2003
DOI: 10.5951/mt.96.6.0402
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using Bloom's Taxonomy as a Framework for Classroom Assessment

Abstract: AS A MATHEMATICS TEACHER, I WANT MY CLASSroom tests to reflect what my students have had an opportunity to learn so that I can assess both their learning and my teaching. I find, however, that often I create tests haphazardly. As a result, the tests that I give accomplish only part of what I had intended them to do. In an attempt to discover ways to be more systematic in my test preparation, I read Assessment Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM 1995). That document contains a variety of helpful advice, incl… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While this focus is consistent with the HOT and LOT division, the approach should be more balanced, since the essential structure of the taxonomy was a cumulative hierarchy (Kastberg, 2003). The taxonomy is a hierarchy because the classes of objectives are arranged in order of increasing complexity, and cumulative because each class of behaviours was presumed to include all the behaviours of the less complex classes (Kreitzer & Madaus 1994, as cited in Kastberg, 2003). This means HOT tasks can only be effectively fulfilled if LOT is at a sufficient level.…”
Section: Chapter Five: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…While this focus is consistent with the HOT and LOT division, the approach should be more balanced, since the essential structure of the taxonomy was a cumulative hierarchy (Kastberg, 2003). The taxonomy is a hierarchy because the classes of objectives are arranged in order of increasing complexity, and cumulative because each class of behaviours was presumed to include all the behaviours of the less complex classes (Kreitzer & Madaus 1994, as cited in Kastberg, 2003). This means HOT tasks can only be effectively fulfilled if LOT is at a sufficient level.…”
Section: Chapter Five: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…As found by Flannagan (2018), the Canadian classrooms often skip this step to focus more on other "discovery" tasks that promised to allow higher-order critical thinking skills. While this focus is consistent with the HOT and LOT division, the approach should be more balanced, since the essential structure of the taxonomy was a cumulative hierarchy (Kastberg, 2003). The taxonomy is a hierarchy because the classes of objectives are arranged in order of increasing complexity, and cumulative because each class of behaviours was presumed to include all the behaviours of the less complex classes (Kreitzer & Madaus 1994, as cited in Kastberg, 2003).…”
Section: Chapter Five: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Bloom's taxonomy makes sure that Students have clear, measurable instructional objectives, indicating disparities between what teachers teach and what they assess. Bloom's taxonomy plays the role of a guide for learning development and assessment construction by providing a concrete consciousness to balance between teaching and testing, which educationalists consider essential in the development of the students' cognition (Kastberg, 2003). The American heritage dictionary (2016, p 1528) defines cognition or understanding 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."…”
Section: Literature Review Bloom's Taxonomymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This literature, however, refers merely to teaching engineering at a college or university level. With respect to K-12 education, a great deal of literature is available about using bloom's taxonomy for teaching subjects such as mathematics (Kastberg, 2003) or science (Bissell and Lemons, 2006;Bennett, 2001), but much less has been written about using this scale for teaching engineering and technology in K-12 education. This has partially to do with two facts: the traditional technology education curriculum and the work of scholars in this area relate only little to general tools for instructional design and evaluation; and the engineering-oriented curriculum is a relatively new area in K-12 education.…”
Section: The Cognitive Dimensionmentioning
confidence: 99%