Evaluation of Cognitive Domain in Objective Exam of Physiotherapy Teaching Program by Using Bloom's Taxonomy

Abstract

Objective For the development and growth in conceptual understanding of education, evaluation is one of the key factors of it. Improving a student's cognitive level is highly dependent upon the questions being asked in exams. The primary aim of this study is to analyze the cognitive level of physiotherapy exam papers using Bloom's taxonomy.

Material and Methods The study was performed in a Private Medical University, Doctor of Physical Therapy Program in all 5 years of mid-term examination of 2019. One thousand and eighty multiple-choice questions were evaluated on revised Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive domain.

Results It was found that most lower order cognitive questions were asked from first- and second-year students, whereas third- to fifth-year students were asked higher order cognitive questions ranging from 27.5 to 38%.

Conclusion The examination analyzed the efficacy of education being provided. It helped in finding the subject content that needs greater emphasis and clarification. The faculty should give consideration on higher order cognitive level questions to encourage critical thinking among students and the medical colleges should develop the policy on construction of question papers according to the goal of each study year.

Keywords

Doctor of Physical Therapy Program - Exam Evaluation - cognition - higher order cognitive level - lower order cognitive level

The work was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki including, but not limited to, there being no potential harm to participants in this study and the informed consent of college was obtained and their record kept confidential.

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
13. September 2022

• References

• 1 Bogdanova D, Snoeck M. Domain Modelling in Bloom: Deciphering How We Teach It. In IFIP Working Conference on the Practice of Enterprise Modeling 2017; 3-17
• 2 Omar N, Haris SS, Hassan R. et al. Automated analysis of exam questions according to Bloom's taxonomy. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2012; 59: 297-303
• 3 Forehand M. Bloom's taxonomy. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. 2010 41. 47-56
• 4 Abdulghani HM, Irshad M, Haque S, Ahmad T, Sattar K, Khalil MS. Effectiveness of longitudinal faculty development programs on MCQs items writing skills: a follow-up study. PLoS One 2017; 12 (10) e0185895
• 5 Palmer E, Devitt P. Constructing multiple choice questions as a method for learning. Ann Acad Med Singap 2006; 35 (09) 604-608
• 6 Hingorjo MR, Jaleel F. Analysis of one-best MCQs: the difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency. J Pak Med Assoc 2012; 62 (02) 142-147
• 7 Abdulghani HM, Ahmad F, Irshad M. et al. Faculty development programs improve the quality of multiple-choice questions items' writing. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 9556
• 8 Collins J. Education techniques for lifelong learning: writing multiple-choice questions for continuing medical education activities and self-assessment modules. Radiographics 2006; 26 (02) 543-551
• 9 Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP. Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom's Taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 2008; 7 (04) 368-381
• 10 Zheng AY, Lawhorn JK, Lumley T, Freeman S. Assessment. Application of Bloom's taxonomy debunks the “MCAT myth”. Science 2008; 319 (5862): 414-415
• 11 Yusof N, Hui CJ. Determination of Bloom's cognitive level of question items using artificial neural network. 10th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications 2010.
• 12 Taylor & Francis Online [Internet].. Tandfonline.com. 2020 [cited 14 July 2020]. Accessed July 23, 2022 from: https://www.tandfonline.com/
• 13 Narayanan S, Adithan M. Analysis of question papers in engineering courses with respect to hots (higher order thinking skills). Am J Eng Educ 2015; 6: 1-0 (AJEE)
• 14 Wilson LO. Anderson and Krathwohl Bloom's taxonomy revised understanding the new version of Bloom's taxonomy. The Second Principle 2016: 1-8
• 15 Krathwohl DR. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: an overview. Theory Pract 2002; 41: 212-218
• 16 Baig M, Ali SK, Ali S, Huda N. Evaluation of multiple choice and short essay question items in basic medical sciences. Pak J Med Sci 2014; 30 (01) 3-6
• 17 Al-Janabi A, Al-Rawahi N. Revised Bloom Taxonomy for Mechanical Engineering Courses: Evaluation and Performance. Sohar University teaching and learning conference
• 18 Kim MK, Patel RA, Uchizono JA, Beck L. Incorporation of Bloom's taxonomy into multiple-choice examination questions for a pharmacotherapeutics course. Am J Pharm Educ 2012;76(06)