Instructional design in Teacher Education and Generative AI: a two-year exploratory study on the alignment of AI-Generated learning activities with the Anderson and Krathwohl Taxonomy

Ludovica Rizzo, Stefania Pinnelli

Abstract


The Anderson and Krathwohl Taxonomy (2001) provides a key framework for differentiated instructional design, supporting the development of learning tasks that move beyond the implicit model of the average student. However, limited empirical attention has been devoted to the alignment between generative AI outputs and the cognitive demands defined by the taxonomy. This exploratory study, conducted over the 2024–2026 biennium, examines how 134 pre-service teachers, organised into 32 working groups, evaluated the taxonomic coherence of learning activities generated by ChatGPT, Gemini and Meta AI across the six cognitive process levels. The findings reveal differentiated patterns of alignment across systems, cohorts and cognitive levels. Rather than positioning generative AI as a substitute for teachers’ instructional design competence, the results highlight its potential role as a scaffolding reflective mediator in initial teacher education.


Keywords


Generative AI; Instructional Design; Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy; initial teacher education; taxonomic alignment.

Full Text:

PDF PDF

References


Abu Eideh, B. (2026). Reimagining instructional design: ChatGPT, Bloom’s taxonomy, and the role of teacher expertise. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 13, 102325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102325

Akdeniz, H., Clark, T., & Roberts, J. L. (2025). Can AI generate questions aligned with Bloom’s taxonomy? A framework for gifted education to support teachers. Journal of Advanced Academics, 36(4), 671–694. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X251349917

Almatrafi, O., & Johri, A. (2025). Leveraging generative AI for course learning outcome categorization using Bloom’s taxonomy. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, 100404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100404

Anderson, L. W. (2005). Objectives, evaluation, and the improvement of education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(2–3), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.05.004

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Choi, G. W., Kim, S. H., Lee, D., & Moon, J. (2024). Utilizing generative AI for instructional design: Exploring strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. TechTrends, 68(4), 832–844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00967-w

d’Alonzo, L. (2016). La differenziazione didattica per l’inclusione: Metodi, strategie, attività. Erickson.

Deunk, M. I., Smale-Jacobse, A. E., de Boer, H., Doolaard, S., & Bosker, R. J. (2018). Effective differentiation practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education. Educational Research Review, 24, 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.002

Farhood, H., Nyden, M., Beheshti, A., & Muller, S. (2025). Artificial intelligence-based personalised learning in education: A systematic literature review. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 5(1), 331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-025-00598-x

Karaman, M. R., & Göksu, İ. (2024). Are lesson plans created by ChatGPT more effective? An experimental study. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(1), 107–127. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.607

Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

Luckin, R. (2018). Machine learning and human intelligence: The future of education for the 21st century. UCL IOE Press.

Mendis, M. S., Wijesinghe, C., Madhushara, S., Dilhara, S. R., & Edirisinghe, M. (2025). Redefining pedagogy for the 21st century: A framework combining Bloom’s taxonomy, outcome-based education, and active learning strategies. International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Science, 9(11), 79–87.

Rose, T. (2016). The end of average: How to succeed in a world that values sameness. HarperOne.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.

UNESCO. (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. https://doi.org/10.54675/ZJTE2084

van der Graaf, J., Raković, M., Fan, Y., Lim, L., Singh, S., Bannert, M., Gašević, D., & Molenaar, I. (2023). How to design and evaluate personalized scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 18, 783–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09361-y

Weng, X., Ye, H., Dai, Y., & Ng, O. (2024). Integrating artificial intelligence and computational thinking in educational contexts: A systematic review of instructional design and student learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(6), 1420–1450. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241248686

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0

Zhang, G., Ying, Y., Jiang, S., Liang, J., Yue, G., Fu, Y., Hu, H., & Xiao, Y. (2025). From remembering to metacognition: Do existing benchmarks accurately evaluate LLMs? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025 (pp. 13440–13457). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.724




DOI: https://doi.org/10.32043/gsd.v10i3.1825

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 ITALIAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH EDUCATION, SPORT AND INCLUSIVE DIDACTICS

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Italian Journal of Health Education, Sports and Inclusive Didactics 

Publisher: Cares srl – REN Press (since 2026). Previously published by Gaia srl – Edizioni Universitarie Romane (2017–2025).

ISSN: 2532-3296 E-ISSN: 3103-5744