<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Abraham Motlhabane</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">UNPACKING THE SOUTH AFRICAN PHYSICS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS ACCORDING TO BLOOMS’ REVISED TAXONOMY</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">physics examination</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">quality of education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">revised Bloom’s taxonomy</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">December/2017</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2017/987-1513971062.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">16</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The quality and standard of South African examination questions for the grade 12 examination have become an important issue for the South African education system. So far, the focus of empirical research has been on factors that lead to poor performance in the Physical sciences as well as the alignment of the grade 12 Physical Sciences examination with the core curriculum in South Africa.  On the contrary, this research paper focuses on a different aspect: the weaknesses and the strengths of the Physics examination questions. It addresses the question of how the Physics examination questions cover higher and lower order level questions in the Bloom’s revised taxonomy. To answer this question, the Physics examination questions of the year 2014 and 2015 were analysed using Bloom’s revised taxonomy of learning objectives. The examination questions were codified and the frequencies and percentages of occurrence of different learning objectives were calculated. The results show that third level cognitive skills were more prevalent than other ones. Furthermore, examiners asked questions that require application and few questions requiring the recall of knowledge. </style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">919-931</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Abraham Motlhabane</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">LEARNER’S ALTERNATIVE AND MISCONCEPTIONS IN PHYSICS: A PHENOMENOGRAPHIC STUDY</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">alternative and misconceptions</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">contextualising “0” concept</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">kinematics concepts</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">phenomenographic study</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">August/2016</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2016/987-1482423653.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">15</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">This phenomenographic case study attempted to determine the alternative and misconceptions of learners in selected concepts in Physics. The research adds another dimension to understanding alternative conception in kinematics by qualitatively determining how learners describe/define a distance of 0m, a displacement of 0m, a speed of 0m/s, a velocity of 0m/s as well as an acceleration of 0m/ss. Data were gathered by means of a free response test. Senior high school grade 12 learners were purposefully selected to complete the test. Data were analyzed by qualitatively interrogating the descriptions and related graphs and pictures to look for the ways in which learners described these concepts. The research revealed that some learners were not able to comprehend the meaning of a displacement of 0m, thus they experienced challenges in the understanding of the concepts such as a speed of 0m/s, a velocity 0m/s and an acceleration 0m/ss. The data seems to suggest that learners fail to formalise and contextualise “0” as a concept in kinematics. </style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">424–440 </style></section></record></records></xml>