International Journal of Changes in Education

• 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
• 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
• Bloom, B. S. (1956). The taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of education goals, handbook I: Cognitive domain. USA: David McKay Company.
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• Haladyna, T. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. USA: Routledge.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• Demir, B. (2022). Effect of anxiety on cognitive load in foreign language oral tests. Baskent University Journal of Education, 9(1), 102–111.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• Köksal, D., & Ulum, Ö. G. (2018). Language assessment through Bloom’s Taxonomy. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 76–88.
• Sivaraman, S. I., & Krishna, D. (2015). Blooms taxonomy – Application in exam papers assessment. Chemical Engineering (VITU), 12(12), 32.
• 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.
• 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
• Jahangard, A. (2007). Evaluation of EFL materials taught at Iranian public high schools. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 130–150.
• 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.
• 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.
• Setiyana, R., & Muna, H. (2019). Evaluating Bloom’s Taxonomy in test items. In Proceedings of the 2nd English Education International Conference, 2, 79–83.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.

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

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

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

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