NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Showing all 5 results Save | Export
Farrar, Mary Thomas – 1984
Educators generally assume that questioning promotes learning and that higher level questions do so better than lower level questions. But there are a number of problems with these assumptions. First, the classification of questions as higher level or lower level is ambiguous. The distinction is confused by such issues as non-controversial…
Descriptors: Abstract Reasoning, Classification, Difficulty Level, Questioning Techniques
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Farrar, Mary Thomas – Instructional Science, 1986
Argues that three tenets of the traditional wisdom about teacher questioning are based on inadequate research: (1) it is useful to classify questions as fact (lower level) or reason (higher level); (2) higher level questions are better; and (3) questions are good in general because they stimulate thought. (MBR)
Descriptors: Classification, Classroom Techniques, Cognitive Processes, Difficulty Level
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Moore, David S. – Educational Theory, 1982
The hierarchical structure of the cognitive domain presented in Benjamin S. Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives does not reflect the actual nature of the learning process. Attempts to apply the classification levels to student learning in mathematics and other subjects place the taxonomy's usefulness in question. (PP)
Descriptors: Classification, Cognitive Objectives, Difficulty Level, Elementary Secondary Education
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Smetherham, D. – British Journal of Educational Studies, 1979
The item bank (Rasch model) has serious limitations for the national assessment of subject performance: it requires agreement about the scope and organization of each school subject and about the difficulty level of each test item; and items tend to focus on factual knowledge, ignoring other desirable learning outcomes. (SJL)
Descriptors: Behavioral Objectives, Classification, Difficulty Level, Educational Assessment
Carlton, Charles M. – 1983
Romanian is characterized by a richness of surface forms that are difficult to classify and even more difficult for the learner to assimilate. There is much instructional material available in Romanian, and in a survey of fifty works published outside the country, four categories emerged: teaching materials, pedagogical grammars, grammars, and…
Descriptors: Classification, Dialogs (Language), Difficulty Level, Form Classes (Languages)