Beyond Bloom’s: Students’ Perception of Bloom’s Taxonomy and its Convolution with Cognitive Load
Authors
-
Jamie Lee Jensen 
Brigham Young University
-
Andrea J. Phillips
Department of Biology
Brigham Young University
-
Jace C. Briggs
Department of Biology
Brigham Young University
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30564/jpr.v1i1.421Abstract
Bloom’s taxonomy is widely used in educational research to categorize the cognitive skills required to answer exam questions. For this study, we analyzed how students categorize exam questions (high-level question or low-level question,) gathered data as to their rationale for categorization, and compared their categorizations to those of experts. We found that students consistently rank high-level questions incorrectly. We analyzed student reasons for their categorizations, and found that for many of the incorrectly categorized questions the students referred to reasons related to Cognitive Load Theory. This shows that cognitive load prevents students from accurately assessing the cognitive level of an exam question. Thus, extra cognitive load in exam questions may prevent those questions from accurately measuring the skills and knowledge of the student. This points to the need for instructors to eliminate cognitive load from their exams.
Keywords:
Bloom’s taxonomy, Cognitive load theory, Student perception, HOCS, LOCSReferences
1Bloom, B. S. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives. [M] Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
2Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. [J] Theory into Practice, 41, 4: 212. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
3Bloom, B., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain [M]. New York: David McKay.
4Crowe, A., Dirks, C., Wenderoth, M. P. (2008). Biology in Bloom: Implementing Bloom's Taxonomy to Enhance Student Learning in Biology. [J] Cbe-Life Sciences Education, 7, 4: 368-381. doi:10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024
5Jensen, J. L., McDaniel, M. A., Woodard, S. M., & Kummer, T. A. (2014). Teaching to the Test, or Testing to Teach: Exams Requiring Higher Order Thinking Skills Encourage Greater Conceptual Understanding. [J] Educational Psychology Review, 26, 2: 307-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9248-9
6Zoller, U. (1993). Are lecture ad learning compatible? Maybe for LOCS: Unlikely for HOCS [J]. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 3: 195-197. doi: 10.1021/ed070p195
7Lemons, P. P., Lemons, J. D. (2013). Questions for Assessing Higher-Order Cognitive Skills: It's Not Just Bloom's. [J] Cbe-Life Sciences Education, 12, 1: 47-58. doi:10.1187/cbe.12-03-0024
8Wyse, A. E., Viger, S. G. (2011). How item writers understand depth of knowledge. [J] Educational Assessment, 16, 4: 185–206. doi: 10.1080/10627197.2011.634286
9Knecht, K. T. (2001). Assessing cognitive skills of pharmacy students in a biomedical sciences module using a classification of multiple-choice item categories according to bloom's taxonomy. [J] American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 65, 4: 324-334.
10Freeman, S., Parks, J. W. (2010). How accurate is peer grading? [J] CBE Life Sciences Education, 9, 4: 482–488. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-03-0017
11Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., Wyse, S. A., Ebert-May, D. (2010). Just the Facts? Introductory Undergraduate Biology Courses Focus on Low-Level Cognitive Skills. [J] Cbe-Life Sciences Education, 9, 4: 435-440. doi:10.1187/cbe.10-01-0001
12Nurrenbern, S. C., Robinson, W. R. (1998). Conceptual questions and challenge problems. [J] Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 11: 1502. doi: 10.1021/ed075p1502
13Lawson, A. E., Alkhoury, S., Benford, R., Clark, B. R., Falconer, K. A. (2000). What kinds of scientific concepts exist? Concept construction and intellectual development in college biology. [J] Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 9: 996–1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<996::AID-TEA8>3.0.CO; 2-J
14Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., Weiss, M. (2009). Active Learning and Student-centered Pedagogy Improve Student Attitudes and Performance in Introductory Biology. [J] Cbe-Life Sciences Education, 8, 3: 203-213. doi:10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025
15Anderson, L. W. (2002) This issue – Revising Bloom’s taxonomy. [J] Theory Into Practice, 41, 4: 210-211. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_1
16deJong, T., FergusonHessler, M. G. M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. [J] Educational Psychologist, 31, 2: 105-113. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3102_2
17Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem-solving – effects on learning. [J] Cognitive Science, 12, 2: 257-285. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
18Nurnberger, J. I., Blehar, M. C., Kaufmann, C. A., Yorkcooler, C., Simpson, S. G., Harkavyfriedman, J., . . . Ritz, A. L. (1994). Diagnostic interview for genetic-studies – rationale, unique features, and training. [J] Archives of General Psychiatry, 51, 11: 849-859. PMID: 7944874
19Bell, P., Volckmann, D. (2011). Knowledge Surveys in General Chemistry: Confidence, Overconfidence, and Performance. [J] Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 11: 1469-1476. doi:10.1021/ed100328c
Downloads
Issue
Article Type
License
Copyright © 2019 Jamie Lee Jensen, Andrea J. Phillips, Jace C. Briggs
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.