Analyzing Language Assessment from the Cognitive Lens
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48112/aessr.v3i4.614Abstract
Abstract Views: 596
This study examined the alignment of cognitive stages in English exam items from the tenth grade, administered by the Mirpur Khas Board. Analyzing the items related to lower-order-thinking-skills (L-O-T-S) and higher-order-thinking-skills (H-O-T-S) was the objective in more detail. In this regard, 224 items from English test papers spanning 2015 to 2019 were examined, and their reflections were compared to the degrees of cognition (remember, comprehend, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create). A reiterative process was adopted to complete item analysis in two parallel phases—first, studying all cognitive levels thoroughly, understanding the denotation and connotation of each action verb; second, discerning the sense for items to elicit meaning, and matching it with the corresponding action verb of the cognitive level. The data collection tool comprised an observation checklist that was validated after piloting. All items were read and re-read, marked in the checklist, transferred on an Excel Sheet, computed for categories under corresponding cognitive levels, and tabulated for appraising yearly standing. The findings indicate the disproportionate distribution of cognition levels: remember (67%), understand (10%), apply (18%), create (4.46%), evaluate (0.45%), and total absence of analysis. Moreover, the L-O-T-S received more predominance than the H-O-T-S in the exam items. These findings raise questions over the authenticity of summative assessment, and necessitate professional item-development training in language teaching for the item-developers, to ensure effective teaching and learning outcomes. The findings suggest teachers practice higher cognitive levels in the formative assessment. Future studies may consider an inquiry into other disciplines, and contexts to test the quality of assessment of exam paper items.
Keywords:
Bloom’s Taxonomy, Cognitive domain, English exam items, Language assessment, Mirpur Khas BoardReferences
Al Amin, M., & Greenwood, J. (2018). The examination system in Bangladesh and its impact: on curriculum, students, teachers and society. Language Testing in Asia, 8(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-018-0060-9
Alzu'bi, M. A. (2014). The extend of adaptation Bloom's Taxonomy of cognitive domain in English Questions included in general secondary exams. Advances in Language and literary Studies, 5(2), 67-72.
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.
Aydemir, Y., & Çiftçi, Ö. (2008). A research on asking question ability of literature teacher candidates. Yüzüncü Yıl Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 103-115.
Baird, J. A., Andrich, D., Hopfenbeck, T. N., & Stobart, G. (2017). Assessment and learning: Fields apart?. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(3), 317-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1319337
Bloom, B. S. (2010). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Handbook I: cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
Borghouts, L. B., Slingerland, M., & Haerens, L. (2017). Assessment quality and practices in secondary PE in the Netherlands. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(5), 473-489. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2016.1241226
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long‐term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399-413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600679050
Chandio, M. T., Pandhiani, S. M., & Iqbal, S. (2016). Bloom’s Taxonomy: Improving assessment and teaching-learning process. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 3(2), 203.
Chandio, M. T., Zafar, N., & Solangi, G. M. (2021). Bloom's Taxonomy: Reforming Pedagogy through Assessment. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 8(1), 109-140. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v8i1.308
Cullinane, A., & Liston, M. (2016). Review of the Leaving Certificate biology examination papers (1999–2008) using Bloom’s taxonomy–an investigation of the cognitive demands of the examination. Irish Educational Studies, 35(3), 249-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2016.1192480
Elwood, J., Hopfenbeck, T., & Baird, J. A. (2017). Predictability in high-stakes examinations: Students’ perspectives on a perennial assessment dilemma. Research Papers in Education, 32(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2015.1086015
Hung, B. P. (2019). A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Teaching English Idioms to EFL Students: Experimental Results. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 25(2).
Khan, I. (2021). Evaluation of English language question papers for content validity at Intermediate level: A case study of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sukkur. University of Chitral Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 5(II), 295-309. https://doi.org/10.33195/wvjmdq75
Köksal, D., & Ulum, Ö. G. (2018). Language assessment through Bloom’s Taxonomy. Journal of language and linguistic studies, 14(2), 76-88.
Lasley, T. J. (2023). Bloom’s taxonomy. Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Muhayimana, T., Kwizera, L. & Nyirahabimana, M.R. Using Bloom’s taxonomy to evaluate the cognitive levels of Primary Leaving English Exam questions in Rwandan schools. Curric Perspect 42, 51–63 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-021-00156-2
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.278
Patel, T. (2016). Promoting multi-paradigmatic cultural research in international business literature: An integrative complexity-based argument. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(4), 599-629. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2015-0120
Rind, I. A., & Malik, A. (2019). The examination trends at the secondary and higher secondary level in Pakistan. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 1(1), 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2019.100002
Rind, I. A., & Mari, M. A. (2019). Analysing the impact of external examination on teaching and learning of English at the secondary level education. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1574947. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1574947
Seel, N. M. (Ed.). (2011). Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer Science & Business Media.
Sivaraman, S. I., & Krishna, D. (2015). Blooms taxonomy–application in exam papers assessment. Chemical Engineering (VITU), 12(12), 5-9.
Tsaparlis, G. (2020). Higher and lower-order thinking skills: the case of chemistry revisited. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(3), 467-483.
Zamir, S., & Jan, H. (2023). Assessment of papers of English of Sukkur BISE Sindh, Pakistan: An Exploration of the Reflection of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Voyage Journal of Educational Studies, 3(1), 220-240. https://doi.org/10.58622/vjes.v3i1.41
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.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Academy of Education and Social Sciences Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
