Beyond the Module: Student Perspectives on Bloom's Taxonomy in a Longitudinal Higher Vocational English Language Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated higher vocational college students' perceptions of their learning experience and perceived ability development within a 16-week English course designed using Bloom's Taxonomy. Employing a mixed-methods approach, data were collected from 38 students via a questionnaire comprising Likert-scale items on learning experience and perceived competence, alongside open-ended questions. Quantitative analysis revealed strong positive perceptions of the Bloom's Taxonomy-informed learning experience and high self-reported development of various competencies, with a two-factor structure identifying 'Perceived Competence' and 'Learning Activities Aligned with Bloom's Taxonomy' as distinct, yet strongly correlated, constructs. Qualitative thematic analysis further indicated that students highly valued oral communication activities, reporting significant improvements in speaking, critical thinking, analytical skills, and creative expression. While generally satisfied, students expressed a desire for increased practical application and real-world English communication opportunities. The findings suggest that integrating Bloom's Taxonomy in higher vocational English education effectively fosters perceived higher-order thinking skills and offers valuable insights for curriculum enhancement to better prepare students for professional communication demands.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".