MILDRED F. ARELLANO (2010).

Mathematics Teachers’ Interpretation of Higher- Order

Thinking In Bloom’s Taxonomy. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Technological University
of the Philippines.

ABSTRACT

This study identified the Mathematics teachers’ interpretations of higher-order thinking in

the old version of Bloom’s Taxonomy (BT). It used a group of twenty two Mathematics teachers
who are teaching MATH III (Geometry) in five public high schools in Cavite. The research
instrument used was a questionnaire which was developed by the researcher and validated by the
Thesis Adviser. The questionnaire consisted of three parts: Demographic Profile, Teachers’
Interpretations and Test Item Creation. Teachers were asked about their views on Lower-Order
Thinking (LOT) and Higher-Order Thinking (HOT) and to classify each of the six thinking skills
in BT as to LOT or HOT. Furthermore, they were asked to create test items falling under each
category for about two weeks. Descriptive statistics, i.e., frequency counts and percentages, was
used to determine the range of views of Mathematics teachers about LOT and HOT and which
among the six thinking skills in BT was correctly classified. Also, percentage was used to
identify which among the test items developed by the teachers were correctly classified
according to the hierarchy in BT. Results revealed that most of the teachers have viewed LOT
and HOT based on the level of difficulty of the given problem – as to simple or complex
processes involved and they disregarded the concept of familiarity to the situation presented to
them. Also, teachers’ classification of thinking skills indicated that 100 % of the teachers
correctly classified knowledge as to LOT; analysis and synthesis as to HOT. Evaluation is the
highest level of thinking skill in BT and should be considered as HOT. However, there are more
than 35% of the teachers who misclassified it as LOT. Teachers had correctly created 55% to
62% of the test items falling under the first four levels of the BT namely, knowledge,
comprehension, application and analysis. Sixty percent of the test items intended for synthesis
and evaluation levels did not actually fall under such categories. Only 24% of the test items
were correctly classified as to LOT and 52% as to HOT. Eighteen percent of the test items fell in
the LOT – HOT category. As classified by the experts they are HOT items but were classified
by the teachers as LOT. Six percent of the test items fell in the HOT – LOT category. These
items were classified as HOT by the teachers but only belong to the LOT category as established
by the researcher and experts.