Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Evaluate HOTS in the Tasks of the Chinese Grade 7 English Textbook

Yi Hong

doi:10.54097/vxdb4505

Authors

Yi Hong

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/vxdb4505

Keywords:

Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy; Higher-order Thinking Skills (HOTS); Lower-order Thinking Skills (LOTS); Cognitive Development; Textbook Analysis.

Abstract

This study evaluates the cognitive demands of tasks in the Chinese Layman’s Edition Grade 7 English textbook using Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. The primary objective is to assess the distribution of lower-order thinking skills (LOTS) and higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) across the textbook’s tasks. Six cognitive categories were identified through a content analysis of 224 tasks: Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating. The findings show that just 26.7% of activities concentrate on HOTS, such as Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating, whereas 73.3% of tasks concentrate on LOTS, especially in Understanding and Applying. This disparity implies that fundamental cognitive abilities are being overemphasized, which is preventing children from engaging in critical analysis, evaluation, and innovation. The study emphasizes the need for textbook changes that support students' cognitive growth and are in line with contemporary educational objectives by better integrating HOTS-oriented tasks. Recommendations for curriculum enhancement and instructional strategies are provided to better prepare students for real-world challenges through more complex cognitive engagement.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Bloom et al. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York: David McKay.

[2] Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

[3] Lim, Y. (2020). An Analysis of Reading Materials and Activities in the Sixth Grade English Textbooks based on Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Journal of Language Sciences, 27(4), 273-293.

[4] Miyazaki, R. (2024). Using Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to Evaluate Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Tasks from an 8th Grade English Language Textbook in Japan. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Southeast Missouri State University.

[5] Li, Y. (2022). A Study of Teachers’ Questioning in Junior Middle School English Classes

[6] Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Doctoral dissertation, Qingdao University).

[7] Zhang, Y. (n.d.). On the Cultivation of Low, Middle, and High-order Thinking and Abilities of English Major Students: Taking the Comprehensive English Course as an Example (Unpublished manuscript).

[8] Xia, X. (n.d.). Research on Classroom Questioning in Primary School English Teaching from the Perspective of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Unpublished manuscript).

[9] Luo, P. (2023). A Study on Question Design in English Textbooks Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy: Taking the IB MYP English Textbook as an Example. English Square.

[10] Wang, S. (2021). The Design of Classroom Questions in Junior High School English Reading Teaching Based on the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Learning Objectives: Taking "The Little Match Girl" as an Example. Journal of Fujian Institute of Education, 9.

[11] Xiong, L. (2024). Design and Implementation of Classroom Questioning in Rural Junior High School English Reading Teaching Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Learning Objectives (Master’s thesis, Guizhou Normal University).

[12] Assaly, I. R., & Igbaria, A. K. (2014). A content analysis of the reading and listening activities in the EFL textbook of Master Class. English Language Teaching, 7(2), 58-66. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p58

[13] 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

[14] Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom’s taxonomy: Original and revised. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology.