International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

Classification of Test Items Written by Mathematics Pre-Service Teachers
AMA 10th edition
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Sebastian MA. Classification of Test Items Written by Mathematics Pre-Service Teachers. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2020;15(2), em0577.
APA 6th edition
In-text citation: (Sebastian, 2020)
Reference: Sebastian, M. A. (2020). Classification of Test Items Written by Mathematics Pre-Service Teachers. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 15(2), em0577.
In-text citation: (Sebastian, 2020)
Reference: Sebastian, Mildred Arellano. "Classification of Test Items Written by Mathematics Pre-Service Teachers". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2020 15 no. 2 (2020): em0577.
In-text citation: (Sebastian, 2020)
Reference: Sebastian, M. A. (2020). Classification of Test Items Written by Mathematics Pre-Service Teachers. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 15(2), em0577.
In-text citation: (Sebastian, 2020)
Reference: Sebastian, Mildred Arellano "Classification of Test Items Written by Mathematics Pre-Service Teachers". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 15, no. 2, 2020, em0577.
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Sebastian MA. Classification of Test Items Written by Mathematics Pre-Service Teachers. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2020;15(2):em0577.


Most teachers assume that asking questions contributes to the effectiveness of their instruction. Because proper questioning techniques are important for the classroom, this study identified the Mathematics pre-service teachers’ classification of test items using the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (rBT) and the Cunningham’s Levels of Questions (CLQs). It used a group of forty two pre-service Mathematics teachers who were asked to classify each thinking skills in the rBT as to LOT or HOT and then create test items falling under each category of the rBT and CLQ. Results revealed that most of the pre-service teachers have viewed LOT and HOT based on the level of difficulty of the given problem. They found it relatively easier to create test items using the Cunningham’s Levels of Questions, a non-familiar nomenclature for classifying test items, rather than the well-known Bloom’s Taxonomy. Pre-service teachers should be able to identify and classify questions according to their cognitive purposes.


  • Abonal, G. (1993). Classroom oral questions related to student and teacher factors in the Ateneo de Naga High School, SY 1992-1993 (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ateneo de Manila University.
  • Anderson, L. & D. Krathwohl (eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
  • Anderson, L., & Sosniak, L. (1994). Bloom’s taxonomy: a forty-year retrospective. Ninety-third yearbook of the national society for the study of education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Bellon, J. J., Bellon, E. C., & Blank, M. A. (1991). Teaching from a research knowledge base: A development and renewal process. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  • Bloom, B. (ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Book I, cognitive domain. New York: Longman green.
  • Blosser, P. (1985). Science education for the year 2000 and beyond. School science and mathematics association.
  • Chappuis, J. (2009). Seven strategies of assessment for learning. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843.
  • Cunningham, R. T. (1987). What kind of question is that? In W. W. Wilen (Ed.), Questions, questioning techniques, and effective teaching (pp. 67-94). Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.
  • Department of Education. (2013). K to 12 Curriculum Guide in Mathematics.
  • Elder, L., & Paul, R. (1998). The role of Socratic questioning in thinking, teaching, and learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 71(5), 297-301.
  • Ellis, K. (1993). Teacher questioning behavior and student learning: What research says to teachers. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 359572)
  • Gall, M. D. (1984). Synthesis of research on teachers’ questioning. Educational Leadership, 42(3), 40-47.
  • Gough, D. (1997). School improvement research series. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from
  • Hannel, I. (2009). Insufficient questioning. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(3), 65-69.
  • Harpster, D. (1999). A study of possible factors that influence the construction of teacher-made problems that asses higher-order thinking skills (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Montana State University-Bozeman. UMI 9927881.
  • Harrop, A., & Swinson, J. (2003). Teachers’ questions in the infant, junior and secondary school. Educational Studies, 29(1), 49-57.
  • Kaw, A., & Eison, J. (2003). Following bloom’s taxonomy to assess students. Retrieved January 1, 2010 from
  • Laviña, E. (2000). Developing HOTS in mathematics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Naga College Foundation.
  • Levin, T., & Long, R. (1981). Effective instruction. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Moore, L., & Rudd, R. (2002). Using Socratic questioning in the classroom. Agricultural Education Magazine, 75(3), 24-25.
  • Mullis, I., Martin, M., Gonzales, E., & Chrostowski, S. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report: findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the eighth and fourth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
  • Myhill, D., & Dunkin, F. (2005). Questioning learning. Language and Education, 19(5), 415-427.
  • National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). High school seniors’ instructional experiences in science and mathematics. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
  • Nicol, C. (1999). Learning to teach mathematics: Questioning, listening, and responding. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 45-66.
  • Overholser, J. C. (1992). Socrates in the classroom. The Social Studies, 83(2), 77-82.
  • Pascua, L. (1991). Towards effective teaching and higher order thinking in mathematics. Mathematics lecture-workshop series. Diwa learning systems, inc. Manila
  • Pate, R. T., & Bremer, N. H. (1967). Guiding learning through skillful questioning. Elementary School Journal, 67, 417-422.
  • Presseisen, R. (2004). Research on the training of higher cognitive learning and thinking skill. Final report no. 55, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Prima, C. (2005). Developing and assessing HOTS in Math III (geometry) (Unpublished master’s thesis). Naga College Foundation.
  • Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Resnick, L. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1-20). Washing D. C. American Psychological Association
  • Reynolds, W., & Meynard, K. (1990). An investigation of teachers’ test construction practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national council of measurement in education. Boston.
  • Riegle, R. P. (1976). Classifying classroom questions. Journal of Teacher Education, 27, 156-161.
  • Ristow, R. (1998). The teaching of thinking skills: does it improve creativity? Gifted child today.
  • Robinson, L. (1997). A program to incorporate HOTS into teaching and learning for Grades k-3. Nova University, Fort Landerdale, Florida, USA.
  • Ross, W. (1860). Methods of instruction. Barnard’s American Journal of Education, 9, 367-379.
  • Schmaltz, R. (1993). Categorization of questions that mathematics teachers ask. Mathematics teacher, Reston, VA: NCTM.
  • Schultz, L. (2005, January 25). Lynn Schultz: old dominion university: Bloom’s taxonomy. Retrieved on 5 January 2010, from
  • Schunk, D. (2007). Learning theories: An educational perspective (5th Ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
  • Senk, S., Beckmann, C., & Thompson, D. (1997). Assessment and grading high school mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(2), 187-215.
  • Stein, M., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: an analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50-80.
  • Thompson, T. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ interpretation of higher-order thinking. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(2). Retrieved on 5 June 2009 from
  • Tudge, J. R. H., & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S. Vygotsky on education: A culturalhistorical, interpersonal, and individual approach to development.
  • Vidakovic, D., Bevis, J., & Alexander M. (2003). Bloom’s taxonomy in developing assessment items. Journal of Online Mathematics and its Applications. Retrieved on 30 October 2009 from
  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: the link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education policy analysis archives, 10(12).
  • Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voice of the mind: A social-cultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Wilen, W. W. (1991). Questioning skills, for teachers. What research says to the teachers (5th. ed.). Washington, DC: National Education Association
  • Wilson, J. (1971). Evaluation of learning in secondary school mathematics. Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. McGraw-Hill, Inc.: New York.
  • Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17(2), 89-100.
  • Zhang, Y., & Patrick, P. (2012). Introducing questioning techniques to pre-service teachers. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 1(2), 159-184.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.