The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Evaluate the Cognitive Levels of Master Class Textbook’s Questions
Open accessAbstract
This study aimed at evaluating the cognitive levels of the questions following the reading texts of Master Class textbook. A checklist based on Bloom’s Taxonomy was the instrument used to categorize the cognitive levels of these questions. The researchers used proper statistics to rank the cognitive levels of the comprehension questions. The results showed that the author of Master Class emphasized the cognitive level of Comprehension having 52% of the questions, which was much more than the expected frequency, while wrote only 3.7% and 6% of the questions on the cognitive levels of Knowledge and Application respectively. The frequency of questions on the cognitive levels of Evaluation and Analysis were much closer to the expected frequencies. The results indicated that about 40% of the textbook’s questions emphasized higher-order thinking skills, which goes with the requirements of the revised curriculum. Evaluating and choosing a good textbook that goes with the goals of the curriculum is recommended. Such a study would shed light upon the role of textbooks in developing cognitive skills among Arab students.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“For example, in, Assaly and Smadi (2015) and in Igbaria (2013), the researchers constructed alist ofcritical thinking skills containing definitions and concepts ofsix criti -cal thinking levels from Bloom's taxonomy and presented it to a committee of experts from their specialised field prior to analysis to validate the opera -tional definition ofthe research in”
From Investigating Critical Thinking in ELT Textbooks: A Systematic Literature Review of Textbook Evaluation Studies (2024) · cites this paper as Assaly and Smadi (2015)
Citations
Cites
(2001) · Cited by 25,534
Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.
Shelley, M., & Krippendorff, K. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288384 · Cited by 24,351
Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform
Shulman, L. (1987) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 · Cited by 16,787
Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology
Krippendorff, K. (2019) · doi:10.4135/9781071878781 · Cited by 15,448
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956) · Cited by 9,342
A revision of bloom's taxonomy: an overview
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 · Cited by 8,132
(1956) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,596
Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities.
Parker, E. B., & Holsti, O. R. (1970) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2093233 · Cited by 4,553
Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (2018) · Knowing, Learning, and Instruction · doi:10.4324/9781315044408-14 · Cited by 3,674
Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension
Snow, C. E. (1998) · Cited by 1,815
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Artificial Intelligence Generative Tools and Conceptual Knowledge in Problem Solving in Chemistry
Daher, W. M., Diab, H., & Rayan, A. (2023) · Information · doi:10.3390/info14070409 · Cited by 85
Muhayimana, T., Kwizera, L., & Nyirahabimana, M. R. (2022) · Curriculum Perspectives · doi:10.1007/s41297-021-00156-2 · Cited by 77
Song, B. L., Lee, K. L., Liew, C. Y., Ho, R. C., & Lin, W. L. (2022) · Education + Training · doi:10.1108/et-03-2021-0106 · Cited by 55
Ulum, Ö. G. (2016) · The Qualitative Report · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2172 · Cited by 49
Ginting, A. A., & Kuswandono, P. (2020) · Pedagogy Journal of English Language Teaching · doi:10.32332/pedagogy.v8i1.1688 · Cited by 39
Metadata
- Authors
- R. Assaly, I., & M. Smadi, O.
- Venue
- English Language Teaching
- Published
- 2015-04-23
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 5
- ISSN
- 1916-4742 (ISSN-L)
- 1916-4750
- OpenAlex
- W1964405501
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 15.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- English Language Teaching (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Arabic Language Education Studies
- Keywords
- Bloom's taxonomy, cognitive levels, textbook question analysis, English as a foreign language, higher-order thinking skills, reading comprehension questions, textbook evaluation, revised curriculum, Arab students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
