The aim of this study is (a) to investigate the usefulness of Bloom's revised taxonomy (RBT) for classification of standards, (b) to examine the differences and similarities between pre-service teachers' and in-service teachers' classification of the same standards and (c) to determine which standards are vague and broad. The 45 standards, in the Turkish 10th Grade Physics Syllabus, were categorized by the 16 participants, who were divided into two groups. The first group included eight pre-service physics and the second group included eight in-service physics teachers, in Turkey. Firstly, each participant classified the standards using RBT individually, then, they classified the standards with their group. We compared their all classification of standards. The usefulness of Revised Bloom Taxonomy for classification of standards, the differences between individually classification and the groups' and, differences between the pre-service and in- service teachers groups' classifications, (c) the standards which are broad and vague were discussed. 

Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4/8, 213-230

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon.

Arı, A. (2008). Finding Acceptance of Bloom’s Revised Cognitive Taxonomy on the International Stage and in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice - 11(2), Spring, 767-772

Athanassiou, N., McNett, J., & Harvey, C. (2003). Critical thinking in the management classroom: Bloom’s Taxonomy. Journal of Management Education, 27, 5, 533-555

Biggs, J. and Collis, K.F.  (1982).  Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome).  New York: Academic Press.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 20-24.

Borich, G. D., Tombari, M. L., & Tombari, M. L. (2004). Educational assessment for the elementary and middle school classroom. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Clark, V. P., & Creswell, J. W. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. vol, 3, 93-94.

Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M.P. (2008). Biology in Bloom: Implementing Bloom’s Taxonomy to enhance students’ learning in biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 7, 4, 368-381

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002): A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview, Theory Into Practice, 41:4, 212-218

Dettmer, P. (2006). New Blooms in Established Fields: Four Domains of Learning and Doing. Roeper Review, 28/2, 70-78.

Gronlund, N.E. (2004). Writing instructional objectives for teaching and assessment (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGrawHill.

Hauenstein, A. D. (1998). A conceptual framework for educational objectives. A holistic approach to traditional taxonomies. Lanham: University Press of America.

Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77-89.

Kocakaya, S., & Gonen, S. (2010). Analysis of Turkish high-school physics-examination questions according to Bloom’s taxonomy. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching (Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1-14).

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G.. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. http://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

Luft, P., Brown, C. M., & Slutherin, L. J. (2007). Are you and your students bored with the benchmarks? Sinking under the standards? Then transform your teaching through transition. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(6), 39-46.

Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Ministry of Education in Turkey, (TTKB).  (2013). High school physics syllabus. http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/ogretim-programlari/icerik/72

Näsström, G. (2009). Interpretation of standards with Bloom’s revised taxonomy: a comparison of teachers and assessment experts. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(1), 39-51.

O’Neill, G., & Murphy, F. (2010) Guide to taxonomies of learning. UCD Teaching and Learning/Resources, Retrieved March 01, 2014 from http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/ucdtla0034.pdf

Näsström, G. & Henriksson, W.(2008). Alignment of standards and assessment: A theoretical and empirical study of methods for alignment. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6 (3) (2008), pp. 667–690

Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy with multiple intelligences: A planning tool for curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Record, 106, 1, 193-211

Patton, J.R., & Trainor, A. (2003). Using applied academics to enhance curricular reform in secondary education. In C. A. Kochhar-Bryant & D. S. Bassett (Eds.), Aligning transition and standards-based education: Issues and strategies (pp. 55-75). Arlington, VA: Division on Transition and Career Development, The Council for Exceptional Children.

Popham, W. J. (2003). Test better, teach better: The instructional role of assessment. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2001). Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the Capitol to the classroom. Standards-based reform in the States (pp. 60-80). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education, University of Chicago press

Skilbeck, M. (1971). Preparing curriculum objectives, The Vocational Aspect of Education, 23:54, 1-7. Published online: 30 Jul 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057877180000011

Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Webb, N. L. (2002). An analysis of the alignment between mathematics standards and assessments for three states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 1-5, in New Orleans, USA.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Vrchota, D. (2004). Touchstone award: Challenging students’ thinking with Bloom’s Taxonomy. Communication Teacher, 18- 1, 2-5.

Vosen, M., & Fink, L.S., (2008). Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to teach students about plagiarism. English Journal, 97, 6, 43-46.