The Analysis of English Test Items Based on Revised Bloom's Taxonomy

  • Febriana Tamelab Universitas Timor
  • Imanuel Kamlasi Universitas Timor
  • Ulu Emanuel Universitas Timor
Keywords: Test Items, Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy


The objectives of this study were to reveal the types of English test items categorized in revised Bloom’s taxonomy and to know the presentation of applying revised Bloom’s taxonomy in the English test. This study applied a qualitative descriptive method to meet the objectives of the study. The English test was documented after getting permission from the English teacher of SMPN 1 Kefamenanu. Then, the English test items were analyzed based on revised Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy. There were six levels of revised Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy namely remembering level, understanding level, applying level, analyzing level, evaluating level, and creating level. The findings showed that there were four out of six levels of revised Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy in that English test. The test had 26 items (52%) for remembering level, 12 items (24%) for understanding level, 5 items (10%) for applying level, and 7 items or 14% for analyzing level. However, there were no items categorized in evaluating level and creating level.


Anderson, Lorin. W., Krathwohl, Daviad R., Airasian, Peter W., Cruikshank, Richard E., Mayer., Pintrich, Paul R., James Raths., Witterock, Merlin C. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assesing. New York: Longman.

Auliyana, M. 2019. Higher Order Thinking Skills Analysis of the English National Standardized School Examination.The Case of SMP Negeri 36 Semarang in the Academic Year of 2018/2019.Thesis.Semarang: UniversitasNegeri Semarang.

Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. OxfordUniversity Press

Bloom, B., S.,EngelhartM. D., Walker H., Krathwohl, D., R.. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: David McKey.

Bogdan& Taylor. 1975. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: RemajaRosdakarya.

Brown, H. D. 2004. Language Assessment.Principles and Classroom Practices. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gezer, M., Sunkur, O, S., & Sahin, F, I. 2014. An Evaluation of Exam Questions of Social Studies Course According to Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. 2 (28). GESJ.

Kamlasi, I., & Sahan, A. 2018. Descriptive Analyses on English Test Items Based on theApplication of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. 2 (2). Metathesis.

Osterlind, Steven J. 2002. Constructing Test items. New York: Kluwer Academic

Zareian, G., Davoudi, M., Heshmatifar, Z., & Rahimi, J. 2015.An Evaluation of Question in Two ESP Coursbooks Based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Learning Domain. 3. Iran: Sabzevar.

How to Cite
Tamelab, F., Kamlasi, I., & Emanuel, U. (2021). The Analysis of English Test Items Based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Jurnal Edulanguage, 7(2), 1-5.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Obs.: This plugin requires at least one statistics/report plugin to be enabled. If your statistics plugins provide more than one metric then please also select a main metric on the admin's site settings page and/or on the journal manager's settings pages.