Content uploaded by S.C. dos Santos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by S.C. dos Santos on Mar 06, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Systems Approach to Managing Learning
based on Bloom´s Revised Taxonomy to
Support Student Assessment in PBL
Ariane Nunes Rodrigues
Universidade de Pernambuco
Recife, Brazil
ariane.rodrigues@upe.br
Simone C. dos Santos
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
Recife, Brazil
scs@cin.ufpe.br
Abstract—The dynamism and intensity of practices inherent in
problem-based learning (PBL) can end up having an adverse
effect on teaching practices. The difficulty in defining clear
educational objectives aligned to appropriate forms of assessment
is also a recurring challenge in the management of learning
environments. As a response to this state of affairs, this paper
presents an approach to a system for managing learning based on
PBL that makes use of Bloom's revised taxonomy to support
planning and assessment activities. The model was implemented
using prototypes with low-fidelity screens and its applicability
with regard to the conduct of teaching using PBL was found to be
valid.
PBL; Systems for Managing Learning (SML); Bloom´s
Taxonomy – Revised; Planning and Assessment Processes.
I. INTRODUCTION (HEADING 1)
The dynamism and intensity of practices inherent in
problem-based learning (PBL) [1] can end up having an
adverse effect on teaching practices. On the one hand, a lack of
control over teaching activities, the essential elements of which
are processes (i.e. managing the application of the method),
people (especially new roles involved) and tools (the teaching
environment itself and the availability of the technology
needed), can negatively affect the PBL approach and its
principles. On the other hand, the difficulty in defining clear
educational objectives aligned to appropriate forms of
assessment can undermine the perception and evaluation of the
results of teaching and learning.
Therefore, it is believed that many of the challenges that
PBL presents are linked to new ways of "teaching" and how
"assessment" is aligned to PBL principles. The dynamism of
the learning method, the focus of which is on solving problems,
requires more appropriate ways to assess students, since
assessment is very subjective. The flexibility and
unpredictability present in practices lead to control being lost
over the planning and monitoring of tasks and the results of
teaching and learning.
As a response to this state of affairs, this paper presents a
systems approach to managing learning based on PBL that
makes use of Bloom's revised taxonomy to support planning
and assessment activities.
This approach argues that Systems for Managing Learning
(SMLs) can be used to determine what resources need to be
used to facilitate how teaching activities are managed,
especially the planning of teaching and the assessment of
students. Besides directly aiding faculty in their teaching
practice, SMLs are powerful tools because they facilitate
collaboration and communication between those involved in
this process.
Even though the use of SMLs has been little explored as a
support to the PBL method, the literature has already recorded
some advantages of implementing and using them, especially
with regard to the ease with which they can be used to oversee
and monitor learning. In the context of PBL, support to the
monitoring of group tutorials is "better" via a SML [2], because
less time requires to be spent on facilitating in addition to
which an SML provides faculty with the means to monitor and
offer guidance by making observations and giving feedback
continuously. However, as is well-known, the success of
management systems heavily depends on the processes thus
implemented being regarded as effective.
One of the most critical processes in PBL is to align
educational objectives to assessment. As these objectives are
statements that express changes to be brought about by
learning, checking whether such objectives have been achieved
can be ensured by ensuring that appropriate assessment
instruments are applied.
It happens that in practice, the assessment process has been
used inappropriately with a view only to classifying
knowledge. In addition, it has been established that these
elements are incompatible. The real point of assessment is to
assist teachers to identify what difficulties students have when
they are learning. It is to seek to meet these objectives that the
definition of processes within the systems approach is based on
Bloom’s revised taxonomy [4], the purpose of which is to
support teaching practice. The idea is to ensure that educational
objectives are aligned to assessment during the planning of
teaching in the real environment of learning, thus contributing
to the planning and monitoring of teaching processes being
conducted continuously.
To evaluate its applicability, the model proposed was
implemented as an extension to the Amadeus SML [ref] by
prototyping a technique that uses low-fidelity screens.
Since the teachers involved agreed to implement the model
and accepted the results obtained from doing so, this showed
that aligning educational goals and assessment can be
achieved. This made teaching practice in this environment
easier and therefore given that the results were positive this
shows that this approach is effective.
II. TECHNOLOGY APPLIED TO PBL EDUCATION
A process inherent to learning in PBL is to tackle problems
which have a complexity that is similar to real situations. This
fosters students´ motivation as well as their developing the
skills and attitudes needed to solve them [5]. Learning tasks
which are primarily functional ones keep students immersed in
practices which are always supported by content. By
considering themselves to be active agents in the process [6],
students focus on solving problems through collaborative
learning by debating with each other and expounding their
ideas.
The dynamism, flexibility and unpredictability associated
with this approach to learning require greater attention from
teachers, mainly to ensure the approach is being effective.
Because its essence is to be strongly oriented to processes [6],
it becomes necessary to consider how to manage them. Thus,
adopting this approach to teaching can only be effective when
teaching is planned and monitored such that the alignment
between the content (theory) and the problem (practice) may be
guaranteed. In addition, assessment must be appropriately
applied.
Just like learning, assessment in PBL takes different forms.
Self-assessment and constructive peer assessment are
considered important for the metacognitive process, because
this enables a student to undertake an assessment of his/her
perceptions, strengths and weaknesses, as well those of his/her
peers [7]. Furthermore, the possibility of assessing how the
student applied his/her knowledge and performed during the
resolution process is stressed. Besides these, authentic
assessment [9] as a strategy inherent in PBL aims to stimulate
critical thinking and insight during problem solving, and to
train students to reflect on different ways to solve a problem.
Therefore, this article argues for the idea that the
effectiveness of the approach depends on its processes being
managed efficiently. Similarly, management of the conduct of
teaching practice should consider the relationship that exists
between the educational objectives, procedures and assessment
in order to ensure the quality of a degree course in PBL. In this
context, the application of appropriate technology to support
these processes could be make a great difference.
Technology is ever present today and this includes new
teaching practices being driven by it. However there is only a
small number of studies on learning that refer to the use of
management systems as support to learning based on problems.
According to [9], computational tools and computers have not
been explored extensively for PBL. Therefore, this section
briefly presents studies that evidence there are systems that
target the application of PBL.
A collaborative learning environment, deemed a PBL-VE,
the acronym for Problem-Based Learning Virtual Environment,
is presented in [9]. This system enables PBL tutorial sessions to
be supported both face-to-face and at a distance. The
participants in the initial applications, which aimed at
improving the development of the environment, were
Computer Engineering students from the State University of
Feira de Santana (UEFS).
The "PBL Manager" is a support system for education on
the Web which sets out to provide a teacher with the facility of
storing problems in a shared database [10]. With a view to
computerizing the process of drawing up problems, the system
also allows editing, searching for and sharing information.
In [11], a proposal is put forward for an environment based
on PBL principles and on the CBR (Case-Based Reasoning)
approach and which, by using the DUMBO system, seeks to
facilitate the teaching of Computer Networks. The AAERO
(the acronym in Portuguese for a Learning Environment for
Teaching Computer Networks Oriented towards Problems)
considers functions that are basic to the actors of the teaching
and learning process. In addition to supporting student learning
and the PBL process, by making various resources available,
the environment provides such functions as "developer of the
problem", "tutor" and "assessor" to the teacher. Its construction
draws on the researcher’s analysis of other environments
specific to PBL, such as BELVEDERE, CROCODILE, CALE,
CoMMIT and Munics.
The thesis of [12] puts forward a strategy model of teaching
and strategy based on PBL and was applied in a virtual
learning environment. The model is integrated with different
resources that can be customized to the different actors of the
process as a means to facilitate their interacting with each other
in the environment. In addition to the collaboration tools, in
which what prevail are activities using forums, chats and
discussion lists, there is "My Space", "Support" and "Help".
The first relates to managing and organizing information and
provides the "Personal Library", "Notes" and "My Data". As
for the support, this supplies resources to search for data
cataloged in the environment as "ABP Bank", "Solve APB",
"Guide Bank for solving APB" and "Guide to resolution."
The results of these studies showed support activities that
involve teaching practice were superficial, especially regarding
the planning of teaching and consequently the assessment
process. Even though it was confirmed that performance was
being monitored in order to support the assessment, there is no
means to ensure that performance is being defined and
monitored appropriately in these environments.
Therefore, this article emphasizes the importance of
encouraging planning in the management system itself by
clearly defining the educational objectives in addition to
aligning these to the different forms of assessment. It is evident
there is a need to develop management systems for a total PBL
application, i.e. systems that can support not only student
learning but also teaching practice. Towards an appropriate
model to set this aim, The revised version of Bloom’s
taxonomy is adopted with a view to seeking to ensure that the
model that sets this aim is appropriately designed. This tool is
suited to PBL education because the philosophy behind is
broad, ranging from metacognitive aspects to constructivist
theories, as required by PBL, and emphasizes the relationship
of knowledge with awareness of how the individual learns.
III. BLOOM´S TAXONOMY – REVISED VERSION
Bloom´s taxonomy [13] is a classification scheme that
enables educational objectives to be formulated and organized
at cumulative and dependent levels, as shown in Fig. 1.
Figure 1. Bloom´s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
The educational objectives are represented by statements
that express what the student can be expected to achieve, and
makes modifications to learning explicit for the teaching and
learning process [13].
When considering metacognition and self-learning, the
taxonomy undergoes considerable changes and is deemed the
"revised" version [14]. Having been made to fit the new forms
of learning, including PBL itself, the taxonomy aims at
"knowing how to" deal with the procedures in solving
problems rather than "knowing what" to do on what content.
A very noteworthy change in its structure, with regard to
cognitive processes and knowledge processes, can be
represented by a two-dimensional table (see Fig. 2).
Dimension of the cognitive process
Dimension of
Knowledge
Remember
Understand
Apply
Analyse
Create
Effective/
Factual
Conceptual
Procedural
Metacognitive
Figure 2. Bidimensional Table of Bloom´s Taxonomy Revised.
From the cognitive point of view, each one of six verb
forms has a specific meaning and is associated with verbs in
the gerund:
To remember: to recall, to recognize or to reproduce
ideas and contents. Associated verbs: Recognizing,
Reproducing.
To understand: to explain an idea, concept in one´s
own words. Associated verbs: Interpreting,
Exemplifying, Classifying, Summarizing, Inferring,
Comparing and Explaining.
To apply: to apply a piece of knowledge, a procedure
to a new concrete situation. Associated verbs: Carrying
out, Implementing.
To analyze: to divide information into parts and to
understand the inter-relationship between them as well
as in the overall structure. Associated verbs:
Differentiating, Organizing, Attributing, Concluding.
To evaluate (representing of Assessment): to undertake
judgments based on criteria, standards and norms.
Associated verbs: Checking, Critiquing.
To create (representing of Synthesis): to reorganize
elements in order to create a new vision, solution,
structure and coherent model, from knowledge and
skills previously acquired. Associated verbs:
Generalizing, Planning, Producing.
From the knowledge point of view, the model has four
dimensions:
Effective/Factual: This type of knowledge is very
useful for enabling familiarization of a discipline to be
gained by using the basic contents. Subcategories:
Knowledge of the Terminology; Knowledge of
specific details and elements.
Conceptual: Knowledge related to more elaborate
contexts. The students can explore / discover the
interrelationship between elements. There is evidence
of explicit knowledge regarding classification and
categorization as well as knowledge of theories and
structures. Subcategories: Knowledge of
classifications and categories; Knowledge of principles
and generalizations and; Knowledge of theories,
models and structures.
Procedural: Knowledge related to the use of
techniques, methods, criteria and algorithms. This type
of knowledge refers to "how to do something." Use of
criteria of "how" and "when" to use a specific
procedure. Subcategories: Knowledge of the skills
specific to the disciplines and algorithms; Knowledge
of specific subjects with techniques and methods;
Knowledge to determine the criteria needed to show
that procedures are being used appropriately.
Metacognitive: Knowledge related to
interdisciplinarity. To use previously assimilated
(interdisciplinary) knowledge to solve problems and /
or to choose the best method, theory or structure.
Subcategories: Strategic Knowledge; Knowledge
about cognitive tasks, including contextual and
conditional knowledge; Self-knowledge.
The idea of a two-dimensional table is to interpolate the
categories when educational objectives are drawn up, by
combining the type of knowledge to be acquired with the
cognitive process (skill to be performed). In this case, it is
considered that it is essential both to understand and
differentiate between cognitive and knowledge processes.
IV. ALIGNING EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND
ASSESSMENT
With the purpose of supporting PBL teaching practice, an
alignment model seeks to ensure that the educational objectives
and assessment remain aligned throughout the teaching and
learning process. Based on the revised taxonomy along with
the two-dimensional table, the model facilitates the planning of
teaching as it supports defining the educational objectives, in
addition to checking the alignment of these components. The
following sections describe the alignment steps defined in the
model, including a framework for defining the educational
objectives, which relates cognitive processes to those of
knowledge and associates a form of assessment with this. In
addition it applies this model to the Amadeus SML.
A. Stages of Alignment
To guarantee alignment in the PBL approach, the model
was structured into four distinct stages: (1) Defining
educational objectives; (2) Defining assessments; (3) Providing
inputs for the two-dimensional table (Fig. 2) and; (4) Checking
the alignment and identifying points for improvement.
Given that educational objectives are statements that
express expected changes in learning, they should be structured
by joining "verbs" and "nouns" as shown in Fig. 3.
Figure 3. Structure of an Educational Objective.
The structure of an objective is initiated by a "verb of
mental activity". These verbs express the intended action more
efficiently, so what they enable to be defined is what cognitive
process is expected to be reached by the educational objective,
assuming the levels of "to remember", "to understand", "to
implement", "to analyze", "to evaluate" and "to create". After
determining the intended action, a “noun” is added which
enables an item of content to be associated with the action.
Then, the "verb in the gerund" clarifies "how" it is expected
that this objective may be achieved and concludes with the
“noun" which associates the gerund with one of the categories
of the knowledge process, thus concluding the description of
the objective. There still remains the relationship of the verbs
of action and their associated verbs, in the gerund, as shown in
Section III. When defining an objective, the choice of the verb
of mental activity is crucial to defining how the objective will
be achieved, and is always associated with the verb in the
gerund.
Fig. 4 illustrates an example of an educational objective as
per the structure proposed. Note that the verb of mental activity
"to remember" is associated with “recognizing”, a gerund,
which shows the real intention of the educational objective.
Figure 4. Example of an Educational Objective.
The step “To define assessments” aims to associate a form
of assessment with each objective. In addition, the teacher
should predict the time needed to do it, by setting a time
befitting its complexity. In order to solve problems, for
example, it is considered that the more complex the problem is,
the more time should be set aside to resolve it and to conduct
the assessment itself.
The step “To provide inputs for the two-dimensional table”
aims to fill in the cells of the two-dimensional table, the inputs
being the elements "Objective, Assessment and Time". Since
the cells are formed by the intersection of the dimensions of the
table, they can be filled in with two or more educational
objectives. Similarly, the educational objective can occupy two
or more cells in the two-dimensional table (Fig. 2).
The step “To verify alignment and points of improvement”
aims to guide the teacher as to his/her planning. After having
completed the entries in the table, the teacher can verify and
assess the alignment and/ or misalignment of the elements
mentioned by means of the “macro” vision provided by the
two-dimensional table. The idea is to identify areas for
improvement, such as "where" and "how to" improve the
choices of planning actions in addition to reflecting on learning
opportunities lost because of the presence of empty cells.
It is believed that these steps guide teaching practice,
especially regarding how the structure defines the objectives.
This enables the object to be adequately associated with the
contents and the assessment. Since the table reflects a dual
perspective, an argument is thereby made about the importance
of teachers using it because this enables a) the impacts of the
assessments and the consistency of the curriculum to be
examined; b) help to be given to aligning the objective
elements and assessment; and c) the activity of the objectives
to be differentiated [4].
B. Application of the Model in the SML
The alignment model was implemented in Amadeus SML1
by using prototypes with low fidelity screens. It was noticed
that Amadeus does not have a module that allows teaching to
be planned based on defining educational objectives and
monitoring these. In this context, the prototypes presented in
this section propose Planning and Monitoring activities in PBL
as per the latest version of this system. Since the prototypes
were originally written in Portuguese, they were adapted to this
study so as to emphasize only the actions of planning. What
mainly stands out is how to set educational goals and to
integrate them into an assessment, besides checking that these
elements have been aligned when planning teaching.
Planning is structured into three integrated steps. Planning
begins by creating a "learning module", into which subjects can
be put, activities defined and problems set up. After this has
To remember + the terms most used to define problems
common to the functioning of a software program + by
recognizing the distinction between them during the tests.
been drawn up, the teacher should establish educational
objectives and relate them to the module (Fig. 5). The structure,
as per Fig. 3, assists the teacher in this action and enables
"what students need to do" to be associated with the content, as
well as how this will be acquired and the type of knowledge.
Planning is effectively concluded when the teacher defines
the actions regarding assessment. The form of assessment for
each defined objective should be selected, as should the criteria
and time, as shown in Fig. 6. A problem may still be associated
with the assessment stage after the objective has already been
created, which means that the proposed problem, in a way, is
related to the objective that the teacher wishes to achieve.
Having defined these actions, the teacher should check if
the elements are aligned and/or misaligned (Fig. 7). After the
terms "objective, assessment, and time" have been filled in, the
two-dimensional table enables a teacher to identify cognitive
processes that have not been explored, which makes teachers
reflect on their planning. Because of the flexibility of the
revised taxonomy, note that the educational objectives are
located in two or more cells (Fig. 7) i.e. what is most expected
from a student in terms of the mental activity he/she is
expected to acquire.
Figure 5. Screen for drawing up educational objectives.
Figure 6. Screen for defining assessment.
Figure 7. Screen for verifying alignment.
V. VALIDATING THE MODEL
The validation of the model was based on interviews and
supported by a questionnaire the purpose of which is to assess
the suitability of the model. The screens that were designed
served as an instrument of analysis in this process. In the
questionnaire, besides the objectives of the screens, two
assertions were associated with each of the objectives, with
predefined values, using the Likert scale (1 – “I strongly
agree”; 2 – “ I agree”; 3 – “I´m undecided”; 4 – “I disagree”; 5
– “I strongly disagree”), followed by a question for comments.
To make this clearer, the assertions of the screens shown in
Figures 5, 6 and 7 are summarized in Table 1.Examples of
assertions per screen.
Screens
Assertions
1. To define
Educational
Objectives
1. The definition of an educational objective in
planning, of the form proposed, is presented
sufficiently intuitively.
2. A lot of understanding is needed to establish an
educational objective in planning.
2. To define
Assessment
1. It is possible to define clearly and objectively
elements associated with assessment in each objective
proposed.
2. The relationship of the elements of “objectives”,
“problems” and “assessment” are established
coherently.
3. To verify
Alignment
1. The table provides ways that guide planning.
2. The alignment/misalignment between the actions
established can be identified visually
Validation involved the participation of seven experienced
teachers, mostly at undergraduate level and who had basic
knowledge of the Amadeus SML and basic knowledge (3),
intermediate knowledge (3) and advanced knowledge (1) of the
PBL approach. Table 2 summarizes the evaluation of the
participants per each screen of the prototype. Due to limitations
of space, their subjective comments have been omitted.
TABLE I. SUMMARY OF THE VALIDATION RESULTS.
Likert scale
Screens and
assertions
I
strongly
agree
I
agree
I´m
undecided
I
strongly
disagree
I
disagree
Access to
Amadeus
1
42.9%
42.9%
14.3%
0%
0%
2
71.4%
14.3%
0%
0%
14.3%
Registering
the course
1
28.6%
28.6%
14.3%
14.3%
28.6%
2
14.3%
14.3%
28.6%
14.3%
28.6%
Planning
the course
1
42.9%
0%
0%
14.3%
42.9%
2
71.4%
0%
14.3%
14.3%
0%
Defining
problems
1
71.4%
14.3%
14.3%
0%
0%
2
14.3%
51.7%
0%
0%
28.6%
PBL
Process
1
71.4%
28.6%
0%
0%
0%
2
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Defining
the Ed
Objectives
1
71.4%
28.6%
0%
0%
0%
2
42.9%
28.6%
0%
0%
28.6%
Defining
assessment
1
57.1%
42.9%
0%
0%
0%
2
57.1%
42.9%
0%
0%
0%
Checking
alignment
1
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2
85.7%
14.3%
0%
0%
0%
PBL
monitoring
1
85.7%
14.3%
0%
0%
0%
2
57.1%
28.6%
0%
0%
14.3%
It is believed that, although static, the protoype allowed the
information from the model to be expressed by means of
representing the design conceptually via arrangement of the
contents, buttons, flow of the screens and support to planning
activities.
In summary, the results obtained present in their totality the
teachers’ acceptance and/or satisfaction with the screens and
their goals. When considering the screen for setting educational
goals, the teachers agreed that the structure is intuitive and that
a coherent relationship is established between the elements.
Besides understanding the proposed action, the teachers report
they were able to relate the essential elements to their
definition. Moreover, they also managed to identify the
dependency of the objectives to the assessment on the
“planning / defining the assessment” screen and they confirmed
that the fields were clear and that it was easy to undertake the
action. As to verifying the alignment, the teachers agreed that
the two-dimensional table not only guides planning but also
enables the alignment between the objectives and the
assessment to be visualized.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this article was to present a management
systems approach to education in PBL based on Bloom’s
revised taxonomy. With an emphasis on teaching activities,
what stands out is the alignment model and the possibilities for
defining clear and coherent educational goals associated with
the learning module and the assessment itself. The
implementation of the model proposed as an extension to the
Amadeus SML was performed by using the prototyping
technique. Since the teachers involved accepted both how to
implement the model and the results obtained from doing so,
this showed that aligning educational goals and assessment can
be achieved. This made teaching practice in this environment
easier and therefore given that the results were positive this
shows that this approach is effective.
As to future actions, the functionalities of all the screens of
this model are being incorporated into the new version of
Amadeus after having been approved by its managers who did
so based on this study.
REFERENCES
[1] Savery, J.R. Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and
Distinctions, 2006. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning:
Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 3.
[2] Camp, G. Problem-Based Learning: A Paradigm Shift or a Passing Fad?
The University of Texas Medical Branch.
[3] L. R. C. Ribeiro, M.G. Mizukami, “An experiment with PBL in higher
education as appraised by the teacher and students”. Interface -
Comunic., Saúde, Educ., v.9, n.17, p.357-68, August 2005.
[4] Anderson, L. W. et. al. A taxonomy for learning, teaching and
assessing: a revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
Nova York: Addison Wesley Longman, 2001.
[5] Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., and Allen, D. E. The Power of Problem-Based
Learning; A Practical “How To” for Teaching Undergraduate Courses in
Any Discipline. Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC, 2001.
[6] Figuerêdo, C. O. et al. Using PBL to Develop Software Test Engineers.
Accepted paper at 14th IASTED International Conference on Computers
and Advanced Technology in Education (CATE 2011), Cambridge,
United Kingdom, 2011.
[7] Pintrich, P. R. The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning,
Teaching, and Assessing. Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy, 2002.
[8] Herrington, J., Herrington A. Authentic assessment and multimedia:
How university students respond to a model of authentic assessment,
Higher Education Research and Development, 17 (3), 1998, 305-22
[9] Pereira, H. B. de B., Pinto, G. R. P. R. Problem-based learning method
simulation by PBL virtual environment. IADIS International
Conference, 2004.
[10] Santos, J.A.M., et. al. PBL Manager: Uma ferramenta de
compartilhamento de problemas para auxílio à metodologia de ensino
PBL.(A tool for sharing problems that assists the methodology of PBL
teaching) DOI= http://cassiovandenberg.academia.edu/joaocarlos
[11] Dutra, R. L. de S. AAERO Ambiente de Aprendizado para o Ensino de
Redes de Computadores Orientado a Problemas. (Learning Environment
for Teaching Computer Networks oriented to problems) Dissertação
(Mestrado em Ciência da Computação) da Universidade Federal do Rio
Grande do Sul, 2002.
[12] Martin, J. G. Aprendizagem Baseada em Problemas Aplicada a
Ambiente Virtual de Aprendizagem.( Problem-Based Learning Applied
to Virtual Leariing Environments) Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia de
Produção) do Programa de Pós-Graduação da Universidade Federal de
Santa Catarina, 2002.
[13] Krathwohl, D. R. A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview.
Theory into Practice, vol.4. College of Education, The Ohio State
University, 2002.
[14] Airasian, P. W., Miranda, H. The Role of Assessment in the Revised
Taxonomy, 2002.G. Eason, B. Noble, and I. N. Sneddon, “On certain
integrals of Lipschitz-Hankel type involving products of Bessel
functions,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, vol. A247, pp. 529–551,
April 1955.
