Beyond Remembering: Assessment and Evaluation of Middle School Mathematics Learning within the Framework of Bloom's Taxonomy

Oktaviana Nirmala Purba; I Gede Ratnaya; I Dewa Ayu Made Budhyani; I Gusti Lanang Agung Partawa

doi:10.55681/armada.v4i7.3203

Authors

Oktaviana Nirmala Purba Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Singaraja, Indonesia
I Gede Ratnaya Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Singaraja, Indonesia
I Dewa Ayu Made Budhyani Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Singaraja, Indonesia
I Gusti Lanang Agung Partawa Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Singaraja, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55681/armada.v4i7.3203

Keywords:

Assessment, Evaluation Of Mathematics Learning, Bloom's Taxonomy, Junior High School, Critical Review

Abstract

Mathematics assessment in junior secondary schools should respond to students’ diverse cognitive attainment across Bloom’s Taxonomy, from C1 to C6. However, studies indicate that assessment instruments in textbooks, exercises, daily tests, and end-of-semester examinations remain dominated by C1–C3 questions and inadequately support higher-order thinking skills. This article examines the alignment of mathematics assessment practices with the responsiveness principles of Bloom’s Taxonomy. The study employed a qualitative approach using secondary data and a critical qualitative review design. Data came from articles, research reports, and review documents indexed in Google Scholar, ERIC, and arXiv, and were analysed thematically and critically. The findings reveal a gap between HOTS-oriented curriculum expectations and the cognitive distribution of questions. In one Year 7 mathematics textbook, C2 questions accounted for 75.2%, whereas C6 questions represented only 0.4%. These findings highlight the need for more balanced, adaptive, and responsive mathematics assessments that accommodate variations in students’ thinking abilities.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anifarka, A., & Rosnawati, R. (2023). Analisis buku teks matematika SMP berdasarkan tingkat kognitif pada Taksonomi Bloom revisi dan numerasi pada AKM. Jurnal Cendekia: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 7(3), 2151–2166. https://doi.org/10.31004/cendekia.v7i3.1701

Azizah, N., Hanifah, & Sumardi, H. (2021). Analisis kualitas dan tingkat kognitif soal matematika Penilaian Akhir Semester (PAS) ganjil kelas IX di SMPN 10 Kota Bengkulu tahun 2020/2021. Journal Mathematics Education Sigma (JMES), 2(2). https://doi.org/10.30596/jmes.v2i2.7936

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5

Chawla, K., Phatak, J. U., & Chawla, R. (2026). Comparison of high school textbooks analysing higher-order thinking skills development in India and Singapore. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 60, 102058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.102058

Effendi, R. (2017). Konsep revisi Taksonomi Bloom dan implementasinya pada pelajaran matematika SMP. JIPMat: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika, 2(1), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.26877/jipmat.v2i1.1483

Haataja, E. S. H., Tolvanen, A., Vilppu, H., Kallio, M., Peltonen, J., & Metsäpelto, R.-L. (2023). Measuring higher-order cognitive skills with multiple-choice questions: Potentials and pitfalls of Finnish teacher education entrance. Teaching and Teacher Education, 122, 103943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103943

Jansen, T., & Möller, J. (2022). Teacher judgements in school exams: Influences of students’ lower-order-thinking skills on the assessment of students’ higher-order-thinking skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 111, 103616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103616

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15430421TIP4104_2

Kurniasi, E. R., Yopa, Y., & Karennisa, F. (2020). Analisis soal ulangan harian matematika kelas IX SMP Negeri 1 Toboali. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan (JIP) STKIP Kusuma Negara, 12(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.37640/jip.v12i1.276

Listiani, W., & Rachmawati, R. (2022). Transformasi Taksonomi Bloom dalam evaluasi pembelajaran berbasis HOTS. Jurnal Jendela Pendidikan, 2(3), 397–402. https://doi.org/10.57008/jjp.v2i03.266

Liu, J., Liu, Z., Wang, C., Xu, Y., Chen, J., & Cheng, Y. (2024). K–12 students’ higher-order thinking skills: Conceptualisation, components, and evaluation indicators. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, 101551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101551

Muhammad, U., & Rashid, R. A. A. (2024). Teachers’ application of Bloom’s taxonomy in the teaching and assessment of critical thinking skills in Nigeria. International Journal of Education, Psychology and Counselling, 9(55), 126–137. https://doi.org/10.35631/IJEPC.955007

Newton, P. M., Da Silva, A., & Peters, L. G. (2020). A pragmatic master list of action verbs for Bloom’s taxonomy. Frontiers in Education, 5, 107. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00107

Niss, M., & Højgaard, T. (2019). Mathematical competencies revisited. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09903-9

OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume II): Learning during – and from – disruption. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en

Rikawati, N. (2021). Analisis tingkat kognitif soal matematika kelas VIII berdasarkan Taksonomi Bloom revisi. Journal Mathematics Education Sigma (JMES), 2(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.30596/jmes.v2i2.7939

Wijaya, A., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Doorman, M. (2015). Opportunity-to-learn context-based tasks provided by mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9595-1

Zhao, L., Zhao, B., & Li, C. (2023). Alignment analysis of teaching–learning–assessment within the classroom: How teachers implement project-based learning under the curriculum standards. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 5, Article 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-023-00078-1