View in EDS

Cognitive Demand in Higher Education Summative Assessment: A Two-Dimensional Analysis Using Bloom's Revised Taxonomy.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Cognitive Demand in Higher Education Summative Assessment: A Two-Dimensional Analysis Using Bloom's Revised Taxonomy.
Authors: BELKAHLA, Soumia1 s.belkahla.ced@uca.ac.ma, AZMI, Noureddine1
Source: British Journal of Teacher Education & Pedagogy. 2026, Vol. 5 Issue 6, p31-44. 14p.
Subject Terms: *Bloom's taxonomy, *Summative tests, *Content analysis, *Cognitive load, *Theory of knowledge, *Metacognition, *Higher education, Schemas (Psychology)
Abstract: This study examines the cognitive and knowledge demands embedded in summative assessment questions within an English Department at a Moroccan public university using Bloom's Revised Taxonomy two-dimensional framework. A corpus of 162 examination questions, drawn from 82 examination papers across multiple assessment genres, was analyzed using deductive qualitative content analysis. Questions were classified according to the interaction between cognitive processes (Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create) and knowledge types (Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, Metacognitive). Findings indicate that assessment demand was concentrated primarily in Conceptual Knowledge (50.0%), with Understand-Conceptual being the most frequent taxonomy cell (21.0%). Procedural application was also strongly represented, particularly through Apply-Procedural tasks (13.0%). Although higher-order cognitive processes such as Analyze, Evaluate, and Create were present, they occurred less frequently than comprehension-oriented tasks. Metacognitive knowledge was minimally represented (1.2%), suggesting limited explicit attention to reflective or self-regulatory thinking. The study argues that Bloom's Revised Taxonomy provides not only a useful analytical framework for examining cognitive demand but also a practical tool for assessment redesign. Drawing on contemporary discussions surrounding generative AI, equity, and epistemic agency, the article proposes scaffolded assessment structures as a strategy for distributing cognitive demand more deliberately while supporting transparent, equitable, and higher-order forms of disciplinary reasoning in higher-education assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of British Journal of Teacher Education & Pedagogy is the property of Al-Kindi Center for Research & Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:This study examines the cognitive and knowledge demands embedded in summative assessment questions within an English Department at a Moroccan public university using Bloom's Revised Taxonomy two-dimensional framework. A corpus of 162 examination questions, drawn from 82 examination papers across multiple assessment genres, was analyzed using deductive qualitative content analysis. Questions were classified according to the interaction between cognitive processes (Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create) and knowledge types (Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, Metacognitive). Findings indicate that assessment demand was concentrated primarily in Conceptual Knowledge (50.0%), with Understand-Conceptual being the most frequent taxonomy cell (21.0%). Procedural application was also strongly represented, particularly through Apply-Procedural tasks (13.0%). Although higher-order cognitive processes such as Analyze, Evaluate, and Create were present, they occurred less frequently than comprehension-oriented tasks. Metacognitive knowledge was minimally represented (1.2%), suggesting limited explicit attention to reflective or self-regulatory thinking. The study argues that Bloom's Revised Taxonomy provides not only a useful analytical framework for examining cognitive demand but also a practical tool for assessment redesign. Drawing on contemporary discussions surrounding generative AI, equity, and epistemic agency, the article proposes scaffolded assessment structures as a strategy for distributing cognitive demand more deliberately while supporting transparent, equitable, and higher-order forms of disciplinary reasoning in higher-education assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:27551482
DOI:10.32996/bjtep.2026.5.6.3