Abstract
Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy is used for classifying educational objectives. The said taxonomy describes a hierarchical ordering of cognitive skills from simple to complex. The Revised Taxonomy relaxed the strict cumulative hierarchical assumptions of the Original Taxonomy allowing overlaps. We use a knowledge tracing model, Deep Knowledge Tracing (DKT), to investigate the hierarchical nature of the Revised Taxonomy and also study the overlapping behavior of the Taxonomy. The DKT model is trained on about 42 million problems attempted on funtoot by the students. funtoot is an adaptive learning platform where students learn by answering problems. We propose a novel way to interpret the model’s output to measure the effects of each learning objective on every other learning objectives. The results confirm the relaxed hierarchy of the skills from simple to complex. Moreover, the results also suggest overlaps even among the non-adjacent skills.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Agrawal, S., Lalwani, A.: Analysing problem sequencing strategies based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy using deep knowledge tracing. In: 14th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, June 2018. (to appear)
Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., Raths, J., Wittrock, M.: A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Longman Publishing, New York (2001). Artz, A.F., Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). 9(2), 137–175
Athanassiou, N., McNett, J.M., Harvey, C.: Critical thinking in the management classroom: Bloom’s taxonomy as a learning tool. J. Manage. Educ. 27(5), 533–555 (2003)
Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R.: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain, vol. 19. David McKay Co. Inc., New York (1956)
Davis, F.B.: Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Res. Q. 3(4), 499–545 (1968)
Hancock, G.R.: Cognitive complexity and the comparability of multiple-choice and constructed-response test formats. J. Exp. Educ. 62(2), 143–157 (1994)
Hawks, K.W.: The effects of implementing Bloom’s taxonomy and utilizing the virginia standards of learning curriculum framework to develop mathematics lessons for elementary students (2010)
Hill, P., McGaw, B.: Testing the simplex assumption underlying Bloom’s taxonomy. Am. Educ. Res. J. 18(1), 93–101 (1981)
Klein, M.F.: Use of taxonomy of educational objectives (cognitive domain) in constructing tests for primary school pupils. J. Exp. Educ. 40(3), 38–50 (1972)
Krathwohl, D.R.: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Pract. 41(4), 212–218 (2002)
Kropp, R.P., Stoker, H.W., Bashaw, W.: The validation of the taxonomy of educational objectives. J. Exp. Educ. 34(3), 69–76 (1966)
Kunen, S., Cohen, R., Solman, R.: A levels-of-processing analysis of bloom’s taxonomy. J. Educ. Psychol. 73(2), 202 (1981)
Lalwani, A., Agrawal, S.: Few hundred parameters outperform few hundred thousand? Educational Data Mining (2017)
Madaus, G.F., Woods, E.M., Nuttall, R.L.: A causal model analysis of Bloom’s taxonomy. Am. Educ. Res. J. 10(4), 253–262 (1973)
Miller, W.G., Snowman, J.: Application of alternative statistical techniques to examine the hierarchical ordering in Bloom’s taxonomy. Am. Educ. Res. J. 16(3), 241–248 (1979)
Nkhoma, M.Z., Nkhoma, M.Z., Lam, T.K., Lam, T.K., Sriratanaviriyakul, N., Sriratanaviriyakul, N., Richardson, J., Richardson, J., Kam, B., Kam, B., et al.: Unpacking the revised Bloom’s taxonomy: developing case-based learning activities. Education + Training 59(3), 250–264 (2017)
Pachaury, A.: An empirical validation of taxonomy of educational objectives using McQuitty’s hierarchical syndrome analysis. Indian Educ. Rev. 6(2), 156–164 (1971)
Phillips, A.W., Smith, S.G., Straus, C.M.: Driving deeper learning by assessment: an adaptation of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy for medical imaging in gross anatomy. Acad. Radiol. 20(6), 784–789 (2013)
Piech, C., Bassen, J., Huang, J., Ganguli, S., Sahami, M., Guibas, L.J., Sohl-Dickstein, J.: Deep knowledge tracing. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 505–513 (2015)
Stoker, H.W., Kropp, R.P.: Measurement of cognitive processes. J. Educ. Meas. 1(1), 39–42 (1964)
Subramaniam, R.: Problem-based learning: concept, theories, effectiveness and application to radiology teaching. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 50(4), 339–341 (2006)
Thomas, A.M.: Levels of Cognitive Behavior Measured in a Controlled Teaching Situation. Graduate School of Cornell University (1965)
Thompson, E., Luxton-Reilly, A., Whalley, J.L., Hu, M., Robbins, P.: Bloom’s taxonomy for CS assessment. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Australasian Computing Education, vol. 78, pp. 155–161. Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2008)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Lalwani, A., Agrawal, S. (2018). Validating Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Using Deep Knowledge Tracing. In: Penstein Rosé, C., et al. Artificial Intelligence in Education. AIED 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10947. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93843-1_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93843-1_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93842-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93843-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)