Objective
By the end of this module, you will be able to design assessments that target the Analyzing level of Bloom’s Taxonomy, helping students break down complex information, identify relationships, and make inferences based on evidence.
What is the Analyzing Level?
At the Analyzing level of Bloom’s Taxonomy, students move beyond just understanding or applying knowledge—they begin to:
- Break information into parts.
- Examine how the parts relate to each other.
- Differentiate between relevant and irrelevant information.
- Identify causes, effects, and underlying principles.
Step-by-Step: Designing Assessments for Analyzing
In this section, we will walk through a step-by-step process for designing high-stakes, scaffolded assessments that target the Analyzing level of Bloom’s Taxonomy. These assessments challenge students to break down complex information, examine relationships, and develop critical thinking skills. Scaffolding techniques, such as outlines and drafts, help students engage deeply with the material while providing opportunities for ongoing feedback and maintaining academic integrity.
1 Review Course Description
Start by reviewing the official course descriptions listed in the Hostos course catalog, as these descriptions reflect the approved learning objectives for each course. These objectives provide the framework for designing aligned assessments. Look for objectives that involve tasks such as:
- Comparing theories or methodologies.
- Analyzing relationships between different concepts.
- Breaking down complex processes or systems.
Locate your course in the Hostos catalog by navigating to the official website or catalog. Identify objectives that suggest analysis-level thinking. Common action verbs for this level include analyze, compare, contrast, differentiate, categorize, and examine.
Example
If the course description states, “Students will be able to analyze the differences between traditional and digital learning environments,” this would align with the Analyzing level of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
2 Select the Assessment Type
Choose activities that require students to break down information, identify relationships, and critically evaluate components when designing assessments that target the Analyzing level of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Assessments such as case studies, data analysis tasks, or compare & contrast essays are particularly effective for this purpose.
3 Use GenAI to Write Instructions for the Selected Assignment Type
A common concern with using GenAI tools in education is that students may simply copy prompts into AI systems and submit the generated output as their own work. To address this, assignments should be structured to require personal input and reflection, which encourages deeper engagement with the material.
The prompts below foster academic integrity and encourage authentic learning. They are designed to require personal input, such as real-world examples or reflections tied to students’ experiences or coursework, which makes it difficult for students to use AI-generated responses. Additionally, the prompts are structured to be scaffolded, encouraging ongoing engagement through stages like outlines, drafts, and final submissions. This approach helps students to critically engage with the material at each step, developing their own ideas and deepening their understanding, while reducing the risk of academic misconduct.
The prompt below is based on the C.R.E.A.T.E. Prompting Framework by Dave Birss.
Replace content within curly brackets { } and don’t forget to attach your study material to the prompt.
Character: You are an experienced educational expert specializing in creating case study assessments that develop students’ analytical skills.
Request: Design a case study assignment that asks students to analyze the relationships between different parts of a case related to {specific topic or case here}. The assignment should target the Analyzing category of Bloom’s Taxonomy, requiring students to break down the case into components, evaluate how those components interact, and make informed judgments based on their analysis.
Incorporate multiple steps, such as submitting drafts or outlines before the final submission, to scaffold the assignment and discourage misuse of AI tools. Include a reflection element where students connect their analysis to personal experiences or real-world examples to ensure original engagement with the content.
Examples:
For a Business Case Study on Corporate Social Responsibility, ask students to analyze how different departments (e.g., marketing, operations, human resources) contribute to the company’s CSR initiatives. They should evaluate the effectiveness of these initiatives and propose changes to improve the company’s overall impact.
For a Healthcare Case Study on Patient Care in a hospital setting, students could analyze the roles of different healthcare professionals in the patient’s recovery process. They should consider how communication, treatment plans, and medical interventions affect patient outcomes.
Steps to Scaffold the Assignment:
- Initial Outline: Require students to submit an outline that breaks down the case into key components and identifies the relationships between these components. Provide feedback on this outline to guide students in their analysis.
- Draft Submission: After feedback on the outline, ask students to submit a draft of their analysis. This draft should expand on their initial ideas, showing how they are evaluating the case’s components and making judgments based on evidence.
- Final Submission: The final version should demonstrate clear, logical analysis of the case. Students should provide detailed explanations of how the components are related and what judgments or conclusions they’ve drawn from their analysis.
- Personal Reflection: As part of the final submission, ask students to include a reflection that connects their analysis to a personal experience or a real-world example. This will encourage deeper thinking and discourage reliance on AI-generated content.
Type of Output: The final case study should include:
- A structured analysis of the key components and their relationships.
- Evidence-based judgments or conclusions drawn from the analysis.
- A personal reflection or real-world connection to demonstrate original engagement with the content.
Extra: Emphasize the importance of personal engagement and discourage the use of AI tools for generating analysis. Scaffolded steps, like drafts and reflections, promote academic integrity and ensure that students are critically engaging with the case.
The prompt below is based on the C.R.E.A.T.E. Prompting Framework by Dave Birss.
In the same chat, paste the prompt below. Replace content within curly brackets { }. Adjust as needed.
Character: Now that you’ve designed a case study assignment, you are ready to create a grading rubric to evaluate student performance based on their analysis.
Request: Create a grading rubric to assess student performance on the case study analysis assignment for {specific topic or case here}. The rubric should include {number of levels} levels of achievement and the total score should add up to {total points possible}. Each level should clearly describe how well the student has analyzed the relationships between the components of the case, provided evidence-based judgments, and integrated personal reflections or real-world examples.
The rubric should be structured hierarchically, with more weight given to critical categories like analysis and evidence-based judgments.
Hierarchical Categories:
Analysis of Case Components (most important)
How well does the student break down the case into its components?
Evaluate the depth and accuracy of their analysis of how different parts of the case interact.
Evidence-Based Judgments
Are the student’s conclusions and judgments clearly supported by evidence from the case?
Assess the strength of the arguments made based on the analysis.
Scaffolding (Drafts/Outlines)
Has the student effectively used feedback from outlines or drafts to improve their analysis?
Evaluate how well they incorporated suggestions and refined their work over time.
Personal Reflection/Real-World Connection
Has the student included a reflection connecting their analysis to a personal experience or real-world example?
Consider how insightful or relevant the reflection is to their overall analysis.
Clarity and Organization
Is the final submission well-organized, with clear and logical flow?
Assess whether the student’s analysis is easy to follow and whether ideas are communicated clearly.
Rubric Example:
| Category | Level 1 – Below Expectations | Level 2 – Meets Expectations | Level 3 – Exceeds Expectations | Total Points Possible |
| Analysis of Case Components | Incomplete or inaccurate analysis of the case components and their relationships. | Adequate breakdown of components with some connections made. | Thorough and accurate analysis, with clear connections between components. | 20 (adjust based on total) |
| Evidence-Based Judgments | Conclusions are weak or unsupported by evidence. | Some evidence used to support conclusions, but not fully convincing. | Strong, well-supported judgments and conclusions based on analysis. | 15 (adjust based on total) |
| Scaffolding (Drafts/Outlines) | No significant improvement from drafts; minimal use of feedback. | Some feedback used to improve analysis, but more refinement needed. | Clear improvement from drafts; feedback used effectively to enhance analysis. | 10 (adjust based on total) |
| Personal Reflection/Real-World Connection | No reflection or irrelevant connection made. | Basic reflection provided, somewhat related to the analysis. | Insightful reflection with strong real-world or personal connections to the case. | 10 (adjust based on total) |
| Clarity and Organization | Poorly organized; analysis is hard to follow. | Generally clear, but some sections need better organization. | Well-organized with a logical flow that makes the analysis easy to follow. | 5 (adjust based on total) |
Adjustments: You can modify the number of levels and the weighting of each category based on the total points available for the assignment ({total points possible}). Ensure that the most critical categories, like analysis and evidence-based judgments, carry the most weight.
After generating your case study assignment, make sure that it aligns with course objectives and upholds academic integrity. Use the checklist below to review the output.
✅ Alignment with Learning Objectives
Confirm that the assignment instructs students to break down the case, analyze relationships, and justify their conclusions, targeting the Analyzing level of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
✅ Relevance and Accuracy
Check that the case scenario and data are factually correct and relevant to the course material.
✅ Clarity and Depth
The task should be clear and encourage critical thinking. The assignment instruction should require more than surface-level responses.
✅ Incorporation of Personal Input
The instructions ask for personal reflections or real-world applications, making it harder for students to use AI-generated content.
✅ Scaffolding and Integrity
The assignment is structured with multiple steps (outline, draft, final) and provides feedback at each stage to promote integrity and sustained engagement.
For Case Study assignments, it is recommended to allocate 25-30% of the total course grade to these high-stakes, scaffolded assessments. This weight reflects the importance of developing critical thinking and analytical skills at the Analyzing level of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Outline (5%)
Have students submit a clear outline that identifies the key concepts, theories, or case components they plan to analyze. This step ensures they are on the right track early, allowing you to provide targeted feedback on their structure and approach before they dive deeper. Focus on the clarity of their comparisons or key analytical points.
Draft (10%)
In this stage, students submit a more developed version of their analysis, demonstrating their ability to break down the material, compare and contrast, or analyze relationships. The draft should reflect their initial conclusions, supported by evidence. Offer feedback on the depth of their analysis, use of examples, and overall structure to help them refine their work.
Final Submission (10%)
After incorporating feedback from the draft, students submit their final version. This should demonstrate a comprehensive, well-supported analysis with clear, critical insights. Evaluate their ability to synthesize information, justify conclusions, and include personal reflections or real-world applications to enhance originality.
If you want to reach 30%, you can slightly increase the weight of one or more of the components.
The prompt below is based on the C.R.E.A.T.E. Prompting Framework by Dave Birss.
Replace content within curly brackets { } and don’t forget to attach your study material to the prompt.
Character: You are an experienced educational expert specializing in creating assessments that require students to analyze similarities and differences between key concepts, theories, or processes.
Request: Design an assignment prompt that asks students to compare and contrast {specific concepts, theories, or processes here}. The assignment should focus on identifying key similarities and differences, requiring students to evaluate the relationships between the two. The assignment should target the Analyzing category of Bloom’s Taxonomy, helping students develop critical thinking skills by breaking down the components of each concept and understanding how they are related or distinct.
Scaffold the assignment by requiring students to submit outlines or drafts before their final submission. Encourage them to include real-world applications or personal reflections as part of their analysis. This will help discourage reliance on AI tools and promote original thought and deeper engagement with the material.
Examples:
For Comparing Classical and Operant Conditioning, ask students to identify the key differences in how each theory explains the process of learning. They should also explore any similarities, such as the role of stimuli and responses, while offering examples from real-world scenarios to illustrate their analysis.
For Contrasting the Water Cycle and the Carbon Cycle, students should compare the processes involved, including how matter moves through the environment, and discuss any overlapping elements. They could include a reflection on how human activities affect both cycles and provide real-world examples to support their comparison.
Steps to Scaffold the Assignment:
- Outline Submission: Ask students to submit an outline that highlights the key similarities and differences between the two concepts, along with an initial plan for their comparison. Provide feedback on the outline to guide them toward a deeper, more nuanced analysis.
- Draft Submission: After feedback on the outline, require students to submit a draft of their analysis. This draft should expand on the key similarities and differences, showing how they are analyzing each concept and providing initial reflections or real-world applications.
- Final Submission: The final version should demonstrate a clear, logical comparison and contrast of the two concepts or processes. Students should provide detailed explanations of both similarities and differences, backed by examples or evidence.
- Personal Reflection/Real-World Application: In their final submission, ask students to include a reflection on how their analysis connects to personal experiences or real-world examples. This will encourage deeper thinking and discourage reliance on AI-generated content.
Type of Output: The final submission should include:
- A structured comparison and contrast of the concepts, theories, or processes.
- Evidence-based analysis, including examples to illustrate key points.
- A personal reflection or real-world application to demonstrate original engagement with the material.
Extra: Remind students to focus on their own analysis and avoid relying on AI tools to generate content. The scaffolded steps, including drafts and reflections, are designed to promote academic integrity and ensure that students engage deeply with the material.
The prompt below is based on the C.R.E.A.T.E. Prompting Framework by Dave Birss.
In the same chat, paste the prompt below. Replace content within curly brackets { } and adjust as needed.
Character: Now that you’ve designed a data analysis task, you are ready to create a grading rubric to evaluate student performance.
Request: Create a grading rubric to assess student performance on the data analysis assignment for {specific data set or topic here}. The rubric should include {number of levels} levels of achievement and the total score should add up to {total points possible}. Each level should clearly describe how well the student interpreted the data, identified trends and patterns, and drew evidence-based conclusions.
The rubric should be structured hierarchically, with more weight given to critical categories like data interpretation and conclusions drawn from the analysis.
Hierarchical Categories:
- Data Interpretation (most important)
- How well does the student analyze and interpret the data?
- Evaluate how effectively they identify trends, patterns, and relationships in the data.
- Conclusions and Evidence-Based Analysis
- Are the conclusions the student draws clearly supported by the data?
- Assess whether the student’s conclusions are logical and based on solid evidence from the analysis.
- Use of Visuals (Charts, Graphs, Tables)
- Does the student use visuals effectively to represent the data?
- Evaluate whether the graphs or charts enhance understanding of the data patterns and trends.
- Scaffolding (Drafts/Feedback)
- Has the student effectively used feedback from initial interpretations or drafts to improve their analysis?
- Consider how well they refined their work through the drafting process and incorporated feedback.
- Real-World Application/Reflection
- Has the student connected the data analysis to real-world applications or personal insights?
- Assess the relevance and depth of their reflection in relation to their data analysis.
Rubric Example:
| Category | Level 1 – Below Expectations | Level 2 – Meets Expectations | Level 3 – Exceeds Expectations | Total Points Possible |
| Data Interpretation | Limited or inaccurate analysis; does not identify key patterns or trends. | Adequate interpretation, with some trends or patterns identified. | Thorough and insightful analysis, with clear identification of patterns and trends. | 20 (adjust based on total) |
| Conclusions and Evidence-Based Analysis | Weak or unsupported conclusions; lacks sufficient evidence from the data. | Some conclusions drawn, but not fully supported by the data. | Strong, well-supported conclusions based on clear evidence from the analysis. | 15 (adjust based on total) |
| Use of Visuals | Poor or ineffective use of visuals; data is not well-represented. | Basic use of visuals; some graphs or charts are unclear or incomplete. | Effective use of visuals, enhancing understanding of the data and supporting the analysis. | 10 (adjust based on total) |
| Scaffolding (Drafts/Feedback) | Minimal improvement from drafts or lack of incorporation of feedback. | Some use of feedback to refine analysis, but further improvement needed. | Clear refinement based on feedback, leading to stronger analysis and conclusions. | 10 (adjust based on total) |
| Real-World Application/Reflection | No reflection or irrelevant real-world application. | Basic reflection, with some connection to real-world examples. | Insightful reflection, with strong connection to real-world applications, enhancing understanding of the data. | 10 (adjust based on total) |
Adjustments: You can modify the number of levels and the weighting of each category based on the total points available for the assignment ({total points possible}). Ensure that critical categories like data interpretation and evidence-based conclusions are weighted more heavily.
After generating your comparative analysis assignment, use the checklist below to ensure it aligns with course objectives and promotes academic integrity.
✅ Alignment with Learning Objectives
Confirm that the assignment instructs students to compare and contrast concepts, theories, or processes, focusing on key differences and similarities, targeting the Analyzing level of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
✅ Relevance and Accuracy
Check that the topics, theories, or concepts provided for comparison are factually accurate and relevant to the course material.
✅ Clarity and Depth
The instructions should be clear, requiring students to critically evaluate and provide evidence to support their analysis, ensuring they go beyond surface-level comparisons.
✅ Incorporation of Personal Input
Ensure the assignment asks students to include personal reflections or real-world applications to prevent over-reliance on AI-generated content.
✅ Scaffolding and Integrity
The assignment is structured with multiple steps (outline, draft, final) and provides feedback at each stage, promoting sustained engagement and academic integrity.
For comparative analysis assignments, it is recommended to allocate 25-30% of the total course grade to these high-stakes, scaffolded assessments. This weight reflects the importance of developing critical thinking and analytical skills at the Analyzing level of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Outline (5%)
Students submit an outline that identifies the two or more concepts, theories, or processes they will compare and contrast. They should briefly state the key similarities and differences they plan to explore, as well as the evidence they will use. Provide feedback to ensure their chosen comparisons are relevant and aligned with the assignment objectives.
Draft (10%)
The draft requires students to present a more detailed comparison and contrast. They should clearly analyze the similarities and differences between the selected concepts, using evidence to support their points. At this stage, focus feedback on their ability to critically evaluate the concepts, as well as the clarity and organization of their arguments.
Final Submission (10%)
In the final submission, students present a polished and comprehensive analysis, incorporating feedback from the draft. The final version should provide a nuanced comparison that goes beyond surface-level similarities and differences, offering deeper insights into the relationships between the concepts. Encourage the inclusion of personal reflections or real-world examples to promote originality and academic integrity.
If you want to reach 30%, you can slightly increase the weight of one or more of the components.
Key Takeaways
This module covers designing scaffolded assessments at the Analyzing level of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Structuring assignments with steps like outlines, drafts, and final submissions ensures ongoing feedback and skill development. Using personal input and real-world examples promotes academic integrity and reduces AI misuse. High-stakes assessments like case studies and compare and contrast tasks build critical analysis and problem-solving skills. Assigning 25-30% of the course grade to these tasks ensures they significantly impact student learning.
References
OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT [AI language model]. Retrieved from https://chat.openai.com.
Educational Technology Department. (n.d.). “Selecting assignment types to measure student learning.” Hostos Community College. https://commons.hostos.cuny.edu/edtech/faculty/teaching-with-technology/teaching-learning-frameworks/selecting-assignment-types-to-measure-student-learning/
