本研究的目的不僅是根據布盧姆修訂分類學的認知水平來檢驗泰國高中化學教科書中的問題分佈，還評估每個子主題的問題 - 有機化學，碳氫化合物和碳氫化合物的介紹衍生品 - 在低階思維技能和高階思維技能方面。本研究使用內容分析方法來分析問題;特別是，分析框架改編自布魯姆修訂分類法的六個認知層次 - 記住，理解，應用，分析，評估和創造。每個問題根據分析框架分為六個級別;此外，他們被分為低階思維技能或高階思維技能。計算每個級別的頻率並將其轉換為百分比，以便仔細檢查與Bloom的修訂分類法相關的問題分佈。結果表明，問題的分佈不均衡。本章中的大多數問題都是衡量低階思維技能;然而，關於碳氫化合物的子主題在測量更高階思維技能的問題中具有可接受的比例。本研究對教科書作者和未來研究趨勢的研究結果進行了討論。

The purposes of this study is not only to examine the distribution of questions in Thai senior high school chemistry textbooks based on the cognitive levels of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, but also evaluated the questions each sub-topic – Introduction to Organic Chemistry, Hydrocarbons, and Hydrocarbon Derivatives – in terms of low order thinking skill and higher order thinking skill. This study used a content analysis approach to analyze the questions; in particular, the analytical framework was adapted from the six cognitive levels of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy – remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. Each question was classified into six levels based on the analytical framework; moreover, they were classified into lower order thinking skill or higher order thinking skill. Frequency of each level was counted and converted to percentages so as to scrutinize the distribution of questions in relation to Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. The results showed that the chapter mostly contained questions testing understand; besides, the distribution of questions was unbalanced. Most of the questions in the chapter measure lower order thinking skill; however, the sub-topic on Hydrocarbon has acceptable proportion of questions measuring higher order thinking skill. The implications of this study’s findings for textbook authors and future research trends are discussed.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of research in science teaching, 45(7), 835-855.
Abdel-Hameed, F. S., Emara, S. A., & Khine, M. S. (2014). Analysis of cycle-1 primary science textbooks in the kingdom of bahrain for reflection of reform. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, Special Issue, 4(3), 2009-2018.
Abdelrahman, M. (2014). An analysis of the tenth grade English language textbooks questions in Jordan based on the revised edition of Bloom's taxonomy. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(18), 139-151.
Agarwal, P. K. (2018). Retrieval practice & Bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact knowledge before higher order learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 1-21.
Akcay, B., Akcay, H., & Inaltekin, T. (2018). Content analysis of science textbooks’ evaluation questions based on physics, chemistry, biology, environment and astronomy subject area by Bloom’s taxonomy. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational & Social Sciences, 9, 71-78.
Aksela, M. (2005). Supporting meaningful chemistry learning and higher-order thinking through computer-assisted inquiry: A design research approach. (Academic dissertation), University of Helsinki
Al-hasanat, H. A. A. (2016). Analyzing assessment questions in an Arabic textbook (communication skills) for eight grade in Jordan according to Bloom’s taxonomy of levels of knowledge aims. World Journal of Education, 6(2), 68-81.
Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psycology, 4, 213-230.
An, S., Dizon, A., Suppes, G., & Ghosh, T. (2018). Attaining analysis, evaluation, and creation level of learning via online questions in polymer and chemical reaction engineering course. Journal of Online Engineering Education, 9.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., . . . Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Ardianto, D., & Pursitasari, I. D. (2017). Do middle school science textbook enclose an entity of science literacy? Journal of Humanities and Social Studies, 1(1), 24-27.
Azar, A. (2005). Analysis of Turkish high-school physics-examination questions and university entrance exams questions according to Blooms’ taxonomy. Turk Fen Egitimi Dergisi Journal, 2(2), 144-150.
Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Enhancing higher order thinking skills among inservice science teachers via embedded assessment. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 459-474.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self‐determination theory perspective. Science education, 84(6), 740-756.
Black, S. (2010). Evaluating the level of critical thinking in introductory investments courses. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14(4), 99-106.
Bloom, B. (1965). Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Longman.
Budiarti, I. S., & Suparmi, A. (2017). Analyzes of students’ higher-order thinking skills of heat and temperature concept. Paper presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference Series.
Bumen, N. T. (2007). Effects of the original versus revised Bloom’s axonomy on lesson planning skills: A Turkish study among pre-service teachers. International Review of Education, 53(4), 439-455.
Cakici, Y., & Girgin, E. (2012). An assessment of end-of-unit questions in the middle school science textbooks. Journal of Education Faculty, 14(2), 87-110.
Campbell, A., Hanania, J., & Donev, J. (2018, June 4, 2018). Hydrocarbon derivative. Energy education. Retrieved from https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Hydrocarbon_derivative
Campbell, M. K., & Farrell, S. O. (2018). Biochemistry (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Chang, W.-C., & Chung, M.-S. (2009). Automatic applying Bloom’s taxonomy to classify and analysis the cognition level of English question items. Paper presented at the Pervasive Computing (JCPC), 2009 Joint Conferences on.
Charoenket, S., & Chamnankit, B. (2014). The effect of scientific experience arrangement on critical thinking ability of early childhood. Journal of Graduate Studies in Northern Rajabhat Universities, 4(6), 117-128.
Charoenmuang, T. (2018, October 22). Liberal arts education. Matichonweekly. Retrieved from https://www.matichonweekly.com/column/article_141857
Chew, F. P., Hamad, Z. H., & Hutagalung, F. (2018). Higher-order thinking skills in teaching the Malay language through questions and questioning among the teachers Issues and Trends in Interdisciplinary Behavior and Social Science (pp. 25-32): CRC Press.
Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847-1868.
Chitnork, A., & Yuenyong, C. (2018). Grade 10 Thai students’ scientific argumentation in learning about electric field through science, technology, and society (STS) approach. Paper presented at the AIP Conference Proceedings.
Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy blooms digitally. Tech & Learning, 1, 1-6.
Clark, C., & Khafagi, N. (2017). Asking essential questions to stimulate critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.bue.edu.eg/pdfs/Academics/PowerPoint%20Presentation/Asking%20Essential%20Questions%20to%20Stimulate%20Critical%20Thinking%20BUE.pdf
Coffey, H. (2009). Bloom’s taxonomy. LEARN NC. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/37437586/bloom.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1546017009&Signature=GPPcRRJQDML6guPNPaGvjsiSY00%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DBlooms_Taxonomy.pdf
Cook, A., & Tulip, D. (1992). The improtance of selected textbook features to science teachers. Research in science education, 22(1), 91-100.
Dalim, S. F., & Mubarrak, M. (2013). Quantitative method of textbook evaluation for chemistry (KBSM) Form 4 textbook. Paper presented at the Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science Research, ICSSR.
Darwazeh, A. N. (2016). A Rationale for revising Bloom’s revised taxonomy. 38th annual Proceeding - Indianapolis, 2, 197-203.
Darwazeh, A. N., & Branch, R. M. (2015). A revision to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. 38th annual Proceeding - Indianapolis, 2, 220-225.
Davidowitz, B., & Rollnick, M. (2011). What lies at the heart of good undergraduate teaching? A case study in organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(3), 355-366.
Davila, K., & Talanquer, V. (2009). Classifying end-of-chapter questions and problems for selected general chemistry textbooks used in the United States. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 97-101.
Demirdogen, B. (2017). Examination of chemical representations in Turkish high school chemistry Textbooks. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4).
Dohrn, S. W., & Dohn, N. B. (2018). The role of teacher questions in the chemistry classroom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 352-363.
Edwards, N. (2010). An analysis of the alignment of the grade 12 physical sciences examination and the core curriculum in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 30(4).
Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational leadership, 43(2), 44-48.
Farida, I., Helsy, I., Fitriani, I., & Ramdhani, M. A. (2018). Learning material of chemistry in high school using multiple representations. Paper presented at the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.
Forehand, M. (2011, July 12). Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from https://www.d41.org/cms/lib/IL01904672/Centricity/Domain/422/BloomsTaxonomy.pdf
Gegios, T., Salta, K., & Koinis, S. (2017). Investigating high-school chemical kinetics: the Greek chemistry textbook and students’ difficulties. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 151-168.
Gillette, G., & Sanger, M. J. (2014). Analysing the distribution of questions in the gas law chapters of secondary and introductory college chemistry textbooks from the United States. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 787-799.
Gok, T. I. (2012). Comparative analysis of biology textbooks with regard to cellular respiration and photosynthesis. (Master’s thesis), Bilkent University, Ankara.
Graham, M., Milanowski, A., & Miller, J. (2012). Measuring and promoting inter-rater agreement of teacher and principal performance ratings: Center for Educator Compensation Reform.
Guven, C., & AyDin, A. (2017). The analysıs of 8th grade science and technology lesson curriculum questıons according to the cognitıve process dimension of revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Journal of the Turkish Chemical Society Section C Chemical Education, 2(1), 87-106.
Harrison, J., Dikken, O., & van Peer, D. (2017). Question classification according to Bloom’s revised taxonomy. (Bachelor’s end project report), Delft University of Technology.
Hee, K. K., & Mi, L. S. (2010). Analysis of the cognitive domain in the science textbooks’ questions.-Focused on “Materials” in the 7th grade of the 2007 revised national curriculum. Journal of the Society for the International Gifted in Science, 4(2), 125-132.
Helmenstine, A. M. (2017, March 13). What organic chemistry is and what organic chemists do. Organic chemistry introduction. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/organic-chemistry-introduction-608693
Heng, C. S., & Ziguang, Y. (2015). Framework of assessment for the evaluation of thinking skills of tertiary level students. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(5), 67-72.
Hopson, M. H., Simms, R. L., & Knezek, G. A. (2001). Using a technology-enriched environment to improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Research on Technology in education, 34(2), 109-119.
Huot, M. (2014). Textbook analysis: level of critical thinking in Cambodian biology textbooks published by ministry of education youth and sport. (Master’s thesis), Royal University of Phnom Penh.
Igbaria, A. K. (2013). A content analysis of the WH-questions in the EFL textbook of Horizons. International Education Studies, 6(7), 200-224.
Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology. (2014). Chemistry 5 (4th ed.). Bangkok: Office of the Welfare Promotion Commission for Teachers and Education Personnel.
Jacob, E., Duffield, C., & Jacob, D. (2018). Development of an Australian nursing critical thinking tool using a Delphi process. Journal of advanced nursing, 74(9), 2241-2248.
Karamustafaoglu, S., Sevim, S., Karamustafaoglu, O., & Cepni, S. (2003). Analysis of Turkish high-school chemistry-examination questions according to Bloom’s taxonomy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 4(1), 25-30.
Kasim, U., Zulfikar, T., & Zaiturrahmi, Z. (2017). Analysis of instructional questions in an English textbook for senior high Schools. English Education Journal, 8(4), 536-552.
Katambur, D. (2018). An overview of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy – applying it to e-learning. E-learning design. Retrieved from https://blog.commlabindia.com/elearning-design/blooms-taxonomy-examples
Khreibi, R. A. (2014). Evaluating textbook questions and classroom instructional questions for grade 6 science in a private school in Dubai based on the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. (Master’s thesis), The British University in Dubai (BUiD).
King, A. (1995). Designing the instructional process to enhance critical thinking across the curriculum. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 13-17.
Kluver, A. (2017). Auditing higher order and creative thinking skills in teacher created instructional units for elementary gifted and talented students: An action research study. (Plan B Master’s project), University of Wyoming.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Kustov, L. M. (2016). Why organic chemistry is important for a physical chemist? Russian Journal of Organic Chemistry, 52(7), 1072-1075.
Lombard, M., Snyder‐Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human communication research, 28(4), 587-604.
Lynch, D. J., & Trujillo, H. (2011). Motivational beliefs and learning strategies in organic chemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6), 1351-1365.
Mahattana, N. (Writer) & L. Panwichai (Director). (2014a). Development of childrens’ critical thinking skill DIVAS CAFE’. Thailand.
Mahattana, N. (Writer) & L. Panwichai (Director). (2014b). What is critical thinking?, DIVAS CAFE’. Thailand.
Martin, E. M. (2018). Teaching critical-thinking skills: A strategic-management class project. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 21.
Mayeshiba, M., Jansen, K. R., & Mihlbauer, L. (2018). An evaluation of critical thinking in competency-based and traditional online learning environments. Online Learning, 22(2), 77-89.
Mergo, T. (2012). The extent to which the chemistry textbook of grade 11 is appropriate for learner-centered approach. African Journal of Chemical Education, 2(3), 92-108.
Mutrofin, L., Nur, M., & Yuanita, L. (2016). Developing teaching materials using 5E model of instruction to increase students’ higher order thinking skills. JPPS (Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Sains), 5(2), 962-967.
Nagnedrarao, B. (2017). Mathematics teachers’ perception using textbook to promote HOTS. Science International, 29(4), 965-965.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191-196.
Nakiboglu, C., & Cosgun, H. (2017). Examination of presentation of ionization energy in Turkish secondary school chemistry textbooks. Recent Developments in Education, 248-258.
Nurhidayati, I., & Purwanta, E. (2019). A content analysis of high order thinking skills on student’s textbook of curriculum 2013 for mentally retarded. Paper presented at the International Conference on Special and Inclusive Education (ICSIE 2018).
O’Dwyer, A., & Childs, P. E. (2017). Who says organic chemistry is difficult? Exploring perspectives and perceptions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3599-3620.
Obchoeytes, C. (2008). An analysis of the appropriateness of chemistry textbooks for upper secondary school level using textbook research. (Master’s thesis), Chulalongkorn University.
Office of the Basic Education Commission. (2018, November 30). Database of accepted textbooks. Retrieved from http://academic.obec.go.th/textbook/web/
Okanlawon, A. E., & Adeoti, Y. F. (2014). Content analysis of West African senior school certificate chemistry examination questions according to cognitive complexity. IFE PsychologIA: An International Journal, 22(2), 14-26.
Oliver-Hoyo, M. T. (2003). Designing a written assignment to promote the use of critical thinking skills in an introductory chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(8), 899-903.
Olsen, R., S, L., Siapno, J., Hamdani, M. M., & Ma, S. (2014, November 12). You want HOTS: Develop higher order thinking skills. Retrieved from https://ttlearning.com/blog/you-want-hots-develop-higher-order-thinking-skills/
Orey, M. (2012). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and technology. Zurich, Switzerland: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Othman, M., & Kassim, A. (2017). Teaching practice of Islamic education teachers based on higher order thinking Skills (HOTS) in primary school in Malaysia: An overview of the beginning. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(3), 401-415.
Overman, M., Vermunt, J. D., Meijer, P. C., Bulte, A. M., & Brekelmans, M. (2013). Textbook questions in context-based and traditional chemistry curricula analysed from a content perspective and a learning activities perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2954-2978.
Phummai, W. (1998). Analysis of mathayom suksa 2 science textbooks. (Master’s thesis), Chiang Mai University.
Phuong, Y. H., & Nguyen, L. G. T. (2018). English teachers’ questions in a Vietnamese high school reading classroom. JEELS-Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 4(2), 129-154.
Pratama, G., & Retnawati, H. (2018). Urgency of higher order thinking skills (HOTS) content analysis in mathematics textbook. Paper presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference Series.
Pungente, M. D., & Badger, R. A. (2003). Teaching introductory organic chemistry:’Blooming’ beyond a simple taxonomy. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(7), 779-784.
Rawadieh, S. M. d. (1999). An analysis of the cognitive levels of questions in Jordanian secondary social studies textbooks according to Bloom’s taxonomy. (Doctoral Dissertation), Ohio University.
Risner, G. P. (1987). Cognitive levels of questioning demonstrated by test items that accompany selected fifth-grade science textbooks.
Risner, G. P., Nicholson, J. I., & Myhan, J. G. (1991). Levels of questioning in current elementary textbooks: What the future holds.
Sadeghi, B., & Mahdipour, N. (2015). Investigating ILI advanced atudents’ critical thinking by teachers’ questions: with the emphasis on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Int. J. Appl. Ling. Stud, 4(1), 1-07.
Saido, G. M., Siraj, S., Nordin, A. B. B., & Al Amedy, O. S. (2018). Higher order thinking skills among secondary school students in science learning. MOJES: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(3), 13-20.
Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1999). An analysis of college chemistry textbooks as sources of misconceptions and errors in electrochemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(6), 853-860.
Sangsri, N., Kanjanachatree, S., Faikhamta, C., & Suwanruji, P. (2012). An analysis of questions in junior high school science textbooks. Srinakharinwirot Research and Development (Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences), 4(7), 33-41.
SciMath. (2018). Chemistry. IPST learning space. Retrieved from http://www.scimath.org/ebook-chemistry
Seo, Y.-J., Kim, H.-S., & Chae, H.-K. (2010). Analysis of the end-of-chapter questions in chemistry II according to revised Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 54(3), 329-337.
Silberberg, M. S., & Amateis, P. (2018). Chemistry: The molecular nature of matter and change (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning difficulties in chemistry: An overview. Journal of Turkish science education, 4(2), 2-20.
Sothayapetch, P., Lavonen, J., & Juuti, K. (2013). A comparative analysis of PISA scientific literacy framework in Finnish and Thai science curricula. Science Education International, 24(1), 78-97.
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical assessment, research & evaluation, 7(17), 137-146.
Stupple, E. J., Maratos, F. A., Elander, J., Hunt, T. E., Cheung, K. Y., & Aubeeluck, A. V. (2017). Development of the critical thinking toolkit (CriTT): A measure of student attitudes and beliefs about critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 91-100.
Sutasinobol, K. (2015). Questioning techniques. Encylopedia of Education of Faculty of Education, Srinakharinwirot University, 49.
Tien, L. T., Roth, V., & Kampmeier, J. (2002). Implementation of a peer‐led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 606-632.
Tikkanen, G., & Aksela, M. (2012). Analysis of Finnish chemistry matriculation examination questions according to cognitive complexity. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 8(3), 257-268.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, T. L. (2004a). Students' understanding of the descriptive and predictive nature of teaching models in organic chemistry. Research in science education, 34(1), 1-20.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, T. L. (2004b). Students’ understanding of the descriptive and predictive nature of teaching models in organic chemistry. Research in science education, 34(1), 1-20.
Trefil, J. S., & Hazen, R. M. (2016). The sciences: An integrated approach (8th ed.): Wiley.
Tro, N. J. (2017). Chemistry: Structure and properties (J. Zalesky Ed. 4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Tutorferry. (2015). The ratio of each chemistry topic in PAT2. Retrieved from https://www.tutorferry.com/2015/06/pat2-chem.html
Ulum, O. G. (2016). A descriptive content analysis of the extent of Bloom’s taxonomy in the reading comprehension questions of the course book Q: Skills for success 4 reading and writing. The Qualitative Report, 21(9), 1674-1683.
Uner, S., & Akkus, H. (2010). The cognitive level of the questions in the secondary chemistry textbooks and the opinions of students and teachers about questions. XIV IOSTE, 1512-1514.
Uner, S., Akkus, H., & Kormali, F. (2014). The cognitive level of questions in the secondary chemistry textbooks and exams and the relationship with student’s cognitive level Ahi Evran Universitesi Kırsehir Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi Journal, 15(1).
Upahi, J. E., & Jimoh, M. (2016). Classification of end-of-chapter questions in senior school chemistry textbooks used in Nigeria. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 90-102.
Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (2005). Dilemmas of science teaching: Perspectives on problems of practice: Routledge.
Wang, W. (2011). A content analysis of reliability in advertising content analysis studies. (Master’s thesis), East Tennessee State University.
Whalley, J. L., Lister, R., Thompson, E., Clear, T., Robbins, P., Kumar, P., & Prasad, C. (2006). An Australasian study of reading and comprehension skills in novice programmers, using the bloom and SOLO taxonomies. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education, Hobart, Australia.
Widana, I. W., Parwata, I. M. Y., Parmithi, N. N., Jayantika, I. G. A. T., Sukendra, K., & Sumandya, I. W. (2018). Higher order thinking skills assessment towards critical thinking on mathematics lesson. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (IJSSH), 2(1), 24-32.
Wilson, L. O. (2016a). Anderson and Krathwohl–Bloom’s taxonomy revised. Understanding the New Version of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved from https://thesecondprinciple.com/teaching-essentials/beyond-bloom-cognitive-taxonomy-revised/
Wilson, L. O. (2016b). Understanding the new version of Bloom’s taxonomy. A succinct discussion of the revisions to Bloom’s classic cognitive taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl and how to use them effectively. Retrieved from http://thesecondprinciple.com/teaching-essentials/beyond-bloom-cognitive-taxonomy-revised/
World Economic Forum. (2018a). 10 skills you’ll need to survive the rise of automation. Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/the-skills-needed-to-survive-the-robot-invasion-of-the-workplace
World Economic Forum. (2018b). The future of jobs report 2018. Geneva, Switzerland: Centre for the New Economy and Society, World Economic Forum.
Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.
Yusoff, W. M. W., & Seman, S. C. (2018). Teachers’ knowledge of higher order thinking and questioning skills: A case study at a primary school in Terengganu, Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 7(2), 46-63.
Zamacona, M. (2014, November 2). Bloom’s axonomy. Learning how to teach: Thoughts, knowledge, quotes and more. Retrieved from https://mayolazamacona.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/bloom_s_taxonomy.png
Zamani, G., & Rezvani, R. (2015). ‘HOTS’ in Iran’s official textbooks: Implications for material design and student learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(5), 138-151.