INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CHANGES IN EDUCATION
Research Article
Aug 08, 2026 136 66

Discovering Levels of Cognitive Demand in Tests Developed by Iranian High School English Teachers Across Grades

Ali Ghezelbash 1,
Iman Alizadeh 2 * ,
Hoda Divsar 1
1 Department of TEFL, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran2 English Language Department, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran* Corresponding Author
International Journal of Changes in Education, 3(3), 2026, 245-254, https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024077
Online publication date: Mar 24, 2025
Publication date: Aug 08, 2026
Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Despite the significance of the cognitive load of educational procedures, its status quo in teacher-made tests has remained largely uncharted. This study investigated the interplay between cognitive demand levels (CDL) of test items and students’ academic levels. Using the content analysis method, English language tests developed by Iranian high school teachers across three grades (10 through 12) were collected, and a scheme was developed to code the CDL of the tests. The coding scheme was developed based on the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, Webb’s Depth of Knowledge, and Hess’s Cognitive Rigor Matrix. Three trained coders coded the tests using the piloted and validated scheme. The results showed that the low CDLs of “remembering,” “understanding,” and “applying” constituted a large proportion (89.49%), while “analyzing,” “evaluating,” and “creating,” as the high CDLs comprised a small number (10.51%) of the test items. Grade 12 and grade 11 tests contained the most frequent high and low CDLs, respectively. In all grades, “understanding” was the most frequent level, and “creating” was the least frequent level. The trend of remembering and creating was normal, understanding and analyzing was descending, and applying and evaluating showed variation across the grades. The study concludes that the tests predominantly required low CDLs and were not developed based on a measure of cognitive demand balancing and/or regulating low and high CDLs across the grades. It recommends that test developers use a cognitive demand guide specifying the underlying nature of tasks required in the tests, the complexity of the expressions and information presented in the tests, and the choice of test item stem format and response format to regulate the cognitive demand of tests for different school grades.

KEYWORDS

cognitive demand language tests high schools

CITATION (APA)

Ghezelbash, A., Alizadeh, I., & Divsar, H. (2026). Discovering Levels of Cognitive Demand in Tests Developed by Iranian High School English Teachers Across Grades. International Journal of Changes in Education, 3(3), 245-254. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024077
Harvard
Ghezelbash, A., Alizadeh, I., and Divsar, H. (2026). Discovering Levels of Cognitive Demand in Tests Developed by Iranian High School English Teachers Across Grades. International Journal of Changes in Education, 3(3), pp. 245-254. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024077
Vancouver
Ghezelbash A, Alizadeh I, Divsar H. Discovering Levels of Cognitive Demand in Tests Developed by Iranian High School English Teachers Across Grades. International Journal of Changes in Education. 2026;3(3):245-54. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024077
AMA
Ghezelbash A, Alizadeh I, Divsar H. Discovering Levels of Cognitive Demand in Tests Developed by Iranian High School English Teachers Across Grades. International Journal of Changes in Education. 2026;3(3), 245-254. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024077
Chicago
Ghezelbash, Ali, Iman Alizadeh, and Hoda Divsar. "Discovering Levels of Cognitive Demand in Tests Developed by Iranian High School English Teachers Across Grades". International Journal of Changes in Education 2026 3 no. 3 (2026): 245-254. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024077
MLA
Ghezelbash, Ali et al. "Discovering Levels of Cognitive Demand in Tests Developed by Iranian High School English Teachers Across Grades". International Journal of Changes in Education, vol. 3, no. 3, 2026, pp. 245-254. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024077

REFERENCES

  1. Shohamy, E. (1996). Language testing: Matching assessment procedures with language knowledge. In M. Birenbaum & F. J. R. C. Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp. 143–160). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0657-3_6
  2. Jang, E. E. (2017). Cognitive aspects of language assessment. In E. Shohamy, I. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment. Encyclopedia of language and education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_11
  3. Bloom, B. S. (1956). The taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of education goals, handbook I: Cognitive domain. USA: David McKay Company.
  4. Wakhata, R., Mutarutinya, V., & Balimuttajjo, S. (2023). Exploring the impact of Stein et al.’s levels of cognitive demand in supporting students’ mathematics heuristic problem-solving abilities. Frontiers in Education, 8, 949988. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.949988
  5. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. USA: Teacher College.
  6. Ehrich, J. F., Howard, S. J., Bokosmaty, S., & Woodcock, S. (2021). An item response modeling approach to cognitive load measurement. Frontiers in Education, 6, 648324. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.648324
  7. Prisacari, A. A., & Danielson, J. (2017). Computer-based versus paper-based testing: Investigating testing mode with cognitive load and scratch paper use. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.044
  8. Haladyna, T. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. USA: Routledge.
  9. Kan, A., Bulut, O., & Cormier, D. C. (2018). The impact of item stem format on the dimensional structure of mathematics assessments. Educational Assessment, 24(1), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2018.1545569
  10. Berk, R. A. (1996). A consumer’s guide to multiple-choice item formats that measure complex cognitive outcomes. Retrieved from: http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/NES_Publications/1996_12Berk_368_1.pdf
  11. Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3
  12. Noroozi, S., & Karami, H. (2022). A scrutiny of the relationship between cognitive load and difficulty estimates of language test items. Language Testing in Asia, 12(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00163-8
  13. Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., Sitthiworachart, J., & López, M. J. (2020). Effects on response time and accuracy of technology-enhanced cloze tests: An eye-tracking study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 2033–2053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09740-1
  14. Hess, K. K. (2010). Applying Webb’s depth-of-knowledge (DOK) levels in science. Retrieved from: https://www.veronaschools.org/cms/lib/NJ01001379/Centricity/Domain/17/DOKscience_KH11.pdf
  15. Webb, N. L. (2002). Depth-of-knowledge levels for four content areas. Retrieved from: http://ossucurr.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/49691156/norm%20web%20dok%20by%20subject%20area.pdf
  16. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. USA: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
  17. Daniel, R. C., & Embretson, S. E. (2010). Designing cognitive complexity in mathematical problem-solving items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(5), 348–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621609349801
  18. Das, S., Das Mandal, S. K., & Basu, A. (2020). Identification of cognitive learning complexity of assessment questions using multi-class text classification. Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), ep275. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/8341
  19. Hayes, H., Demeter, M., Morris, J. G., & Trajkovski, G. (2021). Transparency of cognitive complexity in performance assessments: A validity study. The Journal of Competency-Based Education, 6(2), e1244. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbe2.1244
  20. Moghaddam, A. M., Azizmalayeri, F., & Bayat, A. (2022). Impact of cognitive complexity of tasks on EFL learners’ individual and collaborative written performance. Journal of Language and Translation, 4(12), 131–142.
  21. İlhan, M., Boztunc Öztürk, N., & Şahin, M. G. (2020). The effect of the item’s type and cognitive level on its difficulty index: The sample of TIMSS 2015. Participatory Educational Research, 7(2), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.19.7.2
  22. Yang, Q., Chang, S., Hwang, G., & Zou, D. (2020). Balancing cognitive complexity and gaming level: Effects of a cognitive complexity-based competition game on EFL students’ English vocabulary learning performance, anxiety and behaviors. Computers & Education, 148, 103808.
  23. Muhayimana, T., Kwizera, L., & Nyirahabimana, M. R. (2022). Using Bloom’s taxonomy to evaluate the cognitive levels of Primary Leaving English Exam questions in Rwandan schools. Curriculum Perspectives, 42(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-021-00156-2
  24. Baghaei, S., Bagheri, M. S., & Yamini, M. (2021). Learning objectives of IELTS listening and reading tests: Focusing on revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 9(1), 182–199. https://doi.org/10.30486/relp.2021.1916940.1244
  25. Kumaar, J. A. M., & Srinivas, R. (2022). Do linguistic proficiency and task cognitive complexity affect vocabulary retention of ESL learners? Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(4), 2725–2737.
  26. Karami, M., & Karami, Z. (2023). Increasing the level of cognitive complexity of learners in reading and writing through the model of teaching based on depth of knowledge. Advances in Cognitive Sciences, 25(2), 144–157.
  27. Krell, M., Khan, S., & van Driel, J. (2021). Analyzing cognitive demands of a scientific reasoning test using the linear logistic test model. Education Sciences, 11(9), 472. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090472
  28. Azamnouri, N., Pishghadam, R., & Naji Meidani, E. (2020). The role of emotioncy in cognitive load and sentence com prehension of language learners. Issues in Language Teaching, 9(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.22054/ilt.2020.51543.485
  29. Demir, B. (2022). Effect of anxiety on cognitive load in foreign language oral tests. Baskent University Journal of Education, 9(1), 102–111.
  30. Woodard, S. R., Chan, L., & Conway III, L. G. (2021). In search of the cognitively complex person: Is there a meaningful trait component of cognitive complexity? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(2), 95–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320972299
  31. Prasad, G. (2021). Evaluating student performance based on Bloom’s taxonomy levels. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1797/1/012063
  32. Jumaniyozova, F. T. (2021). The importance of five main principles of language assessment in designing the language tests in Uzbek universities. Current Research Journal of Philological Sciences, 2(6), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.37547/philological-crjps-02-06-01
  33. Arslan, R. Ş., & Üçok-Atasoy, M. (2020). An investigation into EFL teachers’ assessment of young learners of English: Does practice match the policy? International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 7(2), 468–484.
  34. Moslehi, S., & Razmjoo, S. A. (2021). On the representation of Bloom’s revised Taxonomy in TOEFL iBT and IELTS academic. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 13(28), 173–200. https://doi.org/10.22034/ELT.2021.46190.2391
  35. Mortazavizadeh, G., Golshan, M., & Rezai, M. J. (2022). Metacognitive strategies awareness and use and reading com-prehension of Iranian EFL university students: A structural equation modeling approach. Iranian Evolutionary Educational Psychology Journal, 4(3), 516–535. https://doi.org/10.52547/ieepj.4.3.516
  36. Baghaei, S., Bagheri, M. S., & Yamini, M. (2020). Analysis of IELTS and TOEFL reading and listening tests in terms of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1720939. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1720939
  37. Rahmawati, Y., Afrizal, A., Dwi Astari, D., Mardiah, A., Budi Utami, D., & Muhab, S. (2021). The integration of dilemmas stories with STEM-project-based learning: Analyzing students’ thinking skills using Hess’ cognitive rigor matrix. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 11(2), 419–439. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1292
  38. Haataja, E. S., Tolvanen, A., Vilppu, H., Kallio, M., Peltonen, J., & Metsäpelto, R. L. (2023). Measuring higher-order cognitive skills with multiple choice questions – Potentials and pitfalls of Finnish teacher education entrance. Teaching and Teacher Education, 122, 103943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103943
  39. Marpaung, M. B., & Sihombing, H. B. M. (2021). The complexity of reading comprehension processes: A review from reader, text, and cognitive process perspectives. Jurnal Littera: Fakultas Sastra Darma Agung, 1(1), 53–64.
  40. Aryadoust, V., Foo, S., & Ng, L. Y. (2022). What can gaze behaviors, neuroimaging data, and test scores tell us about test method effects and cognitive load in listening assessments? Language Testing, 39(1), 56–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322211026876
  41. Köksal, D., & Ulum, Ö. G. (2018). Language assessment through Bloom’s Taxonomy. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 76–88.
  42. Sivaraman, S. I., & Krishna, D. (2015). Blooms taxonomy – Application in exam papers assessment. Chemical Engineering (VITU), 12(12), 32.
  43. Field, J. (2013). Cognitive validity. In A. Geranpayeh & L. B. Taylor (Eds.), Examining listening: Research and practice in assessing second language listening (pp. 77–151). Cambridge University Press.
  44. Razavipour, K., & Rezagah, K. (2018). Language assessment in the new English curriculum in Iran: Managerial, institutional, and professional barriers. Language Testing in Asia, 8, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-018-0061-8
  45. Jahangard, A. (2007). Evaluation of EFL materials taught at Iranian public high schools. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 130–150.
  46. Golshan, M., & Rezaee, M. (2016). Investigating the cognitive levels of English final exams based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 3(4), 57–68.
  47. Chandio, M. T., Pandhiani, S. M., & Iqbal, R. (2017). Bloom’s Taxonomy: Improving assessment and teaching-learning process. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 3(2), 203–221.
  48. Setiyana, R., & Muna, H. (2019). Evaluating Bloom’s Taxonomy in test items. In Proceedings of the 2nd English Education International Conference, 2, 79–83.
  49. Fitri, Y. K., Syarif, H., & Anwar, D. (2019). The levels of questions used on reading test with regards to Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Jurnal Ta’dib, 22(1), 27–32.
  50. Al-Massarweh, S. (2023). The extent of knowledge of achieving the final exam questions for the sixth to eleventh grades to the levels depth of knowledge “DOK” Webb in Jordan. Modern Applied Science, 17(2), 1–70.
  51. Huxley, K. (2020). Content analysis, quantitative. In P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, A. Cernat, J. W. Sakshaug, & R. A. Williams (Eds.), SAGE research methods foundations. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036880564
  52. Nakkam, J., & Khamoja, A. (2020). Evaluation of reading com-prehension questions in Moroccan ELT textbooks. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 8(6), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol8.iss6.2420
  53. Arvianto, Z., Faridi, A., & Linggar Bharati, D. (2017). The compatibility of reading exercises with Bloom Revised Taxonomy and 2013 curriculum (A case of English textbook entitled Bahasa Inggris for grade XI published by Department of National Education 2014). English Education Journal, 6(2), 42–51.
  54. Assaly, I. R., & Smadi, O. M. (2015). Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to evaluate the cognitive levels of master class textbook’s questions. English Language Teaching, 8(5), 100–110.
  55. Divsar, H. (2020). Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy across the learning objectives in English translation curricula. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 136–152.
  56. Hassan, S. (2023). Analysis based on Bloom’s Taxonomy: Pakistan’s Federal English curriculum and examination content for matric. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 7(1), 1324–1338.
  57. Tangsakul, P., Kijpoonphol, W., Linh, N. D., & Kimura, L. N. (2017). Using Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy to analyze reading comprehension questions in team up in English 1–3 and grade 9 English o-net tests. International Journal of Research, 5(7), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v5.i7.2017.2106
  58. Razmjoo, S. A., & Kazempourfard, E. (2012). On the Representation of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy in interchange coursebooks. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 4(1), 171–204.
  59. Qasrawi, R., & BeniAbdelrahman, A. (2020). The higher and lower-order thinking skills (HOTS and LOTS) in unlock English textbooks (1st and 2nd Editions) based on Bloom’s Taxonomy: An analysis study. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 7(3), 744–758.

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
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.