Main Article Content
One of the significant transformations in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) is the implementation of the Bologna process. This alteration of the traditional system to the Bologna process system has also impacted the assessment schemes. More weight has been given to formative assessment that can help improve students’ grades and ease success in the courses. Nonetheless, the final exam still carries most of the grades. Therefore, setting appropriate questions that can meet all the cognition levels represented in Bloom’s taxonomy assists in raising students’ cognition to higher levels rather than only assessing bookish knowledge that is located on the baseline of Bloom’s taxonomy. To this intent, the present study endeavored to identify if instructors at colleges of Nursing and Science adhere to the various dimensions of Bloom’s taxonomy that are central to the Bologna process. More importantly, the association of each of the demographic variables to the level of the final examination questions was also examined. The study employed a quantitative method to tackle the topic. Totally, a sample of 75 final examination papers was collected from instructors, including 524 individual questions. The findings revealed that most of the examination papers revolved around low-order thinking questions and the association of the rate of success to the level of the questions was highly statistically significant.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Almerico, G. M., & Baker, R. K. (2004). Bloom’s Taxonomy illustrative verbs: Developing a comprehensive list for educator use. Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal, 1(4), 1-10. http://www.fate1.org/journals/2004/almerico1.pdf
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman Press.
Baghaei, S., Bagheri, M. S., & Yamini, M. (2020). Analysis of IELTS and TOEFL reading and listening tests in terms of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1-23, 1720939. DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2020.1720939
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Crisp, V., Johnson, M., & Constantinou, F. (2019). A question of quality: Conceptualizations of quality in the context of educational test questions. Research in Education, 105(1), 18–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523717752203
Demir, M. K., & Eryaman, M. Y. (2012). A qualitative evaluation instructors’ exam questions at a primary education department in terms of certain variables. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 7(1), 52-63. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/epasr/issue/17482 /182986#article_cite
Ebadi, S., & Shahbazian, F. (2015). Exploring the cognitive level of final exams in Iranian high schools: Focusing on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2, 4, 1-11. http://www.jallr.com/index.php/JALLR/article/view/58
Fayyaz, A., Danish, M. H., & Ul Hassan, H. H. (2019). Evaluation of MA English questions papers at cognitive level: Application of Bloom Taxonomy. European Academic Research, 6(12). https://euacademic.org/PastIssueList.aspx?artid=74
Himmah, W. I., Nayazik, A., & Setyawan, F. (2019). Revised Bloom’s taxonomy to analyze the final mathematics examination problems in junior high school. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1188(1), 012028. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1188/1/012028
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers (2nd Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jiang, Y. (2020). Teacher classroom questioning practice and assessment literacy: Case studies of four English language teachers in Chinese universities. Frontiers in Education, 5, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00023
Kabombwe, Y., Machila, N., & Sikayomya, P. (2021). A comparative analysis of the Zambian senior secondary history examination between the old and revised curriculum using Bloom’s Taxonomy. Yesterday and Today Journal For History Education In South Africa and Abroad, 25, 1-25. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2223-0386/2021/n25a2
Koçdar, S., Karadaö, N., & Şahin, M. D. (2016). Analysis of the difficulty and discrimination indices of multiple-choice questions according to cognitive levels in an open and distance learning context. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(4), 16-24.
Köksal, D., & Ulum, Ö. G. (2018). Language assessment through Bloom’s Taxonomy. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 76-88. http://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls
Leung, C. (2014). Classroom-based assessment issues for language teacher education. In A. J. Kunnan, The Companion to Language Assessment, (1510-1519). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Mohammed Abduh, M. Y. (2015). Evaluating examination papers of EFL students at Hodeidah University-Yemen. Abhath, 2(3), 1–14. https://ojs.abhathye.com/index.php/OJSABAHA TH-YE/article/view/321
Mohammed M, & Omar, N. (2020). Question classification based on Bloom’s taxonomy cognitive domain using modified TF-IDF and word2vec. PLoS ONE 15(3), e0230442. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230442
Mohamed, O. J., Zakar, N. A., Alshaikhdeeb, B. (2019). A combination method of syntactic and semantic approaches for classifying examination questions into Bloom’s taxonomy cognitive. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 14(2), 935-950.
Moore, K. D. (2009). Effective instructional strategies: From theory to practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Naranayan, S., & Adithan, M. (2015). Analysis of question papers in engineering courses with respect to hots (higher order thinking skills). American Journal of Engineering Education (AJEE). 6(1), 1-10.
Newton, P. M., Da Silva, A., & Peters L. G. (2020). A pragmatic master list of action verbs for Bloom’s Taxonomy. Frontiers in Education, 5, 1-6. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.00107
Omar, N., Haris, S. S., Hassan, R., Arshad, H., Rahmat, M., Zainal, N. F. A., Zulkifli, R. (2012). Automated analysis of exam questions according to bloom’s taxonomy. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 297 – 303.
Palmer, E., & Devitt, P. G. (2007). Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: modified essay or multiple choice questions? Research paper. BMC Medical Education, 7, 49, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-7-49
Pappas, E., Pierrakos, O., & Nagel, R. (2012). Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to teach sustainability in multiple contexts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 54-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.039
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Saido, G. M., Siraj, S., Bin Nordin, A., & Al-Amedy, O. S. (2015). Higher order thinking skills among secondary school students in science learning. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science, 3(3), 13-20.
Shabatura, J. (2013). Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to write effective learning objectives. University of Arkansas Tips. https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/
Swart, A. J. (2010). Evaluation of final examination papers in engineering: A case study using Bloom’s Taxonomy. IEEE Transactions on Education, 53(2), 257-264.
Yahya, A. A., Toukal, Z., & Osman, A. (2012). Bloom’s Taxonomy-Based classification for item bank questions using support vector machines. In Modern Advances in Intelligent Systems and Tools (135-140). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Wiseman, D. G., & Hunt, G. H. (2014). Best practice in motivation and management in the classroom (3rd ed.). Springfield: Thomas Charles.