article · Education and Information Technologies
Generative artificial intelligence offers significant potential to reshape assessment pedagogy by integrating with critical thinking and revised Bloom's taxonomy. Generative tools now produce creative work in fields such as writing, design, and education, raising questions about the authenticity and originality of student outputs. This conceptual work explores how artificial intelligence technologies, including intelligent tutoring systems, chatbots, adaptive learning platforms, and automated assessment tools, affect learning processes. By examining the creative and higher cognitive levels of Krathwohl's revised Bloom's taxonomy, the analysis addresses how assessment methods can be reframed to support self-directed learning and learning autonomy. Ultimately, it argues that developing artificial intelligence fluency and assessment literacy among students is essential to foster higher-order critical thinking skills within higher education environments shaped by generative technologies.
As generative artificial intelligence tools become widely accessible to students, traditional methods of testing knowledge and creativity must adapt. Understanding how to align curriculum frameworks with these technologies helps educators design assessments that encourage genuine critical thought rather than simple content generation, preparing learners to navigate an automated world independently.
This conceptual work could inform the design of future educational software, intelligent tutoring systems, and automated assessment platforms used by universities and edtech developers. However, because the study is entirely conceptual and focuses on theoretical reframing rather than software testing or deployment, practical applications remain at an early research stage.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Abstract Amalgamating generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI), Bloom’s taxonomy and critical thinking present a promising avenue to revolutionize assessment pedagogy and foster higher-order cognitive skills needed for learning autonomy in the domain of self-directed learning. Gen AI, a subset of artificial intelligence (AI), has emerged as a frontrunner in creative tasks, revolutionizing various domains such as art, music, writing and design and showcasing its ability to generate original content across various domains, including education. Incorporating social, cultural, economic and pedagogical dimensions, AI in education encompasses the incorporation of AI technologies like intelligent tutoring systems, chatbots, robots, learning analytics dashboards, adaptive learning systems and automated assessment to bolster and elevate the educational process. The significance of the impact on the creativity component of Krathwohl’s revised Bloom’s taxonomy arises from the utilization of Gen AI in creative tasks, which prompts concerns regarding the authenticity and originality of AI-generated content. This conceptual research study seeks to investigate the affordances of this amalgamation and aims to reframe the higher cognitive levels of Bloom's taxonomy to enhance critical thinking and self-directed learning among students. This study grounds the reader in the existing literature and sets a course for where research in this field should be heading, thus adding value, rather than only providing an overview of the literature. The overall aim of this research was to explore the affordances of the amalgamation of AI, Bloom’s taxonomy and critical thinking to support assessment pedagogy for self-directed learning. This paper identifies the gap in the current literature about reconceptualizing assessment pedagogy for developing higher-order thinking skills in a Gen AI higher education landscape. This paper presents a case of revisiting Bloom’s taxonomy, advocating the importance of AI fluency and assessment literacy for the development of critical thinking skills and self-directed learning.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1007/s10639-025-13476-x
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
