<![CDATA[Anderson and Krathwohl’s revised Bloom’s Taxonomy classifies students’ cognitive level, but a label such as “analyzing” does not by itself explain how students who reach that level actually reason. This study examined 68 pre-service elementary teachers’ (PGSD students) responses to a composite-area geometry problem administered in an online learning environment, coding all responses against the taxonomy’s six cognitive levels and then inductively profiling the analytical reasoning of students who reached the analyzing (C4) level. Only 7 students (10.3%) reached C4; the remaining 61 (89.7%) became stuck at applying, understanding, or remembering. Close reading of the seven successful responses, triangulated with interviews, revealed three distinguishable analysis profiles — relational, procedural, and visual — each grounded in established constructs of mathematical reasoning. A conceptual model, Apply→Transition→Analyze, is proposed to describe the cognitive transition zone in which most students became stuck. The findings indicate that Bloom’s taxonomy is adequate for identifying cognitive level but insufficient for explaining analytical variation. Theoretically, the study contributes a process-oriented complement to taxonomy-based classification of mathematical reasoning; practically, it offers instructors a concrete, text-based basis for identifying and teaching the relational reasoning most students lack.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
