See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331008710

Theories into Practices: Bloom's Taxonomy, Comprehensive Learning

Theories (CLT) and E-Assessments

Conference Paper · February 2019

DOI: 10.26499/iceap.v2i2.91

CITATIONS READS

0 9,900

5 authors, including:

Malissa Maria Mahmud Yazilmiwati Yaacob

Sunway University Sunway University
59 PUBLICATIONS   126 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Chandra Reka Ramachandiran Othman Ismail

29 PUBLICATIONS   65 CITATIONS   
Universiti Teknologi MARA
26 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Soft skills learning View project

Blended learning, virtual community View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Malissa Maria Mahmud on 19 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2

Theories into Practices: Bloom’s Taxonomy, Comprehensive Learning

Theories (CLT) and E-Assessments
Malissa Maria Mahmud1, Yazilmiwati Yaacob2, Chandra Reka Ramachandiran3,
Wong Shiet Ching4, and Othman Ismail5
Centre for American Education, Sunway University
1
2
MOHE General Studies, Sunway University
3
School of Computing, Asia Pacific University
4
Pyschology Postgraduate Programme, Heriot-Watt University Malaysia
5
Academy of Language Studies, University of Technology MARA
malissam@sunway.edu.my

Abstract. The development of novel and innovative technologies to an extent has enriched the means of
how assessments are done. Researchers and academics alike explore and leverage on the employment of an
assemblage of technologies to design their assessments which are critical in gauging the students’ learning
outcomes. However, the manifestation of technology in the context of teaching and learning necessitates
reconceptualization of existential and fundamental theories which scaffold learning process. Thus, this
paper provides a critical and contextualised exploration of the eminent Bloom’s Taxonomy,
Comprehensive Learning Theories (CLT) and e-assessments with its underpinning and groundwork
concepts, ensuing its feasibility and application in the blended learning environment.

Keywords: E-assessment, Blended Learning, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Comprehensive Learning Theories

(CLT), Teaching and Learning.

INTRODUCTION assessment process allowed them to provide

In the era where new generations are born amidst
technological advances, their perception, attitude
and expectation towards learning are vastly
different than the generations before them.
Educational researchers have commenced to further
investigate specific learning styles of the current or
the millennial generation to understand how these
behavioral changes impact the existing teaching
practices. In this context, the technological
attributes as well as how they are aligned with
teaching and learning theories have to be probed
further; thus, pedagogical approaches employed for
the millennials would not be deemed as obsolete or
futile. In the similar light, how has this tremendous
shift amended and altered the present notions of
teaching and learning landscape. The prevalent
growth of technology has definitely become one of
the game changers, converting the traditional
classroom learning to learning via means of
technological advances, customized to
accommodate the needs of recent learning styles.
To determine the achievement of the intended
learning outcomes, assessments are designed to be
included as part of the teaching and learning
process. A study was done to probe on the efficacy
of online peer-assessment using Facebook in which
the findings of the study yielded affirmative retorts;
“the students were also certain that the online peer
appropriate and relevant feedbacks, enhance their
assessment practices, as well as communicate with
their respective group members in order to gain
subject knowledge and ultimately obtain solution to
a problem” (Mahmud & Wong, 2018, p. 111). At
this juncture, many of the current studies have
acknowledged the practical applications of
technology integration; however, scarce resources
are available on important discourses of how
imperative concepts and theories scaffold this new
pedagogical approach.
Predominantly, assessment is one of the
imperative factors in understanding students’
learning and technology-supported assessments are
becoming more common wherein programmed
instruction and computer-based quizzes, to an array
of interaction and content creations to scaffold
virtual or online submission, peer / self-assessment
as well as authenticity grading (Buckley & Cowap,
2013; Kulkarni et al., 2013; Tamim, et al. 2011).
Likewise, online assessment offers a systematic
structure to facilitate and support ongoing
monitoring, provisioning timely and adequate
formative feedback via continuous collaboration
between students and instructor. In this case,
disposition towards self-regulated learning can be
developed or enhanced by which critical for an
online environment to be integrated successfully.
As noted by Selwyn’s (2010), the ‘state of the

ICEAP 2018 22
 Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2
actual’ researches in incorporating technology as
part of the classroom instructions is “concerning
what is actually taking place when a digital
technology meets an educational setting” (p. 70). At
the same time and despite its tremendous benefits
as well as widespread, the employment of
technology to facilitate assessment process is rather
inconsistent and circumstantial (Warburton, 2009).
Considering this, it necessitates for the existing
pedagogical approaches to be re-evaluated so that
the designs can be aligned with meaningful
assessments.
Deliberating on current theory and practices
contributes to the needed learning transformation.
The assumption and conclusion of scientific
application demand for precursory validity by
which a scientific theory to a phenomenon is
established to support the inquiry which would
eventually lead to a discovery and understanding of
new theory. The manifestation of theories and
concepts in this study are based on the organization
of concepts, conventions, potentials, philosophies,
and ideas invoked by Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956)
and the Comprehensive Learning Theories (CLT)
that are frequently and synonymously used in
numerous instructional settings. These three broad
learning theories are (a) Behaviourism, (b)
Cognitivism and (c) Constructivism, and are
derived from the distinctive schools of thought
which not only reinforce face-to-face instruction but
also the design of online learning resources (Ally,
2004). At this juncture, these primary theories are
able to assist in understanding the theory of the
application of online assessment in the context of
blended learning phenomena.
Bloom’s Taxonomy: Domains of Learning
The architecture of learning is synonymous with
one of the key theoretical frameworks, for instance,
Bloom’s Taxonomy developed by Benjamin Bloom
where it is prevalently employed in the discipline of
Instructional System Design (ISD). The utilisation
of Bloom’s Taxonomy to assess students’ learning
in a traditional environment is ubiquitous;
however, there is still so much room for e-learning
environment to be explored. There are several
possible explanations to illustrate the variances and
factors in using these two methods; physical
distance which is to limited synchronous responses
as well as assessments’ design which could pose
some challenges in the process of evaluation. In
factoring a well-designed course, the initial step is
to determine and identify the course objectives.
Bloom's (1956) taxonomy is largely used to devise
learning outcomes or objectives in the respective
three domains: cognitive mental skills (knowledge),
psychomotor; manual or physical skills (skills), and
affective; growth in feelings or emotional areas
(attitude or self) wherein each domain constitutes
ICEAP 2018
different levels of learning. For example, the higher
order learning skills require application, analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation to be evidently utilised
and integrated as part of the learning outcomes or
objectives. It is noteworthy to highlight that the
essential premise in the application of Bloom's
Taxonomy is that the degree of difficulty is
incrementally apparent to distinctly drive learning
process and each domain is ideally should be
thoroughly grasped before progressing into the next
level which is quantifiable from the measurement of
the knowledge obtained. Figure 1 below illustrates
the nitty gritty of the three major domains;
affective, cognitive and psychomotor and the
concise depiction of levels of complexity to
progressively capture students’ learning process.
Figure 1: Domains of Learning by Bloom
Taxonomy (1956)
To exemplify specifically, in the Cognitive
Domain, intellectual skills are predominantly
established and it comprises six different levels of
difficulties. Level 1: Knowledge. This is the level
which constitutes recollection of memory and
demonstration of what previously learnt that are
commonly expressed through obtained knowledge
in answering fundamental and basic concept
questions. For instance, knowledge of specifics:
terminology, specific facts, knowledge of methods
to deal with specifics: conventions, trends and
sequences, classifications and categories, criteria,
methodology and knowledge of the things that are
universally accepted in a field: principles and
generalisations, theories and structures. Level 2:
Comprehension. This is the level that students are
required to understand a particular concept or key
terms in which assessments are designed to possess
these criteria; compare, organise, deduce, translate,
provide descriptions and state main ideas which
simultaneously be able to demonstrate interpreting,
translating and extrapolating skills. Level 3:
Application. This is the level in which the
23
 Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2
comprehended knowledge is applied in relevant
contexts to address and acknowledge concerning
issues by incorporating acquired facts, knowledge,
rules and techniques. Level 4: Analysis. This is the
level which close scrutiny of acquired knowledge is
exercised to further separate the learnt concepts or
facts. Inferences are formulated to distinguish
essential elements, relationships/ correlations and
principles involving structural means. Level 5:
Synthesis. This is the level which data is colligated
via different means of approaches to form an
assembly of solutions, including manufacture of
distinct communication and a proposed plan of
procedures as well as cogent understanding of the
how a concept is derived in a form of abstract link.
And Level 6: Evaluation. This is the level which
viewpoints are supported through critical means of
analysis and evaluations in which elements of
novelty is apparent to fulfil criteria such as
employing acquired evaluative knowledge tom
exemplify both internal evidence and external
criteria.
With the earlier illustrations on the levels in the
cognitive domain, it is rather clear that even with
the intricacies of these progressive levels, the
emulation of systemic design and support can be
executed via the incorporation of technology. The
employment of scientific principles as a basis to
create meaningful learning experiences with the
amalgamation of Bloom’s Taxonomy and
technology is used by instructional designers
worldwide to define the required cognition level as
well as to map the content type to the ideation or
multimedia enablement of an eLearning course.
Comprehensive Learning Theories:
Behaviourism, Constructivism and Cognitivism
Blended Learning
Figure 2: Comprehensive Learning Theories
Figure 2 graphically illustrates how the
intersecting learning theories and blended learning
scaffold the conceptual framework of this study.
The main proponents of Behaviourism, Skinner and
ICEAP 2018
Watson noted that learning is the result of
variations in the setting or environment, and they
pursued to attest that behaviour can be anticipated
and even controlled (Skinner, 1974). Meanwhile,
fervent proponents of Constructivism, Piaget and
Vygotsky regarded learning as a process to seek for
meaning, besides designating specific criteria which
could aid in anticipating what students actually
comprehend at a variety of phases in the
developmental and learning processes (Rummel,
2008). The main focus on learning, according to the
Behaviourists is how the process impacts changes in
behaviour. They argued that “only observable,
measurable, outward behaviour is worthy of
scientific inquiry” (Bush, 2006, p. 14); hence, all
learners obtain a uniformed understanding when
exposed to the veracious environmental stimuli.
However, the contrary belief of the Constructivists
is that they regard learning as a search for active
meaning created throughout the learning process.
At this juncture, a Behaviourist would continue to
examine the content as well as the impacts of the
environment upon that learning process whilst a
Constructivist would be more concerned with
understanding the learners’ attempts to construct
meaning (Bush, 2006). As for the Cognitivists, they
underscore the learner’s schema as a systematized
knowledge assembly (Bruner, 1990; Gagne,
Yekovich, & Yekovich, 1993) where the learners
themselves interpret knowledge and provide
meaning to it. Hence, it can be deduced that the
cognitive learning theory recognizes the human
mind as an active recipient of knowledge. Under
these circumstances, the learner synthesizes the
newly acquired knowledge with prior knowledge.
Deliberating the myriad of views and notions
advocated by psychologists and educators on
learning, educators are assigned the huge
responsibility of determining the instructional
design which will augment students’ learning
digitally.
The latest trends involving technology as a
cognitive tool have progressed tremendously in the
last decades. Cognitive tools in this context are the
types of technology that assist learners to be more
engaged in the process of knowledge construction,
which is inherent not physically but in the form of
cognitive nature utilized as a catalyst to create
knowledge (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999). This
would enable learners to think and solve problems
better (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996). Jonassen (2002)
further established that the role of cognitive tools
are to facilitate critical thinking and higher-order
learning, designed to trigger the learners’ capability
as part of a mechanism to enhance learning (Kim
and Reeves, 2007). Based on their study, Jonassen,
Peck and Wilson (1999) stated that learners do not
acquire knowledge directly from technology.
However, the role of technology embedded in part
24
 Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2
of the instruction would be able to involve learners
more actively in the thinking process, which in turn
benefits the learning process. Undoubtedly,
thinking can nurture learning processes, and
computers as well as technology play a vital role in
mediating cognitive processes (Jonassen & Reeves,
1996) by offering a technological platform for the
learners to be more creative and critical cognitively,
allowing them to experience a better learning
environment. With technology as part of the
learning process, learners and technology become
allies. For example, technology can assist learners
in going beyond the limitations of their cognitive
ability, such as computation of numbers,
information storage and retrieval. Consequently,
with this assistance in place, learners are able to
cope with the content better, and engage in a more
reflective process which is one of the foundations of
higher-order thinking. Jonassen (1994) stated that
when students are able to apply any cognitive tool
effectively in their learning, it requires them to be
actively involved with the thinking process to
produce the output or knowledge. At this juncture,
outdated and obsolete learning approaches like rote
learning and memorization can be averted because
with such technological opportunities, learners are
more focused on the construction of knowledge
rather than merely reproducing it.
The philosophy and beliefs behind the ideology
of Constructivism are that learners create their own
knowledge based on interactions with their
environment, including their interaction with other
people (Draper, 2002). The notion lies in the
interpretation process created through the existing
interaction with the physical and social contexts
(Fosnot, 1996). Constructivism has been verified to
be efficacious when it involves circumstances that
correlate with learners’ performance. In this
context, the teacher takes on a facilitator’s role,
allowing learners to take on a more active role and
to be responsible for their own learning (White-
Clark, DiCarlo, & Gilchriest, 2008). With the
emergence of technology, teachers or instructors
who employ constructivist theories can support
discovery learning and critical-thinking activities
via synchronous discussions done online. The
concept of synchronous discussion can directly
invoke collaborative learning among learners as
well as the teachers or instructors. Classrooms that
practice Constructivist concepts and theories
integrate real-life and complex issues for the
learners to solve together. Herein, learners are able
to work collaboratively to discover the best
solution. “Cooperative learning, hands-on
activities, discovery learning, differentiated
instruction, technology, distributed practice, critical
thinking, and manipulatives are elements that
embrace the constructivist educational philosophy.”
(White-Clark et al., 2008, p. 41). Constructivism
ICEAP 2018
allows learners to take on an active role and to be
more responsible for their learning process where it
emphasizes dialogue, reflection, and
communication, not only between the learners and
teachers/instructors but also among the learners,
which is undoubtedly enhanced with technology. A
virtually-simulated environment has tremendous
potential to offer social interaction and
collaboration that develops the construction of
knowledge. In this circumstance, the
Constructivist’s view that the construction of
knowledge is based on an individual’s experiences,
thus the philosophy behind this notion embraces
the integration of technology in education and
definitely in the learning process. Simina and
Hamel (2005) noted that a learning process that
involves technology allows its users to not only
interact with learning materials, but to also network
with other people, which is a combination of social
and individual characteristics. According to
Vygotsky, the expression of social constructivism
can be optimized when language and culture are
emphasized. To reiterate this view, Woo and
Reeves (2007) and Wise and Quealy (2006) strongly
endorse that the pedagogy of web-based learning
has to synthesize the notion of the social
constructivism learning theory. When learners
share texts, audio and video resources online, the
social interaction that exists between them would
be able to assist the improvement of individuals’
and groups’ construction of knowledge.
The Behaviourism theory asserts that the
framing of instructional goals is executed in a
specific manner, driven and motivated by
behavioural and observable conditions; meaning is
gauged independently from personal experience.
Utilizing such an approach, teachers/instructors are
more oriented toward the dissemination of
individual presentation and interaction. At this
juncture, learners are expected to be fully engaged
with the instructional presentation resources and to
consequently utilize them to demonstrate their
understanding. Typically, both formative and
summative assessments are linked to the intended
learning objectives. According to Sutton (2003), the
various aspects of Behaviourism have directed the
growth of important instructional technologies such
as educational software and modules, which are
computer-assisted instruction. The Conditions of
Learning created by Gagne echoes the Behaviourist
thought process in which five categories of learning
are acknowledged. These categories are classified
into (a) verbal information, (b) intellectual skills, (c)
cognitive strategies, (d) attitudes, and (e) motor
skills. Gagne also established that the internal and
external conditions are needed for each type of
learning. Counting and depending solely on the
Behaviourism theory in designing web-based
learning settings can create limited learner-content
25
 Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2

interactions (Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996 cited in
Woo & Reeves, 2007). However, present
Behaviourists believe that students learn by
memorizing information before they progress to
higher-level problem-based or situational learning,
and therefore the means and notions by which the
Behaviourist operates are still pertinent in today’s
digital and electronic context (Shield, 2000).
improve students’ learning experience whereas
summative assessment garners final grades to
provide complete and comprehensive deduction on
the attainment of learning objective. Figure 2 below
displays the comparison between formative and
summative assessments, exemplifying the means of
assessing students.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION FOR

FUTURE RESEARCHES

The theories of the Bloom Taxonomy (1956),

Behaviourist, Cognitivist, and Constructivist have
demonstrated how blended learning can be
incorporated into learning environments where the
design of the online resources, the pedagogical
approaches, as well as the principles, underpin each
theory. For instance, the employment of the
learning domains to design assessments is also one
of the essential aspects wherein the lesson’s
outcomes/ objectives are mapped against
specifically designed assessments to scaffold the
achievement of course outcomes/ objectives. This Figure 2: Comparison of Formative and Summative
can be accomplished with the use of either or both Assessments
formative and summative assessments. To define,
formative assessment affords timely and vital Table 1 below illustrates the variety however
feedback on the attainment of content knowledge non-exhaustive online assessment methods which
and learning objective. Based on the feedback can be potentially employed for either formative or
which is yielded in a form of result or performance, summative assessment.
instructors can modify pedagogical approaches to

Bloom's Taxonomy Online Assessment Methods

Multiple Choice, True/ False, Matching, Fill in the Blanks, Short

Knowledge
Answer, Games, Quizzes

Comprehension Online Simulations, Tutorials

Application Essay, Case study

Analysis/ Synthesis/ Evaluation Project, Portfolio, Presentation,

Table 1: Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) and Online Assessment Methods

With the preceding description, this paper has
reviewed and expounded on domains of learning as
well as three key aspects of theories associated with
learning and reinforced and reviewed in detail how
e-assessment is scaffolded by this major formulation
of theories and concepts. Sketching an analogy of
the dynamic and synergy between theory-
application relationships, it is equilibrium of the
roots and branches of a tree. Both are equally
important, possessing unique characteristics and
purposes, supporting and abetting each other.
Discovery of theories leads to comprehension and
applications and applications of existing theories
leads to perhaps more novel, ground-breaking
theories. Espousing the attributes of each theory,
the notion of blended learning is indispensably
imperative in enhancing learning among the
millennial learners of the 21st century.
*****
REFERENCES
Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory
for online learning. Theory and practice of online
learning, 2, 15-44.

ICEAP 2018 26
 Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:
The classification of educational goals: Cognitive
Domain. Longman.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Buckley, E., & Cowap, L. (2013). An evaluation of the
use of Turnitin for electronic submission and
marking and as a formative feedback tool from
an educator's perspective. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 44(4), 562-570.
Bush, G. (2006). Learning about learning: from
theories to trends. Teacher Librarian, 34(2), 14.
Draper, R. J. (2002). School mathematics reform,
constructivism, and literacy: A case for literacy
instruction in the reform-oriented math
classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
520-529.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Teachers construct
constructivism: The center for constructivist
teaching/teacher preparation project.
Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice,
205-216.
Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R.
(1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning.
Allyn & Bacon.
Hirumi, A., & Bermudez, A. (1996). Interactivity,
distance education, and instructional systems
design converge on the information
superhighway. Journal of Research on Computing
in Education, 29(1), 1-16.
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking Technology:
Toward a Constructivist Design Model.
Educational technology, 34(4), 34-37.
Jonassen, D. H. (2002). Learning as Activity.
Educational Technology, 42(2), 45-51.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999).
Learning with technology: A constructivist
perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Kim, B., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Reframing research
on learning with technology: In search of the
meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science,
35(3), 207-256.
Kulkarni, C., Wei, K. P., Le, H., Chia, D.,
Papadopoulos, K., Cheng, J., & Klemmer, S.
R. (2013). Peer and self-assessment in massive
online classes. ACM Transactions on Computer-
Human Interaction (TOCHI), 20(6), 33.
Mahmud, M. M., & Wong, S. F. (2018). Facebook
and collaborative learning: An empirical study
on online assessment. International Journal of
Learning and Teaching, 4 (2), pp. 107-113.
ICEAP 2018
View publication stats
Rummel, Ethan. (2008). Constructing cognition.
American Scientist, 96(1), 80-82.
Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes
towards the critical study of educational
technology. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 26(1), 65-73.
Shield, G. (2000). A critical appraisal of learning
technology using information and
communication technologies. Journal of
Technology Studies, XXVI(1), 76.
Simina, V., & Hamel, M. J. (2005). CASLA through a
social constructivist perspective: WebQuest in
project-driven language learning. ReCALL,
17(02), 217-228.
Skinner, B. F. (1975). About behaviorism. 1974. New
York: Alfred Knopf.
Sutton, M. J. (2003). Problem representation,
understanding, and learning transfer
implications for technology education. Journal
of STEM Teacher Education, 40(4), 5.
Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E.,
Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What
forty years of research says about the impact of
technology on learning: A second-order meta-
analysis and validation study. Review of
Educational research, 81(1), 4-28.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of LS
Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and history of
psychology (Vol. 3). Springer Science & Business
Media.
Warburton, S. (2009). Second Life in higher
education: Assessing the potential for and the
barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning
and teaching. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 40(3), 414-426.
White-Clark, R., DiCarlo, M., & Gilchriest, S. N.
(2008). "Guide on the side": An instructional
approach to meet mathematics standards. The
High School Journal, 91(4), 40-44.
Wise, L., & Quealy, J. (2006). At the limits of social
constructivism: Moving beyond LMS to re-
integrate scholarship. In 23rd ASCILITE
Conference: Whose learning.
Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful
interaction in web-based learning: A social
constructivist interpretation. The Internet and
higher education, 10(1), 15-25.
27