Hots RC - Book3

Journal of English Teaching
e-ISSN: 2622-4224 | p-ISSN: 2087-9628

http://ejournal.uki.ac.id/index.php/jet
Volume 8. Number 1, February 2022, pp. 71-83
An Analysis of Reading Comprehension Questions in English

Textbook Based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
Izzatul Laila
[email protected]
Institut Agama Islam Negeri Kediri, Kediri, Indonesia
Ima Fitriyah
[email protected]
Institut Agama Islam Negeri Kediri, Kediri, Indonesia
Received: 18 October 2021 Published: 15 February 2022

Accepted: 22 January 2022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v8i1.3394
Abstract
Reading implies something complex which needs the students
to experience, foresee, examine, and admit information based
on their background of knowledge. It will be more complex if
they lack of Higher Order Thinking Skill (HOTS). HOTS
improves reading comprehension and in consequence, the
teachers must create a teaching and learning activities that
encourage the implementation of HOTS by giving the students
high questions found in a suitable textbook. This research was
done in order to know the number of reading comprehension Keywords:
questions’ level between HOTS and LOTS. This research content analysis,
conducted using qualitative research approach and content reading
analysis research design because this research focused on comprehension
analyzing a textbook entitled “Bahasa Inggris” question, revised
SMA/MA/SMK/MK for 12th grade students published by Bloom’s taxonomy
Ministry of Education and Culture in 2018. The result of this
research found 142 reading comprehension questions in total
and 83% of them are categorized as LOTS while 17%
categorized as HOTS. It indicated that this textbook
concentrated more on lower-level than higher-level thinking
questions. In conclusion, the teacher must construct their own
reading comprehension questions in order to fill the need of the
students’ HOTS.
Journal of English Teaching, 8(1), February 2022, 71-83, DOI: https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v8i1.3394
INTRODUCTION
As a part of receptive skill in English language, reading is a critical life skill that every
society in our globalized world must possess (Li and Clariana, 2019). It also one of the
main significant element to develop language ability. The students require to involve
sufficient reading skill to assist them in order to extract and absorb information from
available sources. The benefits of this activity i.e. improve spelling, writing,
comprehension, and vocabulary. Furthermore, Nunan (2003) claimed that reading is an
action that merge information from the text and the reader’s background of knowledge to
construct a new meaning. The main purpose of reading is to comprehend the text. This
activity usually done by the use of newspaper, article, English textbook, and etc.
According to Safitri and Tyas (2019) textbook facilitates the teacher to determine the
students’ material, plan appropriate classroom activity, and construct language
assessment. While for the students, textbook can enhance their knowledge about material
being studied.
Even though the students have been introduced to numerous kinds of text. On the
other hand, Indonesia’s English mastery is quite low. This report announced by English
First’s English Proficiency Index in 2018. Indonesia was in the 51st position out of 80
countries included in the research. The result of this research could be affected by the
complexity of reading. Reading implies something complex which requires the students
to experience, foresee, examine, and admit information based on their background of
knowledge. The purpose of those actions are to reach the goal of reading i.e. finding main
idea, supporting details, and etc. Reading could be more complex if the students lack of
Higher Order Thinking Skill (HOTS) (Atiullah, Fitriati, and Rukmini, 2019).
In this 21st century education, critical thinking or HOTS is highly needed in order
to be successful person in this era (Hargreaves, 2003). Doyle (2018) declared that critical
thinking is a competence to examine information in an objective way to construct
reasoned judgment. Various current studies revealed that the promotion of critical
thinking in EFL learning seems more crucial (Pardede, 2020). In addition, Barak and Dori
(2009) informed that numerous of countries around the world indicate a transformation
in its education system, they switch their learning system from the use of Lower Order
Thinking Skill (LOTS) to the use of HOTS. Related to HOTS, Surtantini (2019) declared
that learning and teaching process at education field must construct activities that
encourage the students to develop their HOTS. 2013 curriculum demands is also one of
the reason why the implementation of HOTS is a must. The current curriculum
emphasizes the development of thinking habit as the center of attention and requires the
students to think more critically to face the challenge brought by the progress of time.
The existence of the curriculum development proven by the implementation of HOTS to
construct reading comprehension questions in the textbook. In consequence, the teachers
as an executor of education are supposed to give HOTS instead of LOTS elements to
encourage deeper thinking activities for the students (Collins, 2014). Moreover, they are
also expected to assist the students to acquire and use in-depth knowledge, skills, and
attentional dispositions to complete high-level tasks. In addition, the implementation of
HOTS in reading lesson is significant. This statement is supported by Acosta (2010) who
implied HOTS in his reading class. He found three benefits by using HOTS i.e. it could
activate the student’s prior knowledge, the students’ could implement their higher-level
of thinking, also it could enhance the student’s interest and participation in the class.
Further, Nourdad, Masoudi, and Rahimali (2018) also showed that the use of HOTS in
Laila & Fitriyah: An Analysis of Reading Comprehension Questions in English Textbook Based on
Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
72
learning and teaching process could improve the students’ reading comprehension.
Another research found that by the use of HOTS, the students can think creatively and
critically in order to solve their learning problems (Heong et al., 2012; Munawati and
Nursamsu, 2019). Those statements do not mean that LOTS levels are not important.
Precisely, the students need to pass through the LOTS levels first in order to advance to
the next level. The higher it is, the harder it is to acquire.
HOTS is connected with the cognitive level of Bloom’s taxonomy. This taxonomy
is created by Benjamin Bloom in 1956. Bloom et al. (1956) defined six different levels in
the cognitive domain i.e. knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation. The cognitive domain is divided into two parts: LOTS which contains
knowledge, comprehension, and application, and HOTS which contains analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation. However, in this study, the writer uses the newest taxonomy
revealed in 2001 which is Revised Bloom’s taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl
(2001) that consists of creating, evaluating, and analyzing categorized as HOTS while
applying, understanding, and remembering categorized as LOTS. This revised version is
often used in formulating learning objectives which mentioned as C1-C6 (Lister and
Leaney, 2003).
According to Seif (2012) there are three ways to implement HOTS in teaching and
learning activity such as: giving high questions to the students during reading lesson,
asking the students to make inference of what they have read, and teacher’s role. The
most effective method among those three is giving high questions to the students during
reading lesson (Chiew et al., 2016; Charanjit et al., 2018; Verdina, Gani, and Sulastri,
2018), while Lewis (2015) claimed that this method facilitates the teachers to know the
students’ level of thinking. This method could be done by the teachers by giving the
students HOTS questions made by themselves or they can choose it from some textbooks.
Hence, textbooks that provided for the students are expected to fulfill the need of HOTS
questions. However, not all textbooks produced meet the criteria to use as the supporter
to implement HOTS in teaching and learning process. Therefore, textbook’s author
should consider about making a balance frequency of questions in the three up and down
levels of cognitive domain of Revised Bloom’s taxonomy (Febrina, Usman, and Muslem,
2019).
Most of High School teachers in Indonesia assess LOTS which did not fit the 2013
curriculum’s requirements. The problem is not only experienced by the teachers in
Indonesia but in another country as well such as in Abu Dhabi, 86% of teachers are still
assessing the level of remembering (C1) in cognitive domain (Abosalem, 2016).
Furthermore, numerous of textbook analysis used Bloom’s taxonomy or it is revised
version as a theoritical framework were also conducted such as NamazianDoost and
Hayavimehr (2017) compared reading comprehension questions found in Iranian High
School English textbook and IELTS tests and found out that most of the questions from
both documents are in the lower order thinking levels. Another research from Mizbani,
Salehi, and Tabatabaei (2020) showed that all of the English skills questions inside the
textbook for the 1st grade of Senior High School students in Iran did not present any
question in higher order thinking levels. The next research from Atiullah, Fitriati, and
Rukmini (2019) presented that among 158 reading comprehension questions found in the
1st grade of Senior High School student’s textbook in Indonesia, only 24 of them are
included in higher order thinking level. The next research conducted by Febrina, Usman,
and Muslem (2019) informed that from grade 11th textbook for the 1st semester’s reading
73
comprehension questions, there was a tendency towards the HOTS questions with 66,8%
out of 100% while 33,4% was in the level of LOTS questions. The result of this research
was quiet surprisingly considering that most of the analysis related to this topic always
produce results with more LOTS than HOTS questions. Another research carried out by
Febriyani, Yunita, and Damayanti (2020) claimed that the instructions of the questions
studied from 12th grade student’s English textbook are mostly in the level of LOTS.
Research about textbook analysis above informed that there are still textbooks that
are not feasible enough that does not encourage the implementation of HOTS indicated
by only few questions that are in the three up levels of revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Hence,
it is necessary to conduct a research toward the textbook that soon to be used in order to
see and choose an appropriate textbook whether the items composition of HOTS and
LOTS are in balance or not. There are lot of ways to analyze the textbook, however this
research uses qualitative content analysis to analyze the content of the textbook, which is
reading comprehension questions and it will be analyzed use revised Bloom’s taxonomy
as the theoritical framework.
This research analyze an English textbook for 12th grade students published by
Kemendikbud RI 2018. There are chapters inside the textbook such as; warmer,
vocabulary builder, pronounciation practice, reading, grammar review, speaking, and etc.
However, this research only focuses on reading comprehension questions since no study
has analyzed this textbook’s reading comprehension questions using the theory of revised
Bloom’s taxonomy and this is a notable gap that the writer need to fill.
The current research is important in light of the fact that it is necessary to know
whether a textbook is worth to use based on the composition of high and low level of
reading comprehension questions with respect to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy as the
theory. In addition, it could be a guideline for the teacher to implement HOTS effectively
that it would improve the students’ reading comprehension. Therefore, based on the
description above, the objective of this research is to find out the levels of reading
comprehension questions in English textbook for 12th grade students published by
Kemendikbud RI 2018 by conduct a research using qualitative research approach which
is content analysis research design. In respect to the objective, the writer formulated the
research question as “What level of revised Bloom’s taxonomy is used in constructing
reading comprehension questions stated in the textbook?”
METHOD
Research Design
This research used content analysis as the research design to analyze the textbook. Cohen
et al. (2007) informed that the purpose of this research design is to understand certain
characteristics of the material. The material analyzed by this research design can be in the
form of textbook, newspaper, web pages, speeches, television programs, advertisement,
musical composition, or any of a host of other types of documents (Ary et al., 2010).
While this research uses textbook as the main material under the research.
Data Source
The source of data in this research were taken purposively from English textbook entitled
Bahasa Inggris SMA/MA/SMK/MK for 12th grade students published by Ministry of
Education and Culture in 2018. It includes the materials in all four basics English skills
such as listening, reading, speaking, and writing. The language components such as
74
grammar and vocabulary. However, this research focused the content analysis only on the
reading comprehension questions stated in each chapter. There are 142 reading
comprehension questions being evaluated in this research.
Instrument
Checklist
According to Ary et al. (2010) qualitative research put the researcher itself as the main
instrument that has to understand the method of conducting the research. Therefore, the
data collection and analysis technique for this study were done by the researcher itself.
The researcher collect the data by using an instrument called checklist table adapted from
(Pratiwi, 2014). Checklist table as the instrument will be used to answer the research
question and fulfill the objective of the research. There were several categories written on
the rows of the checklist table i.e. reading comprehension questions and the six levels of
revised Bloom’s taxonomy. The detailed form of checklist is provided in Table 1 as
follows.
Table 1. Checklist table
Cognitive Domain of Revised Bloom’s

Taxonomy
Reading Comprehension Lower Order Higher Order
Ch. No
Question Thinking Skill Thinking Skill
(LOTS) (HOTS)
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
If you visit Seattle, the
2 1. ✓
first thing to do is ...
Each question listed on the checklist table were examined by obeying the criteria
stated in the analysis card adapted from Anderson and Krathwohl (2001). Later, the
researcher used expert validation to get the validity of data.
Procedures
To find out the results, the researcher followed the process of seven stages from content
analysis stated by Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2018) i.e. a) determine the research
questions, b) determine the population, c) determine the sample, d) create categories for
analysis, e) start analyzing, f) summarizing, and g) construct speculative inferences.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Applying the theory of revised Bloom’s taxonomy, the current research discovers 142
reading comprehension questions from 8 chapters presented in the textbook entitled
Bahasa Inggris SMA/MA/SMK/MK for 12th grade students published by Ministry of
Education and Culture in 2018. Meanwhile chapter 1, 8, and 11 did not have reading
comprehension question. The further tables below show the examples of the findings of
each levels.
75
Table 2. The examples of Remember (C1) reading comprehension questions presented in English
Textbook for Grade XII
Questions Units
If you visit Seattle, the first thing to do is... Chapter 2
What kind of personality is difficult to handle? Chapter 3
What is Lilis’s current position? Chapter 4
Which one is the headline? Write it down Chapter 5
Why do people prefer public schools to private schools? Chapter 6
Why was Surabaya selected to be the conference venue? Chapter 7
How many materials are needed to make? Chapter 9
How many Photoshop tools are introduced in the text above? Chapter 10
As the characteristic of C1 Remember is locating memory of previous learned

material by recognizing and recalling facts, terms, basic concepts, and answers (Anderson
& Krathwohl, 2001). This type of questions are quite easy to make and to answer. The
students could find the answer easily in the text without requiring them to examine,
identify, make inference, and etc that need their critical thinking. For example, as for the
question “What is Lili’s current position?” could be answered directly by finding the
answer that obviously stated in the text. The answer of this question is “managing the
local branch of a national shoe retailer”. As expected, all of the 8 chapters inside the
textbook being examined have this type of question. Chapter 2 has the highest frequency
with 17 questions while chapter 4 has the lowest frequency with only 4 questions for this
level.
Table 3. The examples of Understand (C2) reading comprehension questions presented in English
Questions Units
The ‘Soul of Seattle’ is the name for ... because ... Chapter 2
What messages are sent by the writers? Where can you find
Chapter 3
these captions?
Do you know the names of the parts of the text marked by the
Chapter 4
numbers and the meaning of the words in italics in the text?
Do you know reported speech? In which text did you find
Chapter 5
reported speech?
Mention some technical problems in the registration using the
Chapter 6
online system.
What did Rismahani believe to be the best municipal waste
Chapter 7
management?
Do you think the steps have to be put in order? Why do you
Chapter 9
think so?
Do you think Custom Brushes & The Brush Tool determine
Chapter 10
the position of the text?
The definition of C2 Understand is building a meaning from instructional

messages, including oral, written, and graphic communication (Anderson & Krathwohl,
76
2001). This type of question is one level higher than C1 Remember and still included in
LOTS. Basically, this type of question require the students to interpret, exemplify,
classify, summarize, infer, compare, or explain. For example, as for the question “Do you
know reported speech? In which text did you find reported speech?” could be answered
by explaining the definition of reported speech and compare the text stated above this
question. The answer for this question is “when we tell someone what another person
said, the second text”. Same as the previous level, all of the 8 chapters inside the textbook
being examined have this type of question. Chapter 3 has the highest frequency with 18
questions while chapter 2 and 6 have the lowest frequency with only 1 question in each
chapter.
Table 4. The examples of Apply (C3) reading comprehension questions presented in English
Questions Units
Imagine you are visiting Lake Toba with your classmates.
Your friends want to go canoeing but do not know how to do Chapter 2
it. What would you say to help them ...
Explain your quotes to your friends ... Chapter 3
If you were one of the parents, what would you do to deal with
Chapter 6
the problems in the online system?
What should we do if we want to have male or female leopard
Chapter 9
geckos?
If you want to show only part of your picture, what tool will
Chapter 10
you use?
The definition of C3 Apply according to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) is

perform or applying a procedure through executing, or implementing. Applying connects
to or points to circumstances where learned material is used through products like models,
presentations, interviews or simulations, and other activities. This type of questions
involve the students capability to apply learned material in new and concrete conditions.
For example, as for the question “Imagine you are visiting Lake Toba with your
classmates. Your friends want to go canoeing but do not know how to do it. What would
you say to help them” could be answered by applying learned material in that question’s
situation. The answer for this question is “I can do canoe let me show you how to do it”.
Not like the previous level, there are only 5 chapters inside the textbook being examined
that have this type of question. Chapter 6 has the highest frequency with 2 questions while
chapter 2,3,9, and 10 have only 1 question.
The description of C4 Analyze leads to separating materials or concepts into
sections, deciding how the sections connect to one another or how they interconnect, or
how the sections connect on the whole form or objective (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
This type of questions included in the first level of HOTS. The point of this question is
the competence of the students to differentiate the sections or material into its components
so that its arrangement might be better. For example, as for the question “Do you think
that reported speech is commonly found in texts like Text 2? Why do you think so?” could
77
be answered by differentiate the 2 texts into its components. The answer for this question
is “yes, because text 2 contain a reported speech stated in the last sentence of the last
paragraph”. There are only 4 chapters contained C4 Analyze. Chapter 9 has the highest
frequency for this level with 4 questions while chapter 4 has only 1 question.
Table 5. The examples of Analyze (C4) reading comprehension questions presented in English
Questions Units
Compare your quotes and the quote in the caption. Chapter 3
What is the type of the following text? Chapter 4
Do you think that reported speech is commonly found in texts
Chapter 5
like Text 2? Why do you think so?
Do the texts contain time sequences (e.g., first, second, next,
Chapter 9
then, etc.)? What are their functions?
C5 Evaluate could be described as creating judgments build upon criteria and

standards through checking and critiquing. Critiques, recommendations, and reports are
some of the forms that can be constructed to present the actions of this level (Anderson
& Krathwohl, 2001). In revised Bloom’s taxonomy, evaluating presents before creating.
For example, as for the question “Do you think that Lili is confident about her
competence? How do you know?” could be answered by the use of the student’s opinion
after reading the passage based on some criterias and standards from the question itself.
The answer for this question is “Lilis is extremely confident towards her ability. This
statement based on the passage (6), it is written “I am looking forward to the opportunity
to personally discuss why I am particularly suit for the position.” This sentence indicates
that Lilis wants to step on the next level, to meet Mr. Frank Peterson for introducing more
about herself so that she can persuade Mr. Frank Peterson that she is the right person for
the available position”. This type of question only available in 5 chapters. Chapter 3 has
the highest frequency with 6 questions while chapter 4,5,6, and 7 only have 1 question
for each chapter.
Table 6. The examples of Evaluate (C5) reading comprehension questions presented in English
Questions Units
What do you think about the quote in this caption? Chapter 3
Do you think that Lilis is confident about her competence?
Chapter 4
How do you know?
Why do you think living in an apartment is getting popular? Chapter 5
What do you think about the acting governor’s response to the
Chapter 6
parents’ protests?
What do you think about the mayor’s concept on municipal
Chapter 7
waste management?
78
The definition of C6 Create according to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) is

placing elements simultaneously to construct a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing
elements into a new system or format through generating, planning, or producing. Create
asks the students to place sections at the same time in a different way, or synthesize
sections into something new. Since this level is the last level and occupies the highest
position in the newest taxonomy, it could be concluded that this level is the most difficult
to construct or even to answer for both the teacher and the student (Daeik & Anter, 2004).
For example, as for the question “Make some quotes about nature.” could be answered
by making some quotes about nature. The answer for this question is “I love not man the
less, but nature more, time spent amongst trees is never wasted time, and etc”. This type
of question only presented in 3 chapters. Chapter 3 has the highest frequency with 3
questions while chapter 7 has the lowest frequency with only 1 question. A final table
below is presented to simplify all findings.
Table 7. The examples of Create (C6) reading comprehension questions presented in English
Questions Units
Make some quotes about nature. Chapter 3
Create your own questions about the two texts. Chapter 5
Make a script for a news broadcast. Chapter 7
Table 8 and all the findings above informs that the distribution of reading comprehension
questions are uneven at each level. The result shows that more than a half of the whole
reading comprehension questions included in LOTS which not encourage the students’
critical thinking with 117 questions or 82% and only 25 questions or 18% are included in
HOTS. It shows that the textbook being analyzed emphasized more on lower order
thinking questions. This result is in line with researchs from NamazianDoost and
Hayavimehr (2017), Mizbani, Salehi, and Tabatabaei (2020), Atiullah, Fitriati, and
Rukmini (2019), and Febriyani, Yunita, and Damayanti (2020) which informs that almost
all the textbooks that have been examined mostly have more questions in the lower order
thinking level. Regarding to the research question and the objective of the research, the
level used by the author of the textbook in designing the textbook’s reading
comprehension questions could be seen in this table.
For the three down levels which are categorized as LOTS, Remember (C1) held
the highest frequency with 69 questions out of 142 reading comprehension questions with
the percentage of 48%. Furthermore, this level also became the most level used by the
author in designing reading comprehension questions stated in the textbook. This result
is in line with Zaiturrahmi, Kasim, and Zulfikar (2017) which informed that the most level
of Bloom’s Taxonomy used in constructing questions stated in the textbook for the 1st
grade of Senior High School student is Knowledge (C1). Moreover, Apply (C3) as the
highest level of LOTS held the lowest frequency among LOTS itself with only 6
questions.
For the three up levels which are categorized as HOTS, Analyze (C4) and
Evaluate (C5) held the same amount of frequency with only 10 questions for each level.
While Create (C6) has only 5 questions, although this type of question is needed to
79
prepare the students to enter the uni life because the lecture will ask them to think about
something discrete with the aim of achieving a great comprehension (Daiek and Anter,
2004). The frequency of HOTS is the exact opposite from LOTS. The precentage of
HOTS is only equal to 18%. This result affected by the complexity of these type of
questions. The author of the textbook also thik about the limitation of time in teaching
and learning process because in order to answer this type of questions, the students will
take longer time than to answer lower order thinking questions. This statement supported
by Airasian and Russel (2008) which informed that the higher level questions often cause
the teachers to wait longer for the students to answer those questions.
Table 8. Reading comprehension questions presented in English Textbook for Grade XII
Number of
Level of Thinking Percentage
Questions
C1 Remember 69 49%
Lower Order Thinking Skills
C2 Understand 42 30%
(LOTS)
C3 Apply 6 4%
C4 Analyze 10 7%
Higher Order Thinking Skills
C5 Evaluate 10 7%
(HOTS)
C6 Create 5 4%
Total 142 100%
CONCLUSION
The research question and the objective of the research about the level of reading
comprehension questions based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy stated in English
textbook for 12th grade students published by Kemendikbud RI 2018 showed that the
reading comprehension questions inside the textbook were dominated by Remember
(C1). It means that this textbook focused on LOTS rather than HOTS. This textbook’s
reading comprehension questions did not demand the students to use their analytic and
critical thinking based on their own idea even though the goal of the current curriculum
is to encourage the student’s higher level of thinking.
This research might help the authors to be more varied in order to construct
reading comprehension questions inside the English textbook for for every grade that
soon to be distributed and used by the students. It will be better if each level of the
questions distributed equally. Moreover, a well-made textbook should present 22%
Knowledge (C1), 20% Comprehension (C2), 18% Application (C3), 17% Analysis (C4),
13% Synthesis (C5), and 15% Evaluation (C6) (Bloom et al., 1956). Teachers should also
understand on how to encourage the students competence to reach higher thinking by
attend seminars about teaching method classes and it will be more better if the teachers
construct higher order thinking questions by themselves as a side questions aside from
textbook to fulfil the need of the students’ HOTS.
REFERENCES
Abosalem, Y. (2016). Assessment techniques and students’ higher-order thinking skills.
International Journal of Secondary Education, 9(1), 1-11.
doi:10.11648/j.ijsedu.20160401.11
80
Acosta, Luz & Ferri, Maria. (2010). Reading Strategies to Develop Higher Thinking
Skills for Reading Comprehension. Profile Issues in Teachers` Professional
Development. 12, 107-123.
Afifah, I & Retnawati, Heri. (2019). Is it difficult to teach higher order thinking skills?
Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 1320. 012098. 10.1088/1742-
6596/1320/1/012098.
Airasian, P. & Russel, M. (2008). Classroom assessment: Concepts and applications.
Toronto: McGraw-Hill.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R., (Ed.). Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer,
R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational
objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Ary, Donald et al. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). United States
of Amerika: Wadsworth.
Atiullah, K., Wuli Fitriati, S., & Rukmini, D. (2019). Using Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
to Evaluate Higher Order Thinking Skills (Hots) in Reading Comprehension
Questions of English Textbook for Year X of High School. English Education
Journal, 9(4), 428-436. https://doi.org/10.15294/eej.v9i4.31794
Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of
educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I:
Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.
Cohen, L. Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed.).
London: Routledge
Cohen, L. Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.).
London: Routledge
Collins (2014). Skills for the 21st Century: teaching higher-order thinking. Curriculum
and Leadership Journal, 12(14). Retrieved from
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/
Daiek, D., & Anter, N. (2004). Critical reading for college and beyond. Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Doyle, A. (2020). What Is Creative Thinking? Definition & Examples of Creative
Thinking. thebalancecareers.com. Retrieved 11 August 2021, from
https://www.thebalancecareers.com/creative-thinking-definition-with-examples-
2063744.
Dwee, Chiew & Anthony, Elizabeth M. & Mohd, Berhannudin & Kamarulzaman,
Robijah & Kadir, Zulida. (2016). Creating Thinking Classrooms: Perceptions and
Teaching Practices of ESP Practitioners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences. 232. 631-639. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.087.
Febrina, Usman, B., & Muslem, A. (2019). Analysis of Reading Comprehension
Questions by Using Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy On Higher Order Thinking Skill
(HOTS). English Education Journal (EEJ), 1(10), 1–15.
Febriyani, Rezita & Yunita, Wisma & Damayanti, Indah. (2020). An Analysis on Higher
Order Thinking Skill (HOTS) in Compulsory English Textbook for the Twelfth
Grade of Indonesian Senior High Schools. Journal of English Education and
Teaching. 4. 170-183. 10.33369/jeet.4.2.170-183.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of
insecurity. New York: Teachers College Press.
81
Kasim, U., & Zulfikar, T. (2017). Analysis of Instructional Questions in An English

Textbook for Senior High Schools. EEJ, 8(4), 536-552.
Lewis, K. (2015). Developing questioning skills. Retrieved from
https://inside.trinity.edu/sites/inside.trinity.edu/files/file
_attachments/6056/gravett- questioningskillswithattachment.pdf
Li, P., & Clariana, R. B. (2019). Reading comprehension in L1 and L2: An integrative
approach. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 50, 94105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.03.005
Lister, R., & Leaney, J. (2003). Introductory programming, criterion-referencing, and
bloom. Paper presented at the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer
Science Education, Reno, NV.
Miri Barak & Yehudit Judy Dori (2009) Enhancing Higher Order Thinking Skills Among
Inservice Science Teachers Via Embedded Assessment, Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 20(5), 459-474, DOI: 10.1007/s10972-009-9141-z
Mizbani, M., Salehi, H., Tabatabaei, O. (2020). Content Evaluation of Iranian EFL
Textbook Vision 1 Based on Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy of Cognitive Domain.
International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 8(29), 11-24.
Munawati, A., & Nursamsu. (2019). The effectiveness of hots (higher order thinking skill)
in teaching reading comprehension. Journal of Education of English as a Foreign
Language, 2(1), 32–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.21776/ub.Educafl.2019.002.1.5
NamazianDoost, I. and HayaviMehr, M., 2017. A Comparative Study of Critical Thinking
Skills in High School and Simulated IELTS Reading Comprehension
Questions. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 5(6), 35-69.
Nourdad, Nava & Masoudi, Sanam & Rahimali, Parisa. (2018). The Effect of Higher
Order Thinking Skill Instruction on EFL Reading Ability. International Journal
of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7. 231.
10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.3p.231.
Novitasari, Rahayu, E. L. R., & Suryanto, B. . (2021). Literature Circles In Reading Class:
Students’ Participation And Perception. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English
Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics, 8(1), 65-77.
https://doi.org/10.22219/celtic.v8i1.16138
Nunan, D. (2003) Nunan, David 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. New York
: Mc Graw Hill
Pardede, P. (2020). Integrating the 4Cs into EFL Integrated Skills Learning. Journal of
English Teaching, 6(1), 71-85
Pratiwi, N. U. R. (2014). Higher Order Thinking Skill in Reading Exercise (An Analysis
of Reading Exercises in Pathway to English Textbook for the Eleventh Grade of
Senior High School Students). In Higher Order Thinking Skill in Reading
Exercise. the Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University.
Safitri, M., & Asrining Tyas, P. (2019). An Analysis of English Textbook Entitled
"Bahasa Inggris SMA/MA SMK/MAK Kelas X". JEES (Journal of English
Educators Society), 4(1), 17-22. doi:http://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v4i1.1777
Sari, S., Oktaviani, A., & Yulfi, Y. (2020). The Use Of Fives Strategy To Teach Reading
Comprehension For Eleventh Graders. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English
Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics, 7(1), 74-82.
https://doi.org/10.22219/celtic.v7i1.11503
82
Seif, A. (2012). Evaluating higher order thinking skills in reading exercises of English for
Palestine Grade 8. Disertation. Gaza, The Islamic Universities.
Surtantini, R. (2019). Reading Comprehension Question Levels in Grade X English
Students’ Book in Light of the Issues of Curriculum Policy in
Indonesia. PAROLE: Journal of Linguistics and Education, 9(1), 44-
52. https://doi.org/10.14710/parole.v9i1.44-52
Swaran Singh, Charanjit & Singh, Rhasvinder & Singh, Tarsame & Mostafa, Nor &
Mohtar, Tunku. (2018). Developing a Higher Order Thinking Skills Module for
Weak ESL Learners. English Language Teaching. 11. 86. 10.5539/elt.v11n7p86.
Verdina, R & Gani, A & Sulastri, Sulastri. (2018). Improving students’ higher order
thinking skills in thermochemistry concept using worksheets based on 2013
curriculum. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 1088. 012105. 10.1088/1742-
6596/1088/1/012105.
Yee, Heong & Heong, & Yunos, Jailani & Othman, Widad & Hassan, Razali & Tee, Tze
& Kiong, & Mohaffyza, Mimi. (2012). The Needs Analysis of Learning Higher
Order Thinking Skills for Generating Ideas. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences. 59. 197-203. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.265.
83

Hots RC - Book3

Uploaded by

Hots RC - Book3

Uploaded by

Journal of English Teaching

e-ISSN: 2622-4224 | p-ISSN: 2087-9628

An Analysis of Reading Comprehension Questions in English

Received: 18 October 2021 Published: 15 February 2022

Table 1. Checklist table

Cognitive Domain of Revised Bloom’s

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

As the characteristic of C1 Remember is locating memory of previous learned

The definition of C2 Understand is building a meaning from instructional

The definition of C3 Apply according to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) is

C5 Evaluate could be described as creating judgments build upon criteria and

The definition of C6 Create according to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) is

Kasim, U., & Zulfikar, T. (2017). Analysis of Instructional Questions in An English

You might also like