That's to say, according to Table 1, the exam questions are based on the lower order cognition levels of Bloom’s taxonomy while they lack the higher order cognition levels. The percentage of knowledge level contained in the exam questions is 81.7% while it is 18.3% for the comprehension level." Lawson (1990, as cited in Lord & Baviskar, 2007), concludes that "thinking comes together as a continuum in the upper segments of Bloom's levels." Lawson (1990, as cited in Lord & Baviskar, 2007) further explains that "in bright individuals, analysis often serves to order and structure a problem. After this, synthesis is employed to generate solutions, and evaluation assesses the suggested solutions against the objectives identified in the analysis phase. "Jayakodi, Bandara, Perera & Meedeniya (2016) elaborate that" Developing questions based on Bloom's hierarchy would be a productive way of ensuring the expected quality of student learning achievement. "Anees, S. (2017: 10), concluded that " question was prepared without considering the cognitive levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy which directly affect students’ performance. Anees (2017) further explains that "teachers should use different software to find out their levels of questions after making question papers, to make a balanced question paper which evaluate the whole performance of students and contain on all cognitive levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. "Azar (1998, as cited in Ali, 2005), concludes that "the teachers in secondary schools don’t have experience of asking questions by considering the Bloom’s Taxonomy." Ali (2005) accordingly adds that "teachers should have taken courses on measuring and assessing students’ achievement by considering the cognitive levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy." Ali (2005) also elaborates that "student teachers at education faculties should also take courses about what Bloom’s Taxonomy is and how they should consider it while preparing exam questions." To sum up, the above mentioned review acknowledged the prevalence, centrality, reliability, and dependability of Bloom's Taxonomy (1956) to calibrate the questions of an achievement exam; the cognitive domains of this taxonomy suit the varying levels of learners as each domain is subdivided into specific indicative behavioral verbs; the previous review stated that even those alternative models and taxonomies, which have been developed in the field, were referenced, in one way or another, to Bloom's taxonomy. The previous review proposed that exam questions, whenever prepared and written in accordance with Bloom's Taxonomy, they can lead to credibility, reliability, and validity in the learners' responses. The above mentioned review professedly revealed that teachers, generally, don't have enough experience in exploiting Bloom's Taxonomy when they usually prepare and write an educational exam questions; the mentioned review above also revealed that the domain of "knowledge", which represents the lowest cognitive level within Bloom's taxonomy, is the mostly referenced by teachers and educators when writing and preparing exam questions. As a result, the bulk of the previous review confirmed the need for training courses and workshops on how to make use of Bloom's Taxonomy when writing formidable, effective, valid, and reliable educational questions for a given achievement exam. c) The Specifications of questions of an achievement exam Smith, Brown & Race (1996, as cited in Schneider, 2017) explain that "More precisely, the completion questions used in the study were part of a larger examination that included short-answer and essay questions that were designed to elicit critical thinking, as well as true-false and multiple-choice questions." Blank-Libra (1997, cited in Gall 1984), as cited in Demir & Eryaman, 2012) "provides evidence to support the notion that higher-level questions will provoke higher-level responses from students. The same principle, of course, applies to lower-level questions" Brualdi Timmins (1998), as cited in Köksa & Ulum, (2018), proposed that "Instructors who prepare exams to improve students’ high order cognitive skills promote interaction between themselves and their students." Çepni & Azar (1998, as cited in Ali, 2005) postulate that "students might be at difference cognitive levels." Aviles (1999) proposes that "Creating comprehension questions are more difficult than creating knowledge questions because words or phrases cannot simply be removed from a sentence and hidden among multiple- choices". Popham (1999, as cited in Swart, 2009)