Student profile in completing questions based on cognitive level of bloom’s taxonomy

by Anderson and Krathwohl

Widinda Normalia Arlianty, Beta Wulan Febriana, Artina Diniaty, and Lina Fauzi’ah

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 2026, 020063 (2018); doi: 10.1063/1.5065023

View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5065023
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/2026/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
Student Profile in Completing Questions Based on Cognitive
Level of Bloom’s Taxonomy By Anderson and Krathwohl
Widinda Normalia Arliantya) Beta Wulan Febriana, Artina Diniaty, Lina Fauzi’ah

Department of Chemsitry Education,

Islamic University of Indonesia
a)
Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract. This study aims to identify the ability of students in completing questions based on cognitive level of Bloom’s
Taxonomy by Anderson and Kreathwohl of the process evaluation and learning outcomes. The subject of this research is
6th semester students, chemistry education department, Islamic University of Indonesia. This research is a descriptive
research. The study was conducted using the test instrument about the process evaluation and learning outcomes based on
indicator of bloom's taxonomy are Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) consisting of remembering, understanding and
applying then for the Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) consisting of analyzing, evaluating and creating. The test
instrument is essay about development and analysis of assessment instrument in process evaluation and learning
outcomes. The results show that based on the data obtained can be described on the Lower Order Thinking Skills
(LOTS), the ability of students to working out questions at the level of remembering reached 76.67% “good category”;
at the level understanding 73.33% “good category” and at the applying level of 62.22% with the “good category”. While
the students' ability in working out questions on High Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) at the level of analyzing level
58.52%, at evaluating level reached 53.78% with both of them “enough category” and at creating level reached 72.44%
“good category”

INTRODUCTION
In a lesson we often conclude that a student's learning achievement can be judged on the basis of their final
grade. However, in a lesson there is really something to be examined more deeply in the "process" that is done
during learning. This learning process can include approaches, strategies, methods, models, and even evaluation
tools used. Matters associated with the learning process is the most important factor in achieving a learning
objective and some of the above is included in the external factors in the learning process. Achievement of learning
objectives is not only influenced by external factors alone, but internal factors are also important to the success of
learners. One of the internal factors that affect the achievement of learning objectives is the ability to think.
The ability to think is one of the fundamental things in the education process. One's thinking ability can affect
learning ability, speed and effectiveness of learning. Therefore, thinking skills are associated with the learning
process. Students who are trained to think show a positive impact on the development of their education [1].
Teaching and learning activities should involve explicit thinking skills, making it easier to categorize thinking skills
based on existing frameworks [2].
Bloom's Bloom's Taxonomy is designed to differentiate thinking skills from the lowest level to higher-order
thinking [3]. Then Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revise this taxonomy by classifying six cognitive processes
whether students are able or learning to: (1) remember, (2) understand, (3) apply, (4) analyze, (5) evaluate and (6)
create [4]. Like the original framework, the new taxonomy assumes the underlying sustainability of cognitive
processes becomes more complex. Bloom's Taxonomy can help educators to recognize whether there is an
inconsistency between what the learning objectives are and what the teacher wants based on what is implied from
the questions that the teacher gives to the students [5]. Bloom's Taxonomy shares learning objectives as lower order
thinking and higher order thinking and explains that one of the six behaviors that educators can hamper students'
learning is the use of lower-order thinking questions on the instrument of learning evaluation, and if the questions

2nd International Conference on Chemistry, Chemical Process and Engineering (IC3PE)

AIP Conf. Proc. 2026, 020063-1–020063-6; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5065023
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1746-5/$30.00

020063-1
asked by the teacher still focus on the questions at that level then the students' thinking will also be fixed on this
level [3,4,6]. Therefore, it is important to know whether the questions contained in the questions given by teachers
can develop students' thinking on various levels of cognitive.
According to minister education and culture’s regulation in Indonesia [7], the assessment of study result by
educator is information or data collecting process about student’s achievements in attitude aspect, knowledge aspect,
and skill aspect which is done systematically to observe the process, study progress, and study result improvement
by giving an assignment and evaluation of study result. To develop the ability to think critically, there are five
lessons that can be taken, namely: (1) determine the learning objectives, (2) teach through inquiry, (3) practice, (4)
review, refine and improve under-standing, and (5) practice feedback and assess learning [8]. According Krathworl
(2001) indicators to measure the high-level thinking skills include: analyzing, evaluating, creating. Thus, HOTS is a
thinking skills that not only requires the ability to re-member, but also other higher capabilities include the ability to
analyze, evaluate, and create [4].
Classifies bloom’s thinking skill into two categories that is Lower Order Thinking Skills which consists of
knowledge, understanding and application [9]. Higher Order Thinking Skills which consists of analysis, synthetic
and evaluation. Description and key word of each category can be seen in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Descrption and Key Word of Bloom’s Taxonomy Revision
Category Key Words
Remembering:can the student recall Mention the definition, imitate the
or remembering the information? pronounciation, state the structure
pronounce, repeat state
Understanding: Can the students Classify, describe, explain the
explain the concept, principle, law or identification, placed, report, LOTS
procedure? explain, translate, paraphrased. Lower Order Thinking Skill
Applying: Can the students apply Choosing, demonstrating, acting,
their understanding in new situation? using, illustrating, interpreting,
arranging schedule, making sketch,
solving problem, writing.
Analyzing: Can students classify the Examining, comparing, contrasting,
sections based on their difference distinguish, doing discrimination,
and similiarity? separating, test, doing experiment,
asking.
HOTS
Evaluating: Can students state either Giving argumentation, defending,
Higher Order Thinking Skills
good or bad towards a phenomenon stating, choosing, giving support,
or certain object? giving assessment, doing evaluation.
Creating: Can students create a thing Assemble, change, build, create,
or opinion? design, establish, formulate, write.

In Bloom’s taxonomy, there is only known one cognitive domain but in Anderson and Krathwohl’s taxonomy
become two dimensions. First dimension is Knowledge Dimensionand Cognitive Process Dimension. Anderson and
Krathwohl’s two dimensions perspective for higher order thinking and classification of its operational verbs can be
described in Table 2.

TABLE 2. Blooms’ Taxonomy of Dimentional Revision and Examples of Operational Verbs for Higer Order Thinking
The Cognitive Process Dimension
The Knowledge Dimension C4 C5 C6
Analyze Evaluate Create
Making structure,
Factual Knowledge Comparing, correlating Joining
classifying
Conceptual Knowledge Explain, analyze Examine, interpret Planning

Procedural Knowledge Distinguish Conclude, resume Arrange,formulate

Source: [4]

020063-2
 RESEARCH METHODS
1. Design Research
This research was Descriptive quantitative. Descriptive quantitative reasearch is reasearch that seeks to describe
a symptom, events and happenings that occur at the present time in the which research tried to take photo,
picture, or figure of events and happenings that become the center of attention for a later described as such. [10]
2. Research Subjects
Subjects in this study are students of chemistry education, Islamic university of Indonesia. Subject in this study
consisted of nine students, devided into 2 of two males and six females. This research is conducted on Evaluation
and student learning process course.
3. Research Procedure
Creation of
Pre Research
Pre Research
Cognitive Instruments

Instruments Validation

Use of
Research
Cognitive Instrument

Post Research Data Analysis

Result

FIGURE 1. Research Procedure

4. Research Instruments
Data collection in this research using test instrument. The test instrument is a description of six questions. The
questions of the description fall from six levels according to Taksonomy bloom (1) remembering, (2)
understanding, (3) applying, (4) analyzing, (5) evaluating and (6) creating. Each question represents each level.
Problems that have been made later in the validation by experts. Results from expert validation will be analyzed
using gregory formulas. The questions and descriptions of the questions can be seen in Table 3. below.

TABLE 3. Indicator Descriptions of Instrument Assessment

The purpose of students’s Cognitive
No Indicator
achievements Dimension
Able to know the basics of making
1 Mentions the steps in making the instrument C1
instruments
Able to identify the instruments
determine the instruments used from a research
2 used in accordance with the C2
title
research to be conducted
Able to determine the correct
3 instrument and can be used for Calculates the validity of an instrument C3
assessment

020063-3
 TABLE 3. Indicator Descriptions of Instrument Assessment (Continued)
The purpose of students’s Cognitive
No Indicator
achievements Dimension
Able to determine the correct
4 instrument and can be used for Analyze data from research results C4
assessment
Able to determine the correct
5 instrument and can be used for Analyze and interpret data from research results C5
assessment
Able to design the research and
6 Create research insruments C6
instruments used appropriately

Note: C1 (Remembering); C2 (Understanding); C3 (Applying); C4 (Analysis); C5 (Evaluation); C6 (Creation)

5. Data Analysis Techniques

Instrument Validation Results
The results of the validation instrument gregory of cognitive test using the formula presented in Table 4. below.
TABLE 4. Summary of Results of Content Validity Cognitive Test Instruments
The number
Variable CV Conclusion
of Indicator
Cognitive test 6 0,8 Analysis can be continued

6. Results of Cognitive Test Score

The results of the score of posttest based on cognitive dimension presented in Table 5 below. Data obtained then
processed by using the formula percentage Arikunto as follows. The percentage values of occurrences are then
grouped by category as follows: 81-100% percentage is categorized by predicate: Very Good; 61-80% (Good);
41-60% (Enough); 21-40% (Less); and the percentage of ≤ 21% is categorized as less than once [11].

∑ ( )
% Occurrences=
∑ ( )
x 100%

TABLE 5. Descriptive on cognitive test score

Presentation of cognitive
The number Cognitive
Maximal Scores Average achievement dimension
of questions Dimension
(%)
Question 1 C1 10 7,67 76,67
Question 2 C3 15 9,33 62,22
Question 3 C4 15 8,78 58,52
Question 4 C5 25 13,44 53,78
Question 5 C2 10 7,33 73,33
Question 6 C6 25 18,11 72,44

020063-4
 Create 72.44

Cognitive Dimension
Evaluation 73.33

Analysis 58.62

Applyng 62.22

Understanding 73.33

Remembering 76.67

0 20 40 60 80
Percentage (%)

FIGURE 2. Histrogram of Percentage Cognitive Dimension (Level) Taxonomy Bloom by Anderson and Krathwohl to
Completing Questions

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results showed that assessment instruments developed based on the cognitive level of C1-C6 can be used.
The form of assessment used is a matter of description. Problem description consists of six questions, where each
problem represents the developed cognitive dimension. Problems before being used are validated to experts through
content validation. Results from content validation to experts have been presented in Table 4. The calculations used
for content validation by experts using gregory formulas and obtained a number of 0.8 which can be concluded that
the instrument can be used.
Furthermore, validated instruments have been used to collect assessment data on evaluation courses and learning
outcomes in chemical education students. Based on the results of the research presented in Table 5, the achievement
for each cognitive dimension varies. Highest student ability and able to do problem at level of matter with cognitive
dimension C1 equal to 76,67% with category "Good". Next on C2 is 72,33% category "Good"; C6 of 72.44%
category "Good"; C3 of 62.22% category "Good"; C4 of 58.78% category "Enough" and the lowest obtained C5 of
53.78% category "Enough".
According to Bloom et al. (1956) memorization is the lowest level of thinking ability (Thinking Behaviors) and
this ability must be mastered before it can increase at the next level of thinking [2]. The next level of thinking is
understanding and application. Remembering, understanding and application is still classified as Lower Order
Thinking (LOTS). The results showed that in the lower order thinking level, the students were able to solve the
problem well and able to achieve the "Good" category. This indicates that at the level of C1 (memorization), C2
(understanding), and C3 (Application) can be understood by students so that students should be able to continue on
the next cognitive level called higher order thinking (HOTS) that is C4 (analysis) C5 (evaluation) and C6 (create).
However, in this study showed that the results of student skills on HOTS cognitive dimension have not been able to
measure as expected. In C6 students have a good achievement presentation of 72.44%. This can be said to be quite
high compared to C4 and C5 which only get the category "enough".
Whereas students should have skills on cognitive dimension C4 and C5. In these questions students are required
to think complex. The skill for complex thinking is a necessary skill in critical thinking, and teachers should teach
their students to make decisions based on critical thinking so that the student can improve his or her future and
contribute to society [12]. The findings of some educational observers indicate that the tendency of learning in
Indonesia only exposes facts, knowledge, and laws, to then discourage and not attempt to link the content learned
with everyday life, thus causing students to experience the greatest difficulty in applying the knowledge that owned
in real life [13, 14].
As mentioned earlier, Facione (2015) emphasizes the importance of teachers to develop students' critical
thinking skills in order to contribute to society [12]. This suggests that efforts to develop high-level skills such as
critical thinking skills are crucial, not only increasing the value of Indonesian students' learning skills at the global

020063-5
level, but rather on preparing students when they have graduated from school and become part from both local and
global communities. Learning strategies that can develop students' critical thinking skills are strategies in which
teachers practice skills development strategies higher order thinking [15].

CONCLUSION
Students' mastery of problem-solving based on cognitive level of Bloom's taxonomy revision was found in
different percentages, the mean of cognitive lower order thinking (C1, C2, and C3) cognitive level emergence was
"good" while the cognitive level higher order thinking (C4 and C6) are "enough" but in C6 have "good" category.

REFERENCES
1. Y. M. Heong, W. D. Othman, J. Md.Yunos, T. T. Kiong, R. Hassan, & M. M. Mohamad, Int. j. soc. sci.
humanit. Invent, 1, 2, pp. 121-125 (2011).
2. T. T. Kiong, J. Yunos, R. Hassan, Y. M. Heong, A. Hussein dan M. M. Mohamad, Journal of Research, Policy
& Pactice of Teachers & Teacher Education. 2, 2, pp. 12-23(2012).
3. B. Bloom, M. Englehart, E. Furst, W. Hill, & D. Krathwohl, Taxonomy of educational objectives: The
classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain (Longman, New York, 1956).
4. L. W. Anderson (Ed.), D. R. Krathwohl, (Ed.), P. W. Airasian, K. A. Cruikshank, R. E. Mayer, P.R. Pintrich,
J. Raths, & M.C. Wittrock, A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives (Longman, New York, 2001).
5. D. Allen., & K. Tanner, Cell Biology Education, 1, pp. 63-67(2002)
6. S. M. Napell, Contemporary Education, 47, 2, pp. 79-82(1976).
7. Permendikbud, Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik (Jakarta, 2015).
8. B. Limbach, & W. Waugh, JIP. pp. 1-9 (2010).
9. Schraw, Gregory, D. H. Robinson, Assessment Of Higer Order Thinking Skillss. (Information Age Publishing,
Americ, 2011).
10. Nana, S. Metode Statistik, Tarsito, Bandung, (2002).
11. S. Arikunto, Evaluasi Program Pendidikan Pedoman Teoritis Praktis Bagi Mahasiswa dan Praktisi
Pendidikan Edisi Kedua (Bumi Aksara, Jakarta, 2008).
12. P. A. Facione., Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts (Measured Reasons LLC, Hermosa Beach,
2015).
13. C. Semiawan, Relevansi Kurikulum Pendidikan Masa Depan dalam Sindhunata (Ed.) Membuka masa depan
anak-anak kita (Kanisius, Jogjakarta, 2000).
14. Zamroni. Paradigma Pendidikan Masa Depan, Bigraf Publisi, Yogyakarta, (2000).
15. B. Miri, B. David, & Z. Uri, Research in Science Education, 37, pp. 353-369 (2002).

020063-6