Uso de la taxonomía de Bloom en la mejora de las
habilidades de escucha de los estudiantes
Alexandra del
Rocío Saquinga Yanchapanta. [1], =
Mónica
Narciza Orbea Peńafiel.[2],<=
/span> & Gabriela
del Rocío Armijos Ango.[3] <=
/span>
Recibido:
10-12-2019 / Revisado: 26-12-2019 /Aceptado: 14-01-2020/ Publicado: 07-02-2=
019
Abstract. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33262/concienciadigita=
l.v3i1.1.1152
<= o:p>
The purpose of this pape=
r was
to present the results obtained during a study conducted at the Technical
University of Ambato, in which some data gathered was the base to analyze s=
tudents
listening skills improvement at A1 level using different activities founded=
on
Bloom's Taxonomy. In order to establish the relationship between the variab=
les
a survey was applied to 153 students of A1 level at the language Center. The
survey results were considered to apply different activities in an experime=
ntal
group which was chosen randomly. These activities were focused on several l=
istening
tasks based on the learning level of Blooms taxonomy. Furthermore, every
activity developed in the classroom was conducted from the most uncomplicat=
ed
to the most complex activity so that students could improve their listening
comprehension. Once the data was interpreted and tabulated, the established
hypothesis was corroborated through the application of the Chi-square formu=
la,
which demonstrated the improvement in the listening comprehension using Blo=
oms
taxonomy. Finally, several conclus=
ions
were formulated considering the most important students opinions. This fact
showed the students awareness in their listening skill improvement. Moreov=
er,
the development of the activities allowed them to be able to see the benefi=
ts
in the process of learning and communication in English. Therefore, they we=
re
conscious about the difficulty in the comprehension of different aspects su=
ch
as: distinguish the main idea, de=
tails,
summarize information or give their opinion about the topic listened.
Keywords: =
Listening
skills, Blooms Taxonomy, comprehension, improvement.
Resumen.
El propósito de este artículo fue
presentar los resultados obtenidos durante un estudio llevado a cabo en la
Universidad Técnica de Ambato, en la cual la información recolectada fue la
base para analizar la mejora de las habilidades auditivas de los estudiante=
s en
el nivel A1 utilizando diferentes actividades basadas en la taxonomía de Bl=
oom.
Para establecer la relación entre las variables, se aplicó una encuesta a 1=
53
estudiantes de nivel A1 en el Centro de idiomas. Los resultados de la encue=
sta
se tuvieron en cuenta para aplicar diferentes actividades en un grupo
experimental que se eligió al azar. Estas actividades se centraron en varias
tareas de escucha basadas en el nivel de aprendizaje de la taxonomía de Blo=
om.
Además, cada actividad desarrollada en el aula se realizó desde la actividad
más sencilla hasta la más compleja para que los estudiantes pudieran mejora=
r su
comprensión auditiva. Una vez que los datos fueron interpretados y tabulado=
s se
corroboró la hipótesis establecida por medio de la fórmula del Chi-cuadrado=
, la
misma que demostró la mejora en la comprensión auditiva utilizando la taxon=
omía
de Bloom. Finalmente, se formularon varias conclusiones considerando la opi=
nión
de los estudiantes como la más importante. Este hecho mostró la conciencia =
de
los estudiantes en la mejora de sus habilidades auditivas. Además, el
desarrollo de estas actividades les permitió ver los beneficios en el proce=
so
de aprendizaje y comunicación en inglés. Por lo tanto, eran conscientes de =
la
dificultad en la comprensión de diferentes aspectos tales como: distinguir =
la
idea principal, detalles, resumir información o dar su opinión sobre el tema
escuchado.
Palabras claves: Destreza
de escucha, Taxonomía de Bloom, comprensión, mejoramiento.
<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times =
New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-farea=
st-language:
EN-US;mso-bidi-language:SI-LK'>Introducción.
A language is a vital source for human interaction
because it enables us to communicate feelings and thoughts. People study
English for different objectives, and something that is a challenge for the=
m is
when they try to understand what they are listening to since they are not
familiar with the language (Sanchez, 1982). This problem comes out because
students are only exposed to understand isolated words in this language. On=
e of
the reasons for this problem are teachers strategies and activities because
they are not appropriate, and they bring about confusion and difficulties on
students (S¸evik, 2012).
According to Buck (2001)
Ecuadorian students have difficulties in this rece=
ptive
skill since most of the teachers focus on explaining grammar and vocabulary.
Consequently, students do not develop activities to be active listeners.
In 2016, the Ministry of Education in Ecuador work=
ed
in a new curriculum for schools, high schools and higher educational instit=
utes
because Ecuadorian education needs a progression to reach educational
objectives. Even though, academic and personal benefits this syllabus
represents, teachers do not seem to use original and active techniques to
stimulate students to develop their listening This situation is more eviden=
t in
lower levels where students do not have an acceptable oral comprehension an=
d as
a result, they cannot manage a fluent conversation. Thus, conventional teac=
hing
methods are developed, and students are exposed in minimal time to unreal a=
nd
repetitive conversations (Harmer, 2001).
The tasks employed in the class should enable stud=
ents
to transform the information received in an uncomplicated way and they must=
be
separated from simple to complex ones. Bloom (1971) initiated his work in 1=
956
and his taxonomy was spread worldwide. In this manner, educators and pupils
could use a range of stages and reach objectives gradually. Considering to
these stages educators can advance from knowledge to evaluation questions.
However, in several educational institutions, students do not show enough
exposure to these activities and have complications when they must use the
listening skill.
Therefore, it is vital to recognize this technique=
has
already been used for several years in a subconscious but not in an appropr=
iate
way. Harmer (2007) affirmed that students are adapted to listen and repeat,
they do not have the ability to generate opinions or points of view about w=
hat
they listen. This is the result of inadequate teachers techniques. To impr=
ove
this fact, educators and learners must work together to develop the cogniti=
ve
processes. This way, students will have a better oral comprehension in the
interaction with their interlocutors.
The relationship between the employment of Blooms
Taxonomy and listening skills development in English learners was establish=
ed
by the analysis of the main variables, considering that listening is one of=
the
most complex skill. In this respect Lindsay
(2000), mentioned that it is difficult that someone can communicate with ot=
hers
whithout decoding the message. Also, the academic compared receptive skills=
and
stated that speaking is controlled in some ways but it is impossible to con=
trol
peoples ideas because it will depend of many considerations such as: commu=
nity
situation, substance and intention.
To expand our comprehension about=
how
a language works on different learning levels an extensive analysis was car=
ried
in the context of the study. In this sense, Bucks (2001), mentioned that li=
sten
to and understand an idea just the=
once
in real time required higher intensity to provide an immediate response, wh=
ich
requires a lot of practice including decoding activities. On the other hand,
answers exemplifies the association between transmitter and receiver, which=
indicates
that audience member was able to comprehend the message.
Blooms Taxonomy encourages the
application of scaffolding activities that promotes the use of different un=
derstanding
levels. Scaffolding interactive activities present a direct impact on learn=
ers
outlying skills development (Housten, 2010). This aspect was supported by G=
lark
(2015), who added that teachers can apply associated activities in numerous=
methods
to mesure learners listening comprehension.
The feasibility of this study was=
imposed
by participants predispostition to know and use new tools, approaches and proced=
ures utilized
around the world. A handbook was created previously in the first phase of t=
he
study which contributed to engage students in the learning process. The
activities in the handbok included simple conversations related to students
English level and also some stages in which learners must exchange thoughts,
experiences and ideas about distinct topics.
Students and teachers were considered the straight
beneficiaries. Teachers could increase their familiarity about Blooms Taxo=
nomy
and learners were in contact with this procedure through various listening
tasks. Moreover, students associated their prior knowledge with understandi=
ng
about separate subjects. They were able to recognize the central concepts t=
o provide
their own point of view using distinct levels of criteria.
Methodology.
The qualitative and quantitative approaches were
applied during the study. The positive aspects about the combination of the=
se methods
was supported by Hernández (2010), =
who stated
the importance to combine the data gathered and the direct observation of t=
he
issue to establish a clear idea about the participants vulnerabilities.
Crabtree and Miller (1992), stated that qualitative
method is focused on real contexts, where the problem takes place, trying to
find important evidence about the condition. The approach did not allow to =
make
fake assumptions about the study, and it helped us to explore and understand
the situation into the institution.
On the other hand, quantitative process permitted
gathering enough information to support the results. In this sense Sukamolson (2007), mentioned that quantitative method
facilitates the illustration of the data collected in the statistical
processes. The graphs helped to make conclusions and verify the hypothesis
established in the study.
Several books,
academics opinions and other resources related to the topic were analyzed
through the application of this modality during the research. Reed and Baxter (2006), declared the
relevance of this method, due to fact that it permits considering different
bibliographic files contemplating diverse points of view.
During the stu=
dy
there was direct contact with the learners and context where the issue took
place. Foster (1996), declared that this modality analyzes the environment =
and
facilitate the collection of real information related to the topic of the
research, and allows keeping a control of participants progress.
Cooley (1978),
stated this level of research is adapted to the context because it is flexi=
ble
and contributes with some possible solutions through different foundations.=
For
the study, it was essential to explore and familiarize with the causes of t=
he
problem. It also provides diverse perspectives, which could be valuable for=
the
teaching learning process.
Descriptive me=
thod
defines the main features about the problem, and it influences on both
variables in real time (Lambert ,2012). Considering that there was enough d=
ata
collected was possible to know all the evidences involved in the study.
Data Collection Plan
The study was carried out at the Technical Univers=
ity
of Ambato. 153 students and 12 English teachers from A1 level participated =
in
different stages during the study. The participants were chosen randomly fr=
om
different groups.
Teachers and students surveys were validated by t=
he Academic
Coordinator of the Languages Center. The questions were related to the
objectives and the two variables established at the beginning of the study,
considering some suggestions given by Nathan (2011), who mentioned that the=
effectiveness
of the interviews must relate to the purpose of the study.
Process and Analysis Plan
The data gathered during the study, including the
surveys online results, were analyzed to diagnose the feasibility to apply =
the
Blooms Taxonomy in some experimental listening activities
Dalton and Smith (2006), suggested that experiment=
al
classes are easier to apply if the activities have been designed before. So=
me
academics considers than handbooks are an excellent tool to be used during a
study.
Table 1. Students survey results. Question 1: Listening
comprehension for gist and details.
|
Answer<=
/span> |
Frequency |
Percentage<=
/b> |
|
Always |
34 |
22% |
|
Almost always |
50 |
33% |
|
Sometimes |
62 |
41% |
|
Almost never |
5 |
3% |
|
Never |
2 |
1% |
|
Total |
153 |
100% |
Source: Compiled by authors
based on Saquinga (2018).
Figure 1.
Source: Compiled by authors based on Saquinga (=
2018).
The results showed that only 22% of the participants declared that
always understand the main idea and details of the audios content applied
during the class. Also, the outcomes proved that most of the participants
sometimes present difficulties to listen to for gist and details.
Table 2. Teachers survey results. Question 1: Stude=
nts
demonstrate listening comprehension for gist and details.
|
Answer<=
/span> |
Frequency |
Percentage<=
/b> |
|
Always |
0 |
0% |
|
Almost always |
2 |
17% |
|
Sometimes |
8 |
66% |
|
Almost never |
2 |
17% |
|
Never |
0 |
0% |
|
Total |
12 |
100% |
Source: Compiled by authors based on Saquinga (=
2018).
Figure 2. Students survey results plotted. Question =
1:
Students demonstrate listening comprehension for gist and details.
Source: Compiled by authors based on Saquinga (=
2018).
The results obtained on teachers survey affirmed =
that
most of the learners sometimes recognize the principal idea and specific
details about the content of the audios applied in classes.
Table
3. Students survey results. Question 4: Use o=
f a
process to develop listening comprehension.
|
Answer<=
/span> |
Frequency |
Percentage<=
/b> |
|
Always |
29 |
19% |
|
Almost always |
50 |
33% |
|
Sometimes |
69 |
45% |
|
Almost never |
3 |
2% |
|
Never |
2 |
1% |
|
Total |
153 |
100% |
Figure 3. Students survey results plotted. Question =
4:
Use of a process to develop listening comprehension.
In consequence, learners are not exposed to gradual
process when they are working on listening activities. The visible results =
established
that listening activities applied do not provide opportunities to improve
listening performance from first levels.
Table 4.
Teachers survey results. Question 3: Use of higher thinking skills in
listening comprehension.
|
Answer<=
/span> |
Frequency |
Percentage<=
/b> |
|
Always |
0 |
0% |
|
Almost always |
0 |
0% |
|
Sometimes |
6 |
50% |
|
Almost never |
5 |
42% |
|
Never |
1 |
8% |
|
Total |
12 |
100% |
Source: Compiled by authors based on Saquinga (=
2018).
Figure 4.
Teachers survey results plotted. Question 3: Use of higher thinking skills=
in
listening comprehension.
Source: Compiled by authors based on Saquinga (=
2018).
The results obtained show that 50% of the teachers
stated that their students sometimes summarize the main idea in a listening
activity and contrast it by presenting their point of view. Nevertheless, t=
here
are other teachers who acknowledge that their students are not able to use
higher thinking skills. They assume their audio comprehension activities us=
ed
in class do not contribute on the development of the students´ listening co=
mprehension.
All the data gathered allowed to design and apply =
new
listening exercises based on Blooms Taxonomy and subsequently the verifica=
tion
of the hypothesis previously stated.
Results.
To determine
whether the Bloom´s Taxonomy activities improved the students listening
skills, teachers and students were surveyed through some questions, which h=
ave
a Likert scale (always, almost always, sometimes, almost never, never). In
order to verify the hypothesis, the Chi-square was carried out.
Chi-square =
(X2)
involved the data gathered through the survey to test the significance of t=
he
study and contrast of the relationship between the variables in the Chi-squ=
are
distribution table.
Contingency tables
=
Table
5. Observed frequencies O students survey.
|
|
Dependent variable: Listening<=
/span>
Skills |
TOTAL |
|||||
|
Always<=
/span> |
Almost<=
/span> always |
Sometimes |
Almost<=
/span> sometimes |
Never |
|||
|
Independent variable: |
Always |
3 |
4 |
15 |
8 |
0 |
30 |
|
Almost always |
6 |
12 |
36 |
1 |
1 |
56 |
|
|
Sometimes |
10 |
26 |
33 |
3 |
1 |
73 |
|
|
Almost never |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
|
|
Never |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
TOTAL |
21 |
45 |
85 |
12 |
2 |
165 |
=
=
Source: Compiled by the authors based on Saquinga
(2018).
Table 6. Expected frequencies students survey.<= o:p>
|
|
Dependent variable: Listening<=
/span>
Skills |
TOTAL |
|||||
|
Always<=
/span> |
Almost<=
/span> always |
Sometimes |
Almost<=
/span> sometimes |
Never |
|||
|
|
Always |
3.82 |
8.18 |
15.45 |
2.18 |
0.36 |
30 |
|
Almost always |
7.13 |
15.27 |
28.85 |
4.07 |
0.68 |
56 |
|
|
Sometimes |
9.29 |
19.91 |
37.61 |
5.31 |
0.88 |
73 |
|
|
Almost never |
0.51 |
1.09 |
2.06 |
0.29 |
0.05 |
4 |
|
|
Never |
0.25 |
0.55 |
1.03 |
0.15 |
0.02 |
2 |
|
|
TOTAL |
21 |
45 |
85 |
12 |
2 |
165 |
Source: Compiled by the authors based on Saquinga
(2018).
Table 7. Chi-square
calculation students survey.
|
Independent variable:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;mso-fareast-font=
-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black'> |
Dependent variable: |
Observed O |
Expected E |
O E |
(O-E) 2 |
(O-E) 2/E |
|
Bloom´s Taxonomy |
Listening Skills |
|||||
|
Always |
Always |
3 |
3.82 |
-0.82 |
0.67 |
0.18 |
|
Almost always |
4 |
8.18 |
-4.18 |
17.49 |
2.14 |
|
|
Sometimes |
15 |
15.45 |
-0.45 |
0.21 |
0.01 |
|
|
Almost never |
8 |
2.18 |
5.82 |
33.85 |
15.52 |
|
|
Never |
0 |
0.36 |
-0.36 |
0.13 |
0.36 |
|
|
Almost always |
Always |
6 |
7.13 |
-1.13 |
1.27 |
0.18 |
|
Almost always |
12 |
15.27 |
-3.27 |
10.71 |
0.70 |
|
|
Sometimes |
36 |
28.85 |
7.15 |
51.14 |
1.77 |
|
|
Almost never |
1 |
4.07 |
-3.07 |
9.44 |
2.32 |
|
|
Never |
1 |
0.68 |
0.32 |
0.10 |
0.15 |
|
|
Sometimes |
Always |
10 |
9.29 |
0.71 |
0.50 |
0.05 |
|
Almost always |
26 |
19.91 |
6.09 |
37.10 |
1.86 |
|
|
Sometimes |
33 |
37.61 |
-4.61 |
21.22 |
0.56 |
|
|
Almost never |
3 |
5.31 |
-2.31 |
5.33 |
1.00 |
|
|
Never |
1 |
0.88 |
0.12 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
|
|
Almost sometimes |
Always |
2 |
0.51 |
1.49 |
2.22 |
4.37 |
|
Almost always |
2 |
1.09 |
0.91 |
0.83 |
0.76 |
|
|
Sometimes |
0 |
2.06 |
-2.06 |
4.25 |
2.06 |
|
|
Almost never |
0 |
0.29 |
-0.29 |
0.08 |
0.29 |
|
|
Never |
0 |
0.05 |
-0.05 |
0.00 |
0.05 |
|
|
Never |
Always |
0 |
0.25 |
-0.25 |
0.06 |
0.25 |
|
Almost always |
1 |
0.55 |
0.45 |
0.21 |
0.38 |
|
|
Sometimes |
1 |
1.03 |
-0.03 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
|
Almost never |
0 |
0.15 |
-0.15 |
0.02 |
0.15 |
|
|
Never |
0 |
0.02 |
-0.02 |
0.00 |
0.02 |
|
|
X2=3DΣ
(O-E) 2/E =
35.1563 |
Source:
Compiled by the authors based on Saquinga (2018=
).
The values for listening skills and Bloom´s Taxono=
my
were calculated and contrasted, as it is showed in the following graph:
Figure
5. Chi-square distribution students survey.
Source:
Compiled by the authors based on Saquinga (2018=
).
It can be seen in the results that the null hypoth=
esis
H0 of the work done was rejected, and accordingly the alternative
hypothesis was accepted H1:
Bloom´s Taxonomy has a great contribution in the development of students´
listening comprehension.
Discussion.
The present study confirmed the benefits about Blo=
oms
Taxonomy application in listening. This delivered significantly better resu=
lts
due to the fact, students were faced to different activities that range from
the simplest to the most complex according to their English level, in an
orderly manner while increasing other cognitive skills.
The results lead to similar conclusions establishe=
d in
Bhargav, H. S., Akalwadi, G., & Pujari, N. =
V.
(2016) research about application of Blooms Taxonomy in day-to-day
examinations, which identified and analyzed the accuracy of some educational
techniques and their relation on learners progress.
The findings demonstrate the students improvement=
in
different areas and skills. However, even better results were achieved, they
were not as expected at the beginning of the study. An apparent limitation =
in
the numbers of practical classes was one of the possible explanations for t=
he
results.
To increase the percentage in students listening
skills improvement will be necessary to apply more activities applying Bloo=
ms
Taxonomy and extend the time consuming per class.
Conclusions.
After finishing the
analysis of all the data collected, it was possible to remark the following
conclusions:
ˇ &nb=
sp;
Most English teachers, who were surveyed, consider=
ed
graded activities in the classroom provide a scaffolding process and help to
increase the listening comprehension on students. Therefore, many students =
have
not had the opportunity to experience these techniques which results weakne=
sses
at the time of working on listening activities.
ˇ &nb=
sp;
A great number of students exposed to listening
activities are not able to reach the higher thinking skills due to the lack=
of
enough varied techniques to guide them and make audio comprehension activit=
ies
enjoyable for students.
=
ˇ &nb=
sp;
The diffe=
rent
stages of the Boom´s Taxonomy were not completely familiar among teachers a=
nd
students who participated in the study. Students seemed not to be intereste=
d or
motivated about using English because of the difficulty it represented to
understand an audio.
Bibliografía=
Almeida, S. (2013)=
. Manual
de Psicomotricidad para Preescolar. Guadalajara: Unidad Editorial.
Bhar=
gav,
H. S., Akalwadi, G., & Pujari, N. V. (2016). Application of blooms taxonomy=
in
day-to-day examinations. In 2016 IEEE 6th International Conferen=
ce
on Advanced Computing (IACC) (pp. 825-829). IEEE.
Bloom, B. (1971). Taxonomy od Educational
Objectives: Handbook I. New York: David McKay Company.
Brown, H. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An =
Interactive
Approach to. San Francisco: Pearson.
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing Listening.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Calero, P. (1 de M=
arch
de 2018). Reposi=
tory
Technical University of Ambato. Retrieved from
http://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/jspui/handle/123456789/27410
Cambridge. (2009). Cambridge Learner´s
Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, D. (2015). Bloom´s Taxonomy of Learning
Domains. Retrieved from Bloom´s Taxonomy of Learning Domains:
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark]/hrd/bloom.html
Cooley, W. W. (1978). Explanatory observational
studies. Educational researcher, 7(9), 9-15.
Constantino, D.
(2006). Dominio Cognitivo Conocimiento.
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1992). Do=
ing
qualitative research. In Annual North American Primary Care Rese=
arch
Group Meeting, 19th, May, 1989, Quebec, PQ, Canada. Sage Publication=
s,
Inc.
Dalton, J., & Smith, D. (2006). Questions=
and
Activities Aligned with Blooms Taxonomy . Retrieved from Questions =
and
Activities Aligned with Blooms Taxonomy :
http://www.teachers.ash.org.au/researchskills/dalton.htm
Dom, C. (2008). Cambridge Advanced Learner's
Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foster, P. (1996). Observational research. =
;Data
collection and analysis, 57-93.
Gardner, H. (1983)=
. Estructuras
de la Mente.
Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English
Language Teaching. Cambridge: Longman.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to Teach English.
Oxford: Pearson.
Helgesen, M. B. (1996). Active Listening
Expanding Understanding Through Content. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer=
sity
Press.
Hernandez, J., Schrom, K., Berest, D., Hanks, C.,
& Montańo, A. M. (1999). Estrategias Educat=
ivas
para el Aprendizaje Activo. Quito: Graficas
Universal.
Hernández, S. (201=
0). Metodología
de la Investigación. Chile: Mc Graw Hill.
Houston, H. (2016). Ten Post Listening Activitie=
s. EFL Magazine, 8.
Jensen, E. (2004).=
Cerebro
y Aprendizaje. Madrid: Ediciones Narcea .
Jonassen, D. (2004=
). Technology as Cognitive Tools:
Learners as Designers. ITForum, 7.
Kelly, G. (2000). Teach Pronunciation.
Pearson.
Kommers, P., Johassen, D., & Mayes, T. (1992=
). Gognitive
Tools for Learning. NATO ASI Series.
Krathwohl, A. (2000). Revision of Bloom´s
Taxonomy.
Lambert, V. A., & Lambert, C. E. (2012).
Qualitative descriptive research: An acceptable design. Pacific =
Rim
International Journal of Nursing Research, 16(4), 255-25=
6.
Leahey, T., & Harry, R. (2000).
Lindsay, P. (2000). Teaching English Worldwid=
e.
Alta Professional Series.
Littlewood, W. (2010). Communicative Language
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marzano, R. (1992). A different Kind of Class=
room:
Teaching with Dimensions of Learning.
Nathan Gordon, W. F. (2011). Effective
Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques (Third Edition). London:
Academic Press Publications.
Numrich, C. (2010). An integrated Approach to
Critical Thinking. New York: Pearson.
Ormrod, J. (2005). Aprendizaje humano.
Madrid: Pearson.
Passmore, C., Dobbie, A. E., Parchman, M., &
Tysinger, J. (2002). Guidelines for constructing a survey. FAMILY
MEDICINE-KANSAS CITY-, 34(4), 281-286.
Perez, C., & Sepulveda, M. F. (26 de Abril d=
e 2008).
Retrieved from https://mafrita.wordpress.com/category/general/
Reed, J. G., & Baxter, P. M. (2006).
Bibliographic research. The psychology research handbook: a guide
for graduate students and research assistants, 41.
Reyes Ocańa, M. (2015). Repository of the
Technical University of Ambato. Retrieved from
Universidad Técnica de Ambato:
http://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/jspui/handle/123456789/8895
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2014). Appro=
aches
and Methods in Language Teaching Third Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rigal, R. (2006). =
Educación
Motriz y Educacion Psicomotriz. Spain: INDE Publicaciones.
Rodgers, J. (1996)=
. Approaches and Methods in Lang=
uage
Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberg, R. (2009). Tools for Activating Mater=
ials
and Tasks in the English Language Classroom. English Teaching Forum,
11.
S¸evik, M. (2012). Teaching Listening Skills to
Young Learners through "Listen and Do". English Teaching Fo=
rum,
8.
Salazar Quinatoa, K. (May de 2015). Repositor=
y of
Universidad Central del Ecuador. Retrieved from
http://www.dspace.uce.edu.ec/handle/25000/12441
Sánchez, A. (1982)=
. La
enseńanza del Inglés y las cuatro destrezas: escuchar, hablar, leer y.
Spain: Minist. de Educación y Ciencia.
Saquinga, A.
(2018). "The use of Bloom's Taxonomy on students' listening skil=
ls
improvement". (Tesis de posgrado). Universidad Técnica de Amb=
ato,
Ambato, Ecuador. Retrieved from https://repositorio.uta.edu.ec=
/handle/123456789/28350
Spratt, M. P. (2011). The TKT Course Modules =
1, 2
and 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stephens, M. &. (2009). =
Estadistica.
Mexico D.F.: Colección Schaum.
Sukamolson, S. (2007). Fundamentals of quantita=
tive
research. Language Institute Chulalongkorn University, =
1,
2-3.
Thornbury, S. (2005). How to Teach Speaking.<=
/i>
Harlow: Pearson.
Thornton, S. (2003). Growing Minds: An Introd=
uction
to Children's Cognitive Development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Toapaxi Guanopatin, S. (2016). Repository
Technical University of Ambato. Retrieved from
http://repositorio.uta.edu.ec/jspui/handle/123456789/21386
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The
development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Wadsworth, B. (2003). Piaget's Theory of
Cognitive and Affective Development: Foundations of Constructivism .
Allyn & Bacon.
Wilson, J. (2008). How to Teach Listening.
England: Pearson.
PARA
CITAR EL ARTÍCULO INDEXADO.
Saquinga Yanchapanta, A. del R., Orbea Peńafiel, M. N., &
Armijos Ango, G. del R. (2020). Uso de la taxon=
omía
de Bloom en la mejora de las habilidades de escucha de los estudiantes.
El artículo que se publica es de
exclusiva responsabilidad de los autores y no necesariamente reflejan el
pensamiento de la Revista Concienc=
ia
Digital.
El artículo qu=
eda
en propiedad de la revista y, por tanto, su publicación parcial y/o total en
otro medio tiene que ser autorizado por el director de la Revista Conciencia Digital.
[1]Universidad Técnica de Ambato,
Centro de Idiomas. Ambato, Ecuador. adr.saquinga@uta.edu.ec
[2]Universidad Técnica de Ambato, Centro de Idiomas. Ambato, Ecuador. mn.orbea@uta.edu.ec<= o:p>
[3]Universidad Técnica de Ambato, Centro de Idiomas. Ambato, Ecuador. gd.armijos@uta.edu.e= c
www.concienciadigital.or=
g
=
=
ISSN: 2600-5859