See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/369039582

Application of Bloom's Taxonomy in Categorization of Cognitive Process

Development in Colleges

Article in Journal of Education and Practice · March 2023

DOI: 10.7176/JEP/14-4-02

CITATIONS READS

12 1,659

7 authors, including:

Selina Banda Agnes Banda

Zambian Open University Zambian Open University
17 PUBLICATIONS 102 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Daniel L. Mpolomoka Rose Chikopela

Zambian Open University Chalimbana University
78 PUBLICATIONS 271 CITATIONS 37 PUBLICATIONS 56 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rose Chikopela on 07 March 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2023

Application of Bloom’s Taxonomy in Categorization of Cognitive

Process Development in Colleges
Selina Banda1*, Florence Phiri2, Jack Kaale1, Agnes M. Banda3, Daniel L. Mpolomoka4 Rose Chikopela5
and Christine Mushibwe4
1. Copperbelt University, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Social Studies
3. Zambian Open University, School of Education, Department of Primary and Early Childhood Education
4. Unicaf University Zambia, School of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences
5. Chalimbana University, School of Education, Department of Special Education-Guidance and Counselling
[email protected]

Abstract
Bloom’s Taxonomy is crucial in any teaching and learning environment because it determines direction for a
course of study. This study assessed application of Bloom’s Taxonomy in courses of study offered in colleges in
Lusaka District. Objectives were: Assess the application of Bloom’s Taxonomy in setting learning outcomes for
the courses; Assess reflection of Bloom’s Taxonomy in activities set for course participants; Ascertain significance
attached to Bloom’s Taxonomy in courses of study designed for participants. The study employed a mixed
methodology, in particular employing a descriptive research design to assess application of the Taxonomy in
course outcomes/objective. The population comprised college lecturers in Lusaka District. Sample size was 36
lecturers who were conveniently sampled. Data were collected using a questionnaire and analyzed using
frequencies and Spearman correlation coefficient. Findings revealed that the majority of the lecturers did not
illustrate how to use Bloom’s Taxonomy in planning course of study, setting objectives/outcomes, creating
learning activities or create assessment tasks for course participants. However, most of the lecturers demonstrated
use of active verbs which they use in objectives/outcomes. Findings revealed that lecturers hardly used Bloom’s
Taxonomy. There is no relationship between lecturers’ use of learning outcomes as a basis for preparing class
tasks and their assertions that they compared objectives with tasks prepared for students. It is recommended that
lecturers should be oriented on use of the learning Taxonomy.
Keywords: Bloom’s Taxonomy, Objectives, Outcomes, Lecturers
DOI: 10.7176/JEP/14-4-02
Publication date: February 28th 2023

INTRODUCTION
Bloom’s Taxonomy is an indispensable component in any teaching and learning activity. It classifies levels of
cognitive development expected to be attained in various learning stages. Bloom’s Taxonomy provides an
understanding of how to formulate appropriate objectives in the teaching and learning process. This model also
guides instructors to change complexity of the questions and help learners to achieve higher levels of hierarchy.
Stanny (2016) explains the effectiveness of Bloom Taxonomy in classifying thinking skills in a hierarchy that
ranges from lower level cognitive skills through higher order cognitive skills. Further, it helps in the development
of critical thinking among teachers as they set assessment tasks. However, this taxonomy is hardly used in some
of the teaching and learning processes. Attributed to this lack or partial application of the taxonomy is twofold.
Firstly, lack of proper understanding of the taxonomy in using it to set objectives, questions, learning outcomes as
well as corresponding assessments. Secondly, it is none exposure of teachers to application of taxonomy in the
teaching and learning process. Akinboboye and Ayanwale (2021) affirm this disparity in the use of the taxonomy
by some of the teachers who face challenges in using this taxonomy because of lack of complete understanding of
how it is supposed to be applied. While some of the teachers have ideas in using the taxonomy, others have not
been exposed to it at all. Such are problems associated to use of Bloom’s Taxonomy among teachers. Earlier on,
Gluga, Kay, Lister, Simon, and Kleitman (2013) confirmed that educators often need support from educational
experts, which are not easily available in many departments in higher education. It was against this background
that this study was conducted to assess the application of the Taxonomy among lecturers in colleges.

LITERATURE REVIEW
The Bloom’s Taxonomy Model is helpful to the teachers for thinking and analyzing their teaching and student’s
learning. The framework is used to state clear objectives which can help the teachers to plan lessons accordingly.
It also provides a framework for cognitive behaviors which can be applied to understand difficulty of tasks, conduct
an assessment, and simplify or complicate the activities for students (Armstrong, 2010).
However, not all teachers know how to use Bloom’s Taxonomy in preparing activities for their learners.
Larson & Lockee (2019) explain that educators often find it challenging and tedious to develop learning objectives
to describe cognitive skills at different levels of Bloom’s taxonomy.

6
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2023

Li et. al. (2022) observed that some educators have difficulties in creating learning objectives applicable to
the levels in Bloom’s taxonomy. They further indicated the need to reflect objectives in the advancement of learners’
skills with learning content as well as dependencies the concerning set intents. Similarly, Masapanta-Carri´on &
Vel´azquez-Iturbide (2018), Mpolomoka, Banda & Dube (2017) and Mpolomoka, Muyangana, Banda, Dube,
Mabenga, Kangwa & Muyoba (2016) observe difficulties that educators have in developing learning objectives
appropriate to the levels specified in Bloom’s taxonomy. Teachers mostly make the mistake of assuming that
learners who can remember facts can then also complete those more important higher order tasks. This partial
understanding of the taxonomy limits cognitive development of learners because of lack of exposure to use of
higher order thinking skills.
Masapanta-Carrión, Velázquez-Iturbide & Ángel (2018) note another dimension of difficulties that teacher
experience which relate to challenges faced in classifying content into specific levels of the taxonomy. Over
dependance on acquisition of low level cognitive development knowledge and skills at the expense of higher level
ones in teaching is problematic. The taxonomy is partially utilized which adversely affects development,
intellectually. Some teachers were seen to have limited understanding of terminologies applicable in each level of
the cognitive taxonomy. Masapanta-Carrión, Velázquez-Iturbide & Ángel (2018) propose to offer training to
instructors in how to use it was proposed as a way of solving the problem of deficient use of the taxonomy.
Furthermore, Akinboboye & Ayanwale (2021) urge teachers to set questions that based on Bloom’s taxonomy to
ensure balancing cognitive skill development in learners.
Bloom’s Taxonomy classifies learning into stages which range from the lowest to the highest levels. Adam
(2015) explains that the taxonomy contains six categories of cognitive skills ranging from lower-order skills that
require less cognitive processing to higher-order skills that require deeper learning and a greater degree of cognitive
processing. It indicates these consecutive learning levels which are planned for learners to experience. A set of
three hierarchical models is used to classify educational learning objectives into levels of complexity and
specificity. The three lists cover the learning objectives in cognitive, affective and sensory domains. The cognitive
domain list has been the primary focus of most traditional education and is frequently used to structure curriculum
learning objectives, assessments and activities (Anderson et al, 2001). These levels can be helpful in developing
learning outcomes because certain verbs are particularly appropriate at each level and not appropriate at other
levels (though some verbs are useful at multiple levels).

Figure 1: Bloom’s Taxonomy Cognitive Domain

Source: Anderson (2001).
Bloom’s Taxonomy leads to deeper learning and transfer of knowledge and skills to a greater variety of tasks
and contexts (Adam, 2015). Levels of development in the cognitive domain are ordered from simple to complex
in terms of thinking skills. Each level is defined and suitable verbs for learning outcomes are illustrated.

7
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2023

Table 1: Bloom’s Taxonomy Cognitive Domain

Level Definition Suitable Outcome Verbs
Remember Retrieve, recall, recognize Cite, define Cite, define, describe, identify, label, list, match,
name, outline, quote, recall, report, reproduce, retrieve, show,
state, tabulate, and tell.
Understand Demonstrating abstract, arrange, articulate, associate, categorize, clarify,
comprehension through classify, compare, compute, conclude, contrast, defend, diagram,
different forms of differentiate, discuss, distinguish, estimate, exemplify, explain,
explanation. extend, extrapolate, generalize, give examples of, illustrate, infer,
interpolate, interpret, match, outline, paraphrase, predict,
rearrange, reorder, rephrase, represent, restate, summarize,
transform, and translate.
Apply Use information or a skill Apply, calculate, carry out, classify, complete, compute,
in a new situation demonstrate, dramatize, employ, examine, execute, experiment,
generalize, illustrate, implement, infer, interpret, manipulate,
modify, operate, organize, outline, predict, solve, transfer,
translate, and use.
Analyze Break material into its Analyze, arrange, break down, categorize, classify, compare,
constituent parts and connect, contrast, deconstruct, detect, diagram, differentiate,
determine how the parts discriminate, distinguish, divide, explain, identify, integrate,
relate to one another inventory, order, organize, relate, separate, and structure.
and/or to an overall
structure or purpose
Evaluate Make judgments based on Appraise, apprise, argue, assess, compare, conclude, consider,
criteria and standards contrast, convince, criticize, critique, decide, determine,
discriminate, evaluate, grade, judge, justify, measure, rank, rate,
recommend, review, score, select, standardize, support, test, and
validate.
Create Put elements together to Arrange, assemble, build, collect, combine, compile, compose,
form a new coherent or constitute, construct, create, design, develop, devise, formulate,
functional whole; generate, hypothesize, integrate, invent, make, manage, modify,
reorganize elements into a organize, perform, plan, prepare, produce, propose, rearrange,
new pattern or structure reconstruct, reorganize, revise, rewrite, specify, synthesize, and
write.
Table 1 above summarizes the cognitive domain, its levels and applicable behavioural verbs. Illustrated in the
table, is the incremental learning that builds intellectual capacity of learners. Blooms taxonomy produced
according to Nkhoma (2016) desired effects of incremental learning. Thus, Bloom’s taxonomy highlights the need
for including learning objectives that require higher levels of cognitive skills that lead to deeper learning and
transfer of knowledge and skills to a greater variety of tasks and contexts (Adam, 2015).
Blooms taxonomy is indispensable to teaching and learning. It provides guidance on segmenting learning
abilities expected to be achieved in each level. It is incremental because the levels are progressive from low to
high in terms of cognitive development. For this reason, teachers at all levels are supposed to be acquainted with
knowledge and skills in how to apply the cognitive domain in their teaching. Reviewed literature shows that there
some knowledge gaps in the use of the taxonomy. While some teachers partially know how to use the taxonomy,
others are bereft of the required knowledge.

Statement of the problem

Preparation of education activities is guided by models. Bloom’s Taxonomy is one of the models which underly
creation of courses of study in terms of setting learning outcomes, objectives, topical activities and suitable tasks.
Not all course instructors/lecturers are conversant with the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Absence of Taxonomy
result in, course, outcomes/objectives, activities and materials being mismatched and in worse cases,
underteaching course participants. It was not known how much lecturers acquainted themselves with the right
Taxonomy for developing appropriate cognitive processes for the learners in the colleges. This study therefore
investigated the application of bloom’s Taxonomy in categorization of cognitive process development in colleges
in Zambia.
1) Assess the application of Bloom’s Taxonomy in setting learning outcomes for the courses;
2) Assess reflection of Bloom’s Taxonomy in activities set for course participants;
3) Ascertain significance attached to Bloom’s Taxonomy in courses of study designed for participants.

8
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2023

Hypotheses Testing
HO1 - There is no relationship between use of objectives and learning outcomes in tasks prepared.
HO2 - Use of Bloom’s Taxonomy in designing study courses was not associated to grouping of objectives when
preparing lecture notes.

Theoretical Framework
This study used Objectives-Oriented Evaluation Approach which focuses on determining the extent to which the
purposes of a program are achieved. The objectives-oriented approach to evaluation is attributed to Ralph W. Tyler
(1942, 1950) who conceptualized and popularized the focus on objectives in education. According to Tyler (1942)
the goals and the objectives of a program must be defined as a prerequisite to evaluation. The objectives-oriented
evaluation determines whether some or all of the program objectives are achieved and, if so, how well they are
achieved. In education, the objectives are concerned with the purposes of a single lesson or training program or
the knowledge students should attain during an entire year. Worthen and Sanders (1987) assert that objective-
oriented approach is systematic, logical, scientifically acceptable and ready to use by evaluator. This study adopted
objectives-oriented approach based on the assumption that objectives provide accurate and reliable information
about the insights of the programme. The focus of this study was confined to objectives/questions and learning
outcome statements of the program in relation to cognitive domain in Bloom’s Taxonomy. Focus was on the
application of goals, objectives and intended outcomes of a program. The major question addressed in this kind of
evaluation is.

METHODOLOGY
The study employed a mixed methodology in which a concurrent design was used to allow for collection of two
types of data at the same time. A descriptive research design was used to assess application of the taxonomy in
course outcomes/objective. Population targeted comprised college lecturers in Lusaka District. Convenience
sampling was used to get the required sample of 36 respondents.
Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire containing closed and open-ended statements.
The closed-ended part constituted the quantitative aspect of the study and it had 14 statements. Six statements
dichotomous with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. The remaining eight had Likert scale which was used to measure
lecturers’ opinion towards use of objective and Bloom’s Taxonomy in their courses of study. Qualitatively, the
other segment comprised open-ended statements. They are textual responses and generally used for qualitative
analysis (Banda, Mpolomoka, Mbono & Sampa, 2017). The first part of the questionnaire comprised question
items that assessed use of objectives. The second part assessed application of objectives and Bloom’s Taxonomy
in implementation of course studies. Bloom’s Taxonomy underlies determination of objectives or learning
outcomes for any lesson prepared for students. Close-ended part was quantifiable, analyzed using Spearman
coefficient whereas the open-ended was thematically analyzed.
Data were analyzed using frequencies for computing statistics for responses obtained from lecturers.
Spearman rank correlation coefficient was applicable in analyzing relationship between variables concerning use
of Bloom’s Taxonomy in preparing courses of study among lecturers. Therefore, we believe that the study would
generate reliable data since it employed standardized and scientifically-accepted data collection tools.

FINDINGS
Findings are presented following key thematic areas derived from the objectives and the emerging issues.
The majority of the lecturers assessed showed that they hardly applied the sub-domains for ascertaining the
type of suitable objective. Spearman coefficient correlation was used to analyze association of variables reflecting
application of objectives, learning outcomes and tasks inherent in the courses of study lecturers offered in colleges.
The findings showed weak correlations between the tested variables of interest.

Application of Bloom’s Taxonomy in Setting Learning Outcomes

Lecturers did not always apply Bloom’s Taxonomy when setting objectives for their teaching and learning notes.
Notably, objectives were set according to the order of grasping knowledge and skills, cognitively. Evidently, verbs
used in the objectives were sourced from the same level of the cognitive domain. Responses from participants in
the study indicated non-compliant to application of Bloom’s Taxonomy in grouping objectives. Domains were not
stated in the expression of their understanding of grouping objectives.

Application of Bloom’s Taxonomy in Setting Objectives

Course lecturers indicated that they always grouped objectives when preparing lecture notes. Lecturers agreed that
they used Bloom’s Taxonomy in setting objectives/outcomes. They agreed that they grouped objectives from
simple to complex.
Most of the lecturers demonstrated use of active verbs when setting learning outcomes. They applied active

9
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2023

verbs in objectives which they set for their lecture notes. They indicated that they always grouped objectives
according to the applicable verbs in the given lessons.

Reflection of Objectives
Lecturers varied in the way they grouped objectives for their notes. The majority of the lecturers showed that they
did not group the objectives in any way. Objectives were set without following any format. A few who grouped
their objectives indicated that they used the order of simple to complex or vice versa. Out of 36 lecturers, two
showed that they grouped objectives using Bloom’s Taxonomy through application of sub cognitive domains
which are: Remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, creating.
Grouping of objectives into lower and higher thinking skills varied among lecturers. While some of them
followed the given order, others did not. Notably, out of 36 lecturers, 20 showed how to group objectives into
lower to higher order thinking skills. Sixteen were not sure of how to group the objectives.

Application of Bloom’s Taxonomy in Designing Courses

The majority of the lecturers showed that they used theoretical framework to guide them in grouping of learning
outcomes for their courses. Responses from lecturers indicated conflicting views on the use of Blooms’ Taxonomy
when setting learning outcomes. The majority of the lecturers indicated that they always used the Taxonomy to
design study courses.
However, when asked to show the domains they used in the Taxonomy, not all of them demonstrated the
required cognitive levels. Out of the 36 lecturers, seven expressed all the correct levels, 10 partially did whereas
the majority, 19 of them exhibited ignorance of the sought Bloom’s Taxonomy.
The majority of the lecturers did not illustrate how to use Bloom’s Taxonomy in planning course of study,
setting goals/objectives, creating learning activities or create assessment tasks for course participants. Of the 36
lecturers, three showed how to apply the cognitive levels in one of the given areas. The rest, 33 of them did not.
This corroborates with what empirical literature reveals regarding cognitive-reflective engagements and the
recommendation to enhance learning outcomes to mirror the revised Bloom and Solo’s Taxonomies (Simui,
Mpolomoka, Sakakombe & Mhango, 2020; Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2001).
The lecturers indicated that they used Bloom’s Taxonomy partially in their handling of course of study
delivery. While many of the lecturers found it useful in setting objectives, others used the Taxonomy to assess the
teaching and learning process.

Hypotheses Testing
Table 2: Relationship Between Objectives and Learning Outcomes in Tasks
There is no relationship between use of objectives and learning outcomes in tasks prepared.
Correlations
I use learning outcomes as I compare objectives
a basis for preparing tasks with tasks prepared for
for the class students
Spearman's I use learning outcomes as Correlation
1.000 .187
rho a basis for preparing tasks Coefficient
for the class Sig. (2-tailed) . .274
N 36 36
I compare objectives with Correlation
.187 1.000
tasks prepared for students Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) .274 .
N 36 36
Table above on Spearman rho r. .187 which shows the relationship between use of learning outcomes as a
basis for preparing tasks and objectives prepared for students. The result of the analysis, r. .187 is indicative of a
very weak relation between the variables. This means that lecturers’ use of learning outcomes as a basis for
preparing learning tasks relate to their assertions of comparing objectives with tasks prepared for students was
indicative of a weak relationship.
The p- value less than the significance level (α = 0.01) for any correlation coefficients can reject the null
hypothesis, and the correlation coefficients are considered statistically significant with 99% confidence level. The
p-value of .274 shows that the variables are uncorrelated because it is more than .01. We therefore fail to reject the
null hypothesis that there is no relationship between lecturers’ use of learning outcomes as a basis for preparing
tasks for the class and their assertions of comparing objectives with tasks prepared for students.

10
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2023

Table 3 Objectives and Learning Outcomes

Correlations
I use learning
I group outcomes as a
objectives when basis for
preparing preparing tasks
lecture notes for the class
Spearman's rho I group objectives when Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .305
preparing lecture notes Sig. (2-tailed) . .071
N 36 36
I use learning outcomes as a Correlation Coefficient .305 1.000
basis for preparing tasks for Sig. (2-tailed) .071 .
the class N 36 36
Table 3 above on Spearman rho r. .305 shows the relationship between grouping objectives when preparing
lecture notes and use of learning outcomes as a basis for preparing tasks for the class. The result of the analysis
indicates that r. .305 falls between .20 and .39 which is verbally interpreted as weak. This means that there was a
weak association of lecturers’ grouping of objectives when preparing lecture notes and use of learning outcomes
as a basis for preparing tasks for the class.
The p- value of less than the significance level (α = 0.01) for any correlation coefficients can reject the null
hypothesis, and the correlation coefficients are considered statistically significant with 99% confidence level. The
p-value of .071 shows that the variables are uncorrelated because the p-value of.187 is more than .01. We therefore
fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between grouping objectives when preparing lecture
notes and use learning outcomes as a basis for preparing tasks for the class among lecturers.
Use of Bloom’s Taxonomy in designing study courses was not associated to grouping of objectives when
preparing lecture notes.
Table 4: Bloom’s Taxonomy and Objectives
Correlations
I use Bloom's Taxonomy I group objectives when
to design study courses preparing lecture notes
Spearman's I use Bloom's Taxonomy Correlation
1.000 .282
rho to design study courses Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) . .095
N 36 36
I group objectives when Correlation
.282 1.000
preparing lecture notes Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) .095 .
N 36 36
Table above shows Spearman rho r. .282 which is about the relationship between use Bloom's Taxonomy in
designing study courses and grouping objectives when preparing lecture notes. The result of the analysis, r. .282
falls between .20 and .39 which is verbally interpreted as weak. This means that there was a weak correlation
between lecturers’ use Bloom's Taxonomy in designing study courses and grouping objectives when preparing
lecture notes.
The p- value of more than the significance level (α = 0.01) for any correlation coefficients is considered
statistically insignificant with 99% confidence level. The p-value of .095 shows that the variables are uncorrelated
because it is more than .01. We therefore fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between use
Bloom's Taxonomy designing study courses and grouping objectives when preparing lecture notes among course
lecturers.
The hypothesis tests conducted showed results indicative of weak relationships among variables. Lecturers’
application of Bloom’s Taxonomy in their preparation of teaching and learning activities was insignificant
manifested. The cognitive Taxonomy was not used as a basis for determining content of study courses neither were
objectives used for ascertaining lecture notes. This revelation is contrary to the finding by Nkhoma, et al., (2017)
which report on application of Bloom’s Taxonomy in music education as a framework for aligning learning
objectives, curriculum and assessment.

DISCUSSIONS
Lecturers’ responses were inconsistent in their use of Bloom’s Taxonomy depending on the nature of the

11
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2023

assessment given. They showed agreement in most parts of the questionnaire which needed a yes/no response.
However, when asked to show the domains if they used the Taxonomy, not all of them demonstrated the required
cognitive levels. Most of the lecturers did not show the application of the Taxonomy when asked to illustrate.
Agreeing with the use of the Taxonomy and showing its applicability, did not correlate. The lecturers agreed to
what they did not know which means they did not know the Taxonomy and its application in their work.
Despite agreeing that they used Bloom’s Taxonomy in their teaching and learning activities, lecturers failed
to illustrate how they applied it in the preparation of courses and lecture notes. Lecturers varied in the way they
grouped objectives for their notes. While some of them followed a format from simple to complex, others grouped
them without any format followed. The majority of the lecturers showed that they did not group the objectives in
any way.
Although lecturers agreed that they used the Taxonomy, most of them failed to demonstrate the application
of the required cognitive levels. The majority of the lecturers assessed showed that they hardly applied the sub-
domains for ascertaining the type of suitable objectives. Responses from many of the participants in the study
indicated non-compliant to application of Bloom’s Taxonomy in grouping objectives. Domains were not stated in
the expression of their understanding of grouping objectives. The majority of the lecturers did not illustrate how
to use Bloom’s Taxonomy in planning course of study, setting goals/objectives, creating learning activities or create
assessment tasks for course participants. Chandio, Pandhaini & Igbal (2016) attest to failure to apply Bloom’s
Taxonomy to lack of training of people involved in handling the cognitive domains levels.
Some of the lecturers indicated that they used Bloom’s Taxonomy partially in their handling of course of
study delivery. Lecturers’ use of learning outcomes as a basis for preparing did not relate to their assertions of
comparing objectives with tasks prepared for students. The researchers failed to reject the null hypothesis that
there is no relationship between lecturers’ use of learning outcomes as a basis for preparing class tasks and their
assertions that they compared objectives with tasks prepared for students. This means that lecturers did not use
Bloom’s Taxonomy to design study courses and grouping objectives when preparing lecture notes.
This study contributes to strengthening the use of taxonomies as bases for preparing courses and lecture notes.
This is because Bloom’s Taxonomy is termed as a pathway that guides the learning process.

CONCLUSION
Lecturer’s affirmation that they used objectives and Bloom’s Taxonomy in preparatory activities of their courses
was inconsistent with textural responses and tested hypotheses. There was no relationship in the lecturer’s use of
Bloom’s Taxonomy when preparing study courses and grouping of objectives for lecture notes. There is no
relationship between lecturers’ use of learning outcomes as a basis for preparing class tasks and their assertions
that they compared objectives with tasks prepared for students.
Lecturers should prepare courses of study and learning activities that include all cognitive levels in the domain.
This is because Bloom’s Taxonomy should serve as a basis for setting objectives and related activities.

RECOMMENDATION
There is need to orient college lecturers on the importance of use of learning objective and outcomes based on
known models of which Bloom’s Taxonomy is one. This can be done through in-house trainings and other staff
development processes.

Suggestions for further Study

There is need for a research in determining application of verbs used in cognitive domain in programmes offered
in colleges.

REFERENCES
Adams, N.E. (2015, July). Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. J Med Libr Assoc. 103(3):152-3.
doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.010. PMID: 26213509; PMCID: PMC4511057.
Akinboboye, J. & Musa, Ayanwale, Musa. (2021). Bloom Taxonomy Usage and Psychometric Analysis of
Classroom Teacher-Made Test.
Anderson, Lorin W. & David, R. Krathwohl, (eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing:
A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc
Armstrong, P. (2010) Bloom’s Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching, Nashville.
https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy
Banda, S., Mpolomoka, D.L., Mbono, D. & Sampa, R.L. (2017). Use of questions in qualitative research: How
questions guided our study. International Journal of Development Research, 7, (12).
Bhandari, P. & Nikolopoulou, K. (2022, October 20). What Is a Likert Scale? | Guide & Examples. Scribbr.
Retrieved November 3, 2022, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/likert-scale/
Chandio, T.M., Pandhaini, M.S. & Igbal, R. (2016). Bloom’s Taxonomy: Improving Assessment and Teaching-

12
 Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.14, No.4, 2023

Learning Process. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 3(2), pg. 202-221.
Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking and computer conferencing: A model and
tool to assess cognitive presence. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
Gluga, R., Kay, J., Lister, R. Simon & Kleitman. S. (2013). Mastering cognitive development theory in computer
science education. Computer Science Education, 23(1):24–57.
Iffat, N. & Tithi, U.M. (2018). Reflection of Bloom’s Taxonomy in the Learning, outcomes of Secondary Social
Science Curriculum of Bangladesh. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), India Online ISSN:
2319-7064
Larson, B.M. & Lockee, B.B., (2019). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. Routledge.
Masapanta-Carrión, S. & Velázquez-Iturbide, J.A. (2018). A Systematic Review of the Use of Bloom’s Taxonomy
in Computer Science Education. 441-446.
Mpolomoka, D.L., Banda, S. & Dube, M. (2017). Invigorating the Teaching Profession for the 21stCentury Teacher
in Zambia. Pyrex Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 3(4), 40-43.
Mpolomoka, D.L., Muyangana, A., Banda, S., Dube, M., Mabenga, M., Kangwa, K.N. & Muyoba, L. (2016).
Teaching Experience of Student-Teachers in ODL Tertiary Institutions in Zambia. International Open &
Distance Learning Journal 2016 Special Issue, pp. 48-55
Accessible on:http://www.iodlj.zou.ac.zw/ejournal/index.php/journal/issue/view/15/showToc
Nkhoma, Z.M., Lam, K.T., Sriratanaviriyakul, N., Richardson, J., Kam, B. & Lau, H.K. (2017). Unpacking the
revised Bloom’s Taxonomy: developing case-based learning activities. Education + Training, 59(3), pp.250-
264, https://doi.org/10.1108/ ET-03-2016-0061
Robyn, E. (2014). The structure of the cognitive process dimension in the revised Taxonomy. Bloom's Taxonomy.
Denver, Co: Expert Beacon. Retrieved from https://expertbeacon. com/blooms Taxonomy/#. XAap FtszaM9
Rentmeester, C. (2017). Adding academic rigor to introductory ethics courses using Bloom’s Taxonomy.
International Journal of Ethics Education. [Online]. Available at:
https://philpapers.org/archive/RENAAR.pdf. [Accessed 17/03/2018].
Semsar, K. & Casagrand, J. (2017). Bloom’s dichotomous key: a new tool for evaluating the cognitive difficulty
of assessments. Advanced Physical Education, 41,170-177.
Simui, F., Mpolomoka, D., Sakakombe, L. & Mhango, L. (2020). Exploring Presence of Interactivity in Distance
Education Instructional Materials Using the Community of Inquiry Model at Four Universities in Zambia.
Special Issue of Southern African Universities Learning and Teaching Forum (SAULT) in Zambian Journal
of Educational Management, Administration and Leadership (ZJEMAL), 1(1), 202-222
Stanny, C.J. (2016). Reevaluating Bloom’s Taxonomy: What measurable verbs can and cannot say about student
learning. Education Sciences, 6(37), 1–12.
Worthen, J.R. & Sanders, R.J. (1987). Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines.
Longman: Publisher.

13

View publication stats