See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328416109

Language assessment through Bloom's Taxonomy

Article in Journal of Language · May 2018

CITATIONS READS

57 23,781

2 authors:

Dinçay Köksal Ömer Gökhan Ulum

Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Mersin University
42 PUBLICATIONS 224 CITATIONS 120 PUBLICATIONS 594 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ömer Gökhan Ulum on 21 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.jlls.org

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

ISSN: 1305-578X
Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 76-88; 2018

Language assessment through Bloom’s Taxonomy

Dinçay Köksal a , Ömer Gökhan Ulum b*

a
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale 17020, Turkey
b
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale 17020, Turkey
APA Citation:

Koksal, D. ,& Ulum, Ö.G. (2018). Language assessment through Bloom’s Taxonomy. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2),
76-88.
Submission Date:19/01/2018
Acceptance Date:31/05/2018

Abstract
Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives plays a crucial role in developing assessments that
measure higher and lower level cognitive skills. Since it is important to assess how well students master the
information within the levels of the taxonomy, the present study first presents the higher and lower levels of
Bloom's taxonomy and then seeks to investigate whether the exam questions of General English courses are
based on both higher and lower order thinking levels. This study was carried out through qualitative methods of
data collection. The findings of the study suggested that the analyzed exam papers lacked the higher level
cognitive skills contained in Bloom’s Taxonomy. Based on the findings, some assumptions have been made with
the aim of suggesting how the exam papers which are being written or will be written should refer to Bloom’s
taxonomy.
© 2018 JLLS and the Authors - Published by JLLS.

Keywords: Bloom’s Taxonomy; language assessment; exam questions; assessment

1. Introduction

Assessment is one of the most required parts of the education process in which students’ learning is
measured by diverse procedures. Besides, though these procedures signify enhancement, various
issues related to learning assessment go on keeping unresolved (Veeravagu, Muthusamy, Marimuthu
& Michael, 2010). Since the excellence of educational programs is based on the evaluation practice,
exams play a significant role in learning for acting as one of the dimensions of evaluation. While
providing suitable exam questions at schools, composing the proper ones may be a problematic issue.
In other words, choosing the right question is obviously the most difficult part of forming the exam
paper, in addition to being the most time taking activity (Paul, Naik & Pawar, 2014). An exam paper is
a traditional way of assessment− being the common choice of teachers evaluating the learners’ degree
of success in a particular lesson in which the necessary cognitive ability of students is determined
through the exam scores. That’s to say, the questions presented on a paper determine whether the
examination manages assessing the learners’ performance or not. A good assessment requires an exam
paper that covers different cognitive levels to accommodate diverse capabilities of learners (Jones,

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-531-791-2434
E-mail address: [email protected]
. Dinçay Köksal, Ömer Gökhan Ulum / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2) (2018) 76-88 77

Harland, Reid & Bartlett, 2009). Within this issue, the matter is to promote functional assessment tools
to measure students’ both learning and critical thinking skills according to the six stages of the
taxonomy, while most of the assessments only cover calling up the memorized data. In such
assessments, the questions simply refer to the first step of the taxonomy, though Bloom's taxonomy is
composed of six steps in total: three steps in low order and three steps in high order cognitive skills
(Eber & Parker, 2007). Bloom's Taxonomy addresses the arrangement of learning aims in the
education process that educators appoint for learners. The cognitive domain within Bloom’s taxonomy
which is set to confirm a student's cognitive level (Haris & Omar, 2015) is the core of classifying
statements according to what is expected from students to learn at the end of the instructional activities
(Krathwohl, 2002). As an assessment practice, the employment of Bloom’s Taxonomy yields
important information for instructors. The taxonomy causes instructors to be more conscious of the
content and the process which they teach and assess, as well as indicating disparities between what is
taught and what is assessed. Further, it can perform as a guide to evolve and expand the learning and
assessment activities by supplying a concrete consciousness of the content and process− an instructor
defines as essential in the development of learners’ cognition (Kastberg, 2003, p. 405).
While the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2016) refers to cognition as “the
mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment,
or that which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge”, the
cognitive domain addresses the knowledge and development of intellectual skills (Bloom, 1956). As
we have already mentioned, this domain is grouped under six subsequent thinking levels: the first
three levels which refer to the lower order thinking skills include remembering, understanding, and
applying, while the next three levels refer to the higher-order thinking skills that contain analyzing,
evaluating, and creating (Orey, 2010). Bloom’s taxonomy is hierarchical and each step is presented at
the upper steps as well. So, we can see the lower level at the higher level as well. For instance,
someone in the analyzing step can also function in remembering, understanding, and applying steps
(Konza, 2011). The following figure by Robyn (2014) clarifies the classification of Bloom’s taxonomy
in which the levels are given step by step in an ascending order from down to top.

Figure 1. Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

78 Dinçay Köksal, Ömer Gökhan Ulum / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2) (2018) 76-88

With all these in mind, this study aims at identifying to what extent the exam questions of general
English courses at universities refer to the levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. To achieve this, a group of
exam papers were analyzed carefully in order to have a broad view about which steps of taxonomy,
either upper or down, were employed. Question stems hinting on each level and key words
exemplifying the steps of the taxonomy were utilized to conclude which levels of thinking order were
available in the overall analyzed questions. This study will support the English as a Foreign Language
exam questions that are being written or will be written. Nearly all exam questions are being written
randomly, while few of them refer to the mentioned mental processes. In addition, one of these mental
processes, the Bloom’s Taxonomy, is not involved extensively in the formation of exam questions. In
our case, this study hints on the university level English exam questions which include solely the
lower levels thinking skills. Consequently, this research addresses a big problem which is the lack of
cognitive processes in the language assessment tools.

1.1. Purpose of the Study

This study aims to investigate the cognitive levels of the exam questions used in various
universities all around Turkey. That’s to say, it seeks to identify whether or not there are any
weaknesses or strengths of exam questions in terms of covering the lower and higher order thinking
skills under Bloom’s taxonomy. Therefore, we put forward the following research question:
To what extent do the exam questions for general English courses at universities cover the lower
and higher order cognitive levels of Bloom’s taxonomy?

1.2. Significance of the Study

This study investigates the exam questions employed at diverse universities in Turkey and aims to
identify the extent of lower and higher order cognition levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy in order to
suggest ways which may help instructors prepare qualified exam questions. Besides, the results of the
study will be of great benefit for instructors to be creative in designing or modifying exam questions
according to the cognition levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, as well. Furthermore, the results of the study
will contribute to all those taking part in EFL teaching. The results will also be useful for state EFL
teachers, as well as those working in private sector in while preparing efficient exam questions based
on the cognitive levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

1.3. Limitations of the Study

Language education, or just education in a broader term, should refer to the distinct cognitive
demands of Bloom’s Taxonomy to supply learners with the proficiency to carry out tasks at any
cognitive grade (Almerico & Baker, 2004; Assaly & Smadi, 2015). Within this study, we employed
Bloom’s Taxonomy in order to analyze the exam questions being used at a number of universities
according to the cognitive domain. Yet, our study is limited to the EFL exam questions used at
specific universities. The data collected in the study did not represent the contents of other institutions
such as colleges or high schools, or even the secondary schools.

2. Methodology

The procedure of the current study is based on a descriptive content analysis design which
describes the occurrence of the steps covered in both high and low order cognitive levels of Bloom’s
. Dinçay Köksal, Ömer Gökhan Ulum / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2) (2018) 76-88 79

Taxonomy. In other words, the cognitive levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy were employed while
categorizing the exam questions utilized at university level. The analyzed exam questions were
utilized and prepared by the lecturers appointed in the testing offices of the universities. The samples
of exam questions are presented after each table below. Firstly, with the aim of finding a solution to
the research problem To what extent do the exam questions for General English Courses at
universities cover the lower and higher order cognition levels of Bloom’s taxonomy?, question stems
based on each cognitive steps and key words referring to the cognitive levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy
were employed to diagnose which levels of thinking order were included in the overall analyzed exam
questions. In the study, frequencies, percentages, and samples of exam questions were given based
upon a qualitative research design. Since Bloom’s Taxonomy is a very useful way of assessing both
learning activities and teaching materials (as cited in Zareian, Davoudi, Heshmatifar, & Rahimi,
2015), in order to go into depth while identifying the exam questions− in terms of the cognitive
thinking level extent of the questions, we applied a descriptive analysis method through collecting,
listing, and analyzing the questions according to low order thinking skills: knowledge, comprehension,
and application, and high order thinking skills: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation as they are
classified in Bloom’s Taxonomy. In order to make the data more manageable, we presented it in
tables. In each table, we supplied raw frequencies as well as the percentage of each cognitive step. To
sum up, we employed Bloom’s Taxonomy as the theoretical framework of the study and tabulated the
findings accordingly. Furthermore, through a qualitative research design, we formed a semi-structured
interview about applying Bloom’s Taxonomy in teaching and assessment processes and directed it to a
number of instructors.

3. Data Analysis and Results

This descriptive analysis contained groups of questions based on the levels of Bloom’s taxonomy
with frequencies and percentages. All the data of this descriptive analysis were given as frequencies
and percentages with sample exam questions exemplifying the cognitive levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
The following tables and the question samples bring a light in terms of the above mentioned aspects.

3.1. Bloom’s Taxonomy in Exam Questions

This group of taxonomy consists of lower and higher order levels categorized into knowledge,
comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation with frequencies and related
percentages. In Table 1, we observe frequencies of cognitive levels employed in exam questions.

Table 1. Frequencies and Percentages of the Six Levels of the Cognitive Domain in Bloom’s Taxonomy in the
Exam Questions

Level of questions Frequencies Percentages

Knowledge 4225 81.7%
Low Comprehension 946 18.3%
Order Application 0 0%
Analysis 0 0%
High Syntheses 0 0%
Order Evaluation 0 0%
Total 5171 100%
Chi-Square (Asymp. Sig) 0.000 0.000
80 Dinçay Köksal, Ömer Gökhan Ulum / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2) (2018) 76-88

As it can be seen in the Table 1, the exam questions include only knowledge and comprehension
levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. That’s to say, according to Table 1, the exam questions are based on the
lower order cognition levels of Bloom’s taxonomy while they lack the higher order cognition levels.
The percentage of knowledge level contained in the exam questions is 81.7% while it is 18.3% for the
comprehension level. It is also clear from Table 1 that even between the percentages of knowledge and
comprehension levels, there is a high gap. Sample excerpts from the data are illustrated below:
 How many satellite channels are there? (Lower level, knowledge step)
 Do you have to cook your own breakfast? (Lower level, knowledge step)
 How much does a basic room cost per night? (Lower level, knowledge step)
 What is the main idea of the conversation? (Lower level, comprehension step)
 We can infer from the passage that the writer … (Lower level, comprehension step)
 It can be inferred from the passage that Diana … (Lower level, comprehension)

3.2. Bloom’s Taxonomy in Grammar and Vocabulary Exam Questions

In this group of taxonomy, 2 levels were observed to occur, being knowledge and comprehension
levels out of application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels. Each level is presented with
frequencies and related percentages.

Table 2. Frequencies and Percentages of the Six Levels of the Cognitive Domain in Bloom’s Taxonomy in
Grammar and Vocabulary Questions

Grammar and Vocabulary Questions Frequencies Percentages

Knowledge 2703 94.4%
Low Comprehension 161 5.6%
Order Application 0 0%
Analysis 0 0%
High Syntheses 0 0%
Order Evaluation 0 0%
Total 2864 100%
Chi-Square (Asymp. Sig) 0.000 0.000

Table 2 represents that the grammar and vocabulary exam questions cover only knowledge and
comprehension levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. In other words, according to Table 2, the exam questions
are based on the lower order cognition levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, though they do not refer to the
higher order cognition levels. The percentage of knowledge level contained in the exam questions is
94.4% while it is 5.6% for the comprehension level. Besides, it can be easily understood from Table 2
that the percentage of knowledge level is higher than the percentage of the comprehension level.
Below are the sample excerpts exemplifying the cognitive levels:
 Circle the correct word or phrase to complete the sentence or question. (Lower level,
knowledge step)
 Cross out the modal that is not possible in each sentence/question. (Lower level,
knowledge step)
 Write the adverbs for the corresponding adjectives. (Lower level, knowledge step)
 Which of the followings is the best answer? (Lower level, comprehension step)
. Dinçay Köksal, Ömer Gökhan Ulum / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2) (2018) 76-88 81

 Translate the following statements. (Lower level, comprehension step)

 Complete the second sentence so it means the same as the first. (Lower level,
comprehension)

3.3. Bloom’s Taxonomy in Reading Questions

Two levels that are knowledge and comprehension were observed to occur in the reading questions.
Related to the levels, frequencies and percentages are illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3. Frequencies and Percentages of the Six Levels of the Cognitive Domain in Bloom’s Taxonomy in
Reading Questions

Reading Questions Frequencies Percentages

Knowledge 1121 74.1%
Low Comprehension 391 25.9%
Order Application 0 0%
Analysis 0 0%
High Syntheses 0 0%
Order Evaluation 0 0%
Total 1512 100%
Chi-Square (Asymp. Sig) 0.000 0.000

From Table 3, we can see that the reading exam questions contain only knowledge and
comprehension levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Namely, the reading exam questions are grounded on the
lower order cognition levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, yet no occurrence of application, analysis,
syntheses, and evaluation levels were detected. Specifically, the percentage of knowledge level
involved in the exam questions is 74.1% while it is 25.9% for the comprehension level. Furthermore,
what is understood from the frequencies is that the knowledge level emerges highly compared to the
comprehension level. Sample sentences reflecting these levels are presented below:
 Who were the first people to eat chocolate bars? (Lower level, knowledge step)
 What are four of the most common phobias? (Lower level, knowledge step)
 What two things does Ellie like most about Paris in June? (Lower level, knowledge step)
 We can infer from the text that the writer … (Lower level, comprehension step)
 The article is mainly about … (Lower level, comprehension step)
 The best title for the text is … (Lower level, comprehension)

3.4. Bloom’s Taxonomy in Writing Questions

Only two levels emerged in low order cognitive domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Pertaining levels
with frequencies and percentages are presented in Table 4.
82 Dinçay Köksal, Ömer Gökhan Ulum / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2) (2018) 76-88

Table 4. Frequencies and Percentages of the Six Levels of the Cognitive Domain in Bloom’s Taxonomy in
Writing Questions

Writing Questions Frequencies Percentages

Knowledge 79 18.0%
Low Comprehension 360 82.0%
Order Application 0 0%
Analysis 0 0%
High Syntheses 0 0%
Order Evaluation 0 0%
Total 439 100
Chi-Square (Asymp. Sig) 0.000 0.000

The knowledge and comprehension levels of Bloom’s taxonomy were employed in writing exams
as stated in Table 4: that is the writing exam questions address to the lower order cognition levels of
Bloom’s taxonomy while no emergence of higher order levels were observed. As it is clearly seen, the
percentage of knowledge level contained in the exam questions is 18.0% while it is 82.0% for the
comprehension level. Moreover, it can easily be understood from the frequencies is that the
comprehension level emerges highly compared to the knowledge level. To cite some sample sentences
from the exam questions, we present the followings:
 What are three negative effects of stress on people? (Lower level, knowledge step)
 Write the words below under the correct heading. (Lower level, knowledge step)
 Write three branches of government with the names of positions in each of the branch.
(Lower level, knowledge step)
 Compare and contrast e-mail and letters. (Lower level, comprehension step)
 What do you believe are the chief reasons for students’ academic failure in education?
(Lower level, comprehension step)
 The advantages and disadvantages of attending a university (Lower level, comprehension)

3.5. Bloom’s Taxonomy in Speaking Questions

This cognitive order of taxonomy consists of 2 levels: knowledge and comprehension. The
frequencies and related percentages of both the mentioned levels and the levels with no occurrence are
tabulated in Table 5.

Table 5. Frequencies and Percentages of the Six Levels of the Cognitive Domain in Bloom’s Taxonomy in
Speaking Questions
Speaking Questions Frequencies Percentages
Knowledge 76 82.6%
Low Comprehension 16 17.4%
Order Application 0 0%
Analysis 0 0%
High Syntheses 0 0%
Order Evaluation 0 0%
Total 92 100%
Chi-Square (Asymp. Sig) 0.000 0.000
. Dinçay Köksal, Ömer Gökhan Ulum / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2) (2018) 76-88 83

The results obtained for speaking exam questions suggest the occurrence of the knowledge and
comprehension levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, as pointed out in Table 5. Besides, it is easily understood
that no emergence of higher order levels were seen. One can clearly see from Table 5 that the
percentage of knowledge level contained in the exam questions is 82.6% while it is 17.4% for the
comprehension level. Additionally, it can be observed from the frequencies that knowledge level
occurs significantly more than the comprehension level. Related sample sentences from examined
questions are presented below:
 Can you talk about yourself and your family? (Lower level, knowledge step)
 Talk about one of your good friends. (Lower level, knowledge step)
 Who is your best friend? (Lower level, knowledge step)
 Love or money? (Lower level, comprehension step)
 What things do boys do better than girls? (Lower level, comprehension step)
 Compare two cars/cities/books/singers. (Lower level, comprehension)

3.6. Bloom’s Taxonomy in Listening Questions

Two levels of cognitive domain out of six emerged in the examined questions. The frequencies and
related percentages of the detected levels are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Frequencies and Percentages of the Six Levels of the Cognitive Domain in Bloom’s Taxonomy in
Listening Questions

Listening Questions Frequencies Percentages

Knowledge 247 87.3%
Low Comprehension 36 12.7%
Order Application 0 0%
Analysis 0 0%
High Syntheses 0 0%
Order Evaluation 0 0%
Total 283 100%
Chi-Square (Asymp. Sig) 0.000 0.000

As can be observed from Table 6, the results obtained for listening exam questions indicate that
only knowledge and comprehension levels of Bloom’s taxonomy emerged, yet it is clearly understood
that no emergence of higher order levels were seen. Table 6 affirms that the percentage of knowledge
level contained in the exam questions is 87.3% while it is 12.7% for the comprehension level.
Furthermore, knowledge level emerges notably more than the comprehension level. Sample questions
representing these themes are cited below:
 Listen to the cinema recording. What is the name of the cinema? (Lower level, knowledge
step)
 Listen to the cinema recording. What number should you press to speak to an operator?
(Lower level, knowledge step)
 Listen to the cinema recording. Who/what is Lulu? (Lower level, knowledge step)
 Listen to the conversation. What is the main idea? (Lower level, comprehension step)
84 Dinçay Köksal, Ömer Gökhan Ulum / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2) (2018) 76-88

 Listen to the three minute discussion on opportunity cost. What can be inferred about the
true cost of education? (Lower level, comprehension step)
 Listen to the three minute lecture on child development. What is the main idea of the
lecture? (Lower level, comprehension)

3.7. Interview Results

As already discussed in the methodology part, we asked 29 instructors if they knew about Bloom’s
Taxonomy, but only 8 of them knew what Bloom’s taxonomy was. Therefore, the interviews were
implemented to 8 university EFL instructors who voluntarily took part in the study. According to what
they declared, we understood that they all incorporated Bloom’s Taxonomy into their teaching, but
while 7 of them incorporated the taxonomy into their assessment, one participant declared that s/he
didn’t incorporate it into the assessment process. In terms of which levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy they
incorporate into their teaching process, two respondents declared (6) Creating, (5) Evaluating, (4)
Analysing, (3) Applying, (2) Understanding, and (1) Remembering levels, one respondent declared (5)
Evaluating, (4) Analysing, (3) Applying, (2) Understanding, and (1) Remembering levels, one
respondent declared (4) Analysing, (3) Applying, (2) Understanding, and (1) Remembering levels,
three respondents declared (3) Applying, (2) Understanding, and (1) Remembering levels, and one
respondent declared only (1) Remembering level. Regarding which levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy they
incorporate into their assessment, two respondents declared creating level and the levels below, one
respondent declared evaluating level and the levels below, four respondents declared applying level
and the levels below, and one respondent declared remembering level. Looking at the levels of
Bloom’s Taxonomy the participants incorporate into their testing, it can be easily observed from the
interview that one respondent declared creating level and the levels below, one respondent declared
evaluating level and the levels below, five respondents declared applying level and the levels below,
and one respondent declared remembering level and the levels below. The interview data were
recorded by the interviewers. The interviewers tried to stimulate the interviewees to declare their
perceptions appropriately. To present diverse views regarding using Bloom’s Taxonomy in the
education process, the data were recorded under each question in the semi-structured interview. The
questions and some main comments of the participants were summed up and introduced below.
How do you incorporate Bloom’s Taxonomy into your teaching?
 I incorporate Bloom’s Taxonomy into my lesson in many ways such as making students
remember the active vocabulary during reading, apply grammar rules, and analyze writing.
 This semester, I asked my students to write a research paper for the 1st midterm.
 I cannot truly incorporate it into my teaching.
 While teaching grammar, I teach specific points leading students to remember it first. Later I
ask them what they understand, and then they do exercises which help them apply what they
learn.
 I try to include a variety of activities forcing the students to think and function at each level.
 It depends on the topic and the students; there is no one way of doing it. I generally want my
students to apply what we learn in the class. They take videos, prepare projects, and have
discussions in the classroom. We also organize some competitions within and among the
classes.
. Dinçay Köksal, Ömer Gökhan Ulum / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2) (2018) 76-88 85

 I encourage the students to make use of the levels of Bloom's taxonomy to elevate the thinking
process. In a way, I help them control their own cognitive levels by means of the activities
supported by Bloom's Taxonomy.
 The lesson plan must firstly serve the needs of students and it is based on Bloom's Taxonomy. I
describe a lesson plan for certain verbs in Simple Past Tense. It aims to reach the highest
level of the taxonomy; creation. Students are presented with the past forms of the verbs.
Students are expected to identify and match the forms and meaning of the verbs. A reading
passage can be read and the students are expected to summarize it. The activities cover the
second cognitive level. The level of application includes the usage of verbs in a different fill-
in -the blanks exercises. In the analyzing part, the verbs intended to be learned are used in
different contexts and exercises. In the evaluation and creation, students are asked to make up
their own stories using the certain verbs after the introduction of the story is given.
How do you incorporate Bloom’s Taxonomy into your assessment?
 I attempt to incorporate it into assessment by preparing the tests and tasks based on cognitive
levels of the taxonomy.
 Tests and assessment is done by the school, through some mini quizzes, videos taken by the
students, discussions, portfolios, and presentations. The tests are formed according to such
levels as remembering level through multiple choice questions, and as understanding and
applying levels through open ended questions and the writing parts of the exams.
 I encourage the students to apply and figure out something in given situations.
 Generally speaking, I use Applying level questions which are given in context. The contexts
are chosen as everyday speeches.
 Although I try hard, I find it difficult to incorporate it into my assessment.
 I ask them to detect a problem and make a research question. I have a look at their work one
by one. They write a research paper and I give feedback.
 I tend to use Bloom’s Taxonomy in my quizzes and presentations. I may not be using only the
last stage creating since it entails a lot of time.
 We ask students to prepare presentations on a certain topic, make posters, and write essays.
Doing all these activities requires incorporation at Bloom’s Taxonomy.

4. Suggestions

In light of the findings of the study, we suggest the following criteria to be taken into account:
1. EFL exam questions should refer to both low and high level cognitive orders.
2. Similar research ought to be conducted on the exam questions of other branches of English
Language Teaching like English for Specific Purposes.
3. This kind of research ought to be conducted referring to whether the instructors both teach and
assess the students according to the cognitive domains of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
4. Similar research ought to be conducted on whether incorporation of Bloom’s Taxonomy into
teaching is parallel to the assessment of students.
86 Dinçay Köksal, Ömer Gökhan Ulum / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2) (2018) 76-88

5. Discussion

Although a list of assessment types are available, a written exam is the most employed tool chosen
by academic institutions. A question is an element that is intertwined with the exam. Questions raised
in exams play an important role to test the students’ overall cognitive levels (Omar et al., 2012).
Efficient exam questions should cover various difficulty levels to refer to the different capabilities of
learners (Leeds, 2000; Black, Harrison, & Lee, 2003; Chin, 2004; Jones, Harland, Reid, & Bartlett,
2009). A high level question may be unfamiliar to the students as it demands an answer through
reasoning, decision-making, analysis, synthesis, and critical thinking (Zoller & Tsaparlis, 1997;
Ordem, 2016). Instructors who prepare exams to improve students’ high order cognitive skills promote
interaction between themselves and their students (Brualdi, 1998). Therefore, while adapting exam
papers, they consider the nature of the relationship between low and high level questions. While low
level cognitive questions increase the acquisition of the accurate knowledge and pave the way for
acquiring high-cognitive skills, high level questions are practical tools for prompting thinking and
improving other cognitive skills like problem solving and decision making (Freahat & Smadi, 2014).

6. Conclusion

We see a number of studies based on the classification of exam questions according to the
cognitive levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Scott, 2003; Thompson et al., 2008; Jones, Harland, Reid, &
Barlett, 2009; Chang & Chung, 2009; Swart, 2010; Omar et al., 2012). However, there has not been
much attempt to categorize exam questions in terms of four language skills (reading, writing,
speaking, and listening). In our study, we analyzed the exam questions referring specifically to four
language skills, putting a total emphasis on Bloom’s Taxonomy, as well as trying to find out the
perspectives of teachers on incorporating the taxonomy into the overall teaching process. In the
analyzed papers, with reference to the questions assessing four language skills, we couldn’t detect any
question settled on the higher level thinking levels specified in Bloom’s Taxonomy; however, we
observed only the cognitive levels of knowledge and comprehension in the examined questions.
Besides, as we detected from the study, let alone incorporating it into their assessment process, many
of the instructors were even unaware of the taxonomy.

References
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.
Assaly, I. R., & Smadi, O. M. (2015). Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Evaluate the Cognitive Levels of
Master Class Textbook’s Questions. English Language Teaching. 8(5), 100-110.
Black, P., Harrison, C., & Lee, C. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. McGraw-
Hill Education (UK).
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York:
McKay, 20-24.
Brualdi, A.C. (1998). Classroom questions. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation.6/6.
. Dinçay Köksal, Ömer Gökhan Ulum / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2) (2018) 76-88 87

Chang, W. C., & Chung, M. S. (2009). Automatic applying Bloom's taxonomy to classify and analysis
the cognition level of English question items. In 2009 Joint Conferences on Pervasive Computing
(JCPC).
Chin, C. (2004). Questioning Students in ways that encourage thinking. Teaching Science: The
Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 50(4).
Cognition (2016). In The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Retrieved March
20, 2016, from https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=cognition
Eber, P. A., & Parker, T. S. (2007). Assessing Student Learning: Applying Bloom's Taxonomy.
Human Service Education, 27(1).
Freahat, N. M., & Smadi, O. M. (2014). Lower-order and Higher-order Reading Questions in
Secondary and University Level EFL Textbooks in Jordan. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, 4(9), 1804-1813.
Haris, S. S., & Omar, N. (2015). Bloom's Taxonomy Question Categorizatıon Using Rules and N-
gram Approach. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology, 76(3).
Jones, K. O., Harland, J., Reid, J., & Bartlett, R. (2009). Relationship between examination questions
and Bloom's taxonomy. In Frontiers in Education Conference, 2009. FIE'09. 39th IEEE. 1-6.
Kastberg, S. E. (2003). Using Bloom's Taxonomy as a framework for classroom assessment. The
Mathematics Teacher, 96(6), 402-405.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4),
212-218.
Konza, D. (2011). Research into Practice. Understanding the reading process. Department of
Education and Children’s Services. Government of South Australia. 1, 1-8.
Leeds, D. (2000). The 7 powers of questions: Secrets to successful communication in life and at work.
Penguin.
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.
Ordem, E. (2016). Developing Critical-Thinking Dispositions in a Listening/Speaking Class. English
Language Teaching, 10(1), 50.
Orey, M. (2010). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. The Global Text
Project. Jacobs Foundation: Switzerland.
Paul, D. V., Naik, S. B., & Pawar, J. D. (2014). An Evolutionary Approach for Question Selection
from a Question Bank: A Case Study. International Journal of ICT Research and Development in
Africa (IJICTRDA), 4(1), 61-75.
Robyn, E. (2014). Bloom's taxonomy. Denver, CO: ExpertBeacon. Retreived on the 30th of May, 2018
from http://expertbeacon.com/blooms-taxonomy/#.VZGfG0aIU0w
Scott, T. (2003). Bloom’s Taxonomy Applied to Testing in Computer Science Classes. Consortium for
Computing Science in Colleges: Rocky Mountain Conference. 267-274.
Swart, A.J. (2010). Evaluation of Final Examination Papers in Engineering: A Case StudyUsing
Bloom's Taxonomy. IEEE Transactions on Education. 53 (2), 257-264.
 88 Dinçay Köksal, Ömer Gökhan Ulum / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2) (2018) 76-88

Thompson, E., Luxton-Reilly, A., Whalley, J. L. Hu, M., P. Robbins. (2008). Bloom's Taxonomy for
CS Assessment. Proceeding Tenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2008),
Wollongong, Australia. 155-162.
Veeravagu, J., Muthusamy, C., Marimuthu, R., & Michael, A. S. (2010). Using Bloom's Taxonomy to
Gauge Students' Reading Comprehension Performance/Utiliser La Taxonomie De Bloom Pour
Evaluer Les Performances De Comprehension Ecrite Des Eleves. Canadian Social Science, 6(3),
205.
Zareian, G., Davoudi, M., Heshmatifar, Z., & Rahimi, J. (2015). An Evaluation of Questions in Two
ESP Coursebooks Based on Bloom’s New Taxonomy of Cognitive Learning Domain.
International Journal of Education and Research. 3(8), 313-326.
Zoller, U. & Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Higher and lower-order cognitive skills: The case of chemistry.
Research in Science Education, 27,117- 130.

Bloom Taksonomisi aracılığıyla dil değerlendirmesi

Öz
Bloom taksonomisi üst ve alt düzey bilişsel becerilerin ölçülmesine yarayan ölçme araçlarında görülür.
Öğrencilerin taksonomi basamaklarında nasıl uzmanlaştıklarını değerlendirmek önemli olduğundan, bu
çalışmada Bloom taksonomisinin üst ve alt düzey basamakları sunularak, genel İngilizce dersi sınav sorularının
üst ve alt düzey bilişsel seviyelere dayanıp dayanmadığı açığa çıkarılmıştır. Bu çalışma nitel ve nicel veri
toplama tekniklerine dayanmaktadır. Çalışmanın bulguları analiz edilen sınav sorularının Bloom taksonominde
yer alan yüksek düzey bilişsel becerilerden yoksun olduğunu göstermiştir. Bulgular aracılığıyla yazılmakta olan
ve yazılacak olan sınav sorularının Bloom taksonomisini nasıl kapsaması gerektiği konusunda varsayımlara
ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar sözcükler: Bloom Taksonomisi; dil değerlendirmesi; sınav soruları; ölçme- değerlendirme

AUTHOR BIODATA
Prof. Dinçay Köksal is the head of English Language Teaching Department at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart
University, Turkey. His research interests cover language assessment, educational research, language teaching
and learning, culture and language, and foreign language education policy.
Ömer Gökhan Ulum is a PhD candidate at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey. His research interests
cover culture and language, applied linguistics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, and educational research.

View publication stats