Bloom's taxonomy

1
Bloom's taxonomy
Bloom's wheel, according to the Bloom's verbs and matching assessment types. The verbs
are intended to be feasible and measurable.
Bloom's taxonomy is a classification
of learning objectives within
education. It is named for Benjamin
Bloom, who chaired the committee of
educators that devised the taxonomy,
and who also edited the first volume of
the standard text, Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives: The
Classification of Educational Goals.
[1]
Bloom's taxonomy refers to a
classification of the different
objectives that educators set for
students (learning objectives). It
divides educational objectives into
three "domains": cognitive, affective,
and psychomotor (sometimes loosely
described as "knowing/head",
"feeling/heart" and "doing/hands"
respectively). Within the domains,
learning at the higher levels is
dependent on having attained
prerequisite knowledge and skills at lower levels.
[2]
A goal of Bloom's taxonomy is to motivate educators to focus on
all three domains, creating a more holistic form of education.
[1]
Bloom's taxonomy is considered to be a foundational and essential element within the education community.
[3]
A
mythology has grown around the taxonomy, possibly due to many people learning about the taxonomy through
second hand information. Bloom himself considered the Handbook "one of the most widely cited yet least read
books in American education".
[4]
History
Although named after Bloom, the publication of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives followed a series of
conferences from 1949 to 1953, which were designed to improve communication between educators on the design of
curricula and examinations.
[5]
The first volume of the taxonomy, "Handbook I: Cognitive" (Bloom et al. 1956) was published in 1956. "Handbook
II: Affective" (Krathwohl, Bloom & Masia 1965) followed in 1965. A third volume, for the psychomotor domain,
was planned, but never published. Other educators created their own taxonomies within this domain, including
Simpson (1966), Harrow (1972) and Dave (1975).
[6][7]
A revised version of the taxonomy for the cognitive domain
was created in 2000.
[8][7]
Bloom's taxonomy
2
Cognitive
Categories in the cognitive domain of the revised Bloom's taxonomy
(Anderson et al. 2000)
Skills in the cognitive domain revolve around
knowledge, comprehension, and critical thinking on a
particular topic. Traditional education tends to
emphasize the skills in this domain, particularly the
lower-order objectives.
There are six levels in the taxonomy, moving through
the lowest order processes to the highest:
Knowledge
Exhibit memory of learned materials by recalling facts,
terms, basic concepts and answers
Knowledge of specifics - terminology, specific facts
Knowledge of ways and means of dealing with
specifics - conventions, trends and sequences,
classifications and categories, criteria, methodology
Knowledge of the universals and abstractions in a field - principles and generalizations, theories and structures
Questions like: What are the health benefits of eating apples?
Comprehension
Demonstrate understanding of facts and ideas by organizing, comparing, translating, interpreting, giving
descriptions, and stating the main ideas
Translation
Interpretation
Extrapolation
Questions like: Compare the health benefits of eating apples vs. oranges.
Application
Using new knowledge. Solve problems in new situations by applying acquired knowledge, facts, techniques and
rules in a different way
Questions like: Which kinds of apples are best for baking a pie, and why?
Analysis
Examine and break information into parts by identifying motives or causes. Make inferences and find evidence to
support generalizations
Analysis of elements
Analysis of relationships
Analysis of organizational principles
Questions like: List four ways of serving foods made with apples and explain which ones have the highest health
benefits. Provide references to support your statements.
Bloom's taxonomy
3
Synthesis
Compile information together in a different way by combining elements in a new pattern or proposing alternative
solutions
Production of a unique communication
Production of a plan, or proposed set of operations
Derivation of a set of abstract relations
Questions like: Convert an "unhealthy" recipe for apple pie to a "healthy" recipe by replacing your choice of
ingredients. Explain the health benefits of using the ingredients you chose vs. the original ones.
Evaluation
Present and defend opinions by making judgments about information, validity of ideas or quality of work based on a
set of criteria
Judgments in terms of internal evidence
Judgments in terms of external criteria
Questions like: Do you feel that serving apple pie for an after school snack for children is healthy?
Affective
Skills in the affective domain describe the way people react emotionally and their ability to feel other living things'
pain or joy. Affective objectives typically target the awareness and growth in attitudes, emotion, and feelings.
There are five levels in the affective domain moving through the lowest order processes to the highest:
Receiving
The lowest level; the student passively pays attention. Without this level no learning can occur. Receiving is about
the student's memory and recognition as well.
Responding
The student actively participates in the learning process, not only attends to a stimulus; the student also reacts in
some way.
Valuing
The student attaches a value to an object, phenomenon, or piece of information. The student associates a value or
some values to the knowledge he acquired.
Organizing
The student can put together different values, information, and ideas and accommodate them within his/her own
schema; comparing, relating and elaborating on what has been learned.
Bloom's taxonomy
4
Characterizing
The student holds a particular value or belief that now exerts influence on his/her behavior so that it becomes a
characteristic.
Psychomotor
Skills in the psychomotor domain describe the ability to physically manipulate a tool or instrument like a hand or a
hammer. Psychomotor objectives usually focus on change and/or development in behavior and/or skills.
Bloom and his colleagues never created subcategories for skills in the psychomotor domain, but since then other
educators have created their own psychomotor taxonomies.
[6]
Simpson (1972) proposed the following levels:
Perception
The ability to use sensory cues to guide motor activity. This ranges from sensory stimulation, through cue selection,
to translation. Examples: Detects non-verbal communication cues. Estimate where a ball will land after it is thrown
and then moving to the correct location to catch the ball. Adjusts heat of stove to correct temperature by smell and
taste of food. Adjusts the height of the forks on a forklift by comparing where the forks are in relation to the pallet.
Key Words: chooses, describes, detects, differentiates, distinguishes, identifies, isolates, relates, selects.
Set
Readiness to act. It includes mental, physical, and emotional sets. These three sets are dispositions that predetermine
a person's response to different situations (sometimes called mindsets). Examples: Knows and acts upon a sequence
of steps in a manufacturing process. Recognize one's abilities and limitations. Shows desire to learn a new process
(motivation). NOTE: This subdivision of Psychomotor is closely related with the Responding to phenomena
subdivision of the Affective domain. Key Words: begins, displays, explains, moves, proceeds, reacts, shows, states,
volunteers.
Guided response
The early stages in learning a complex skill that includes imitation and trial and error. Adequacy of performance is
achieved by practicing. Examples: Performs a mathematical equation as demonstrated. Follows instructions to build
a model. Responds to hand-signals of instructor while learning to operate a forklift. Key Words: copies, traces,
follows, react, reproduce, responds
Mechanism
This is the intermediate stage in learning a complex skill. Learned responses have become habitual and the
movements can be performed with some confidence and proficiency. Examples: Use a personal computer. Repair a
leaking tap. Drive a car. Key Words: assembles, calibrates, constructs, dismantles, displays, fastens, fixes, grinds,
heats, manipulates, measures, mends, mixes, organizes, sketches.
Complex overt response
The skillful performance of motor acts that involve complex movement patterns. Proficiency is indicated by a quick,
accurate, and highly coordinated performance, requiring a minimum of energy. This category includes performing
without hesitation, and automatic performance. For example, players will often utter sounds of satisfaction or
expletives as soon as they hit a tennis ball or throw a football, because they can tell by the feel of the act what the
result will produce. Examples: Maneuvers a car into a tight parallel parking spot. Operates a computer quickly and
accurately. Displays competence while playing the piano. Key Words: assembles, builds, calibrates, constructs,
dismantles, displays, fastens, fixes, grinds, heats, manipulates, measures, mends, mixes, organizes, sketches. NOTE:
Bloom's taxonomy
5
The Key Words are the same as Mechanism, but will have adverbs or adjectives that indicate that the performance is
quicker, better, more accurate, etc.
Adaptation
Skills are well developed and the individual can modify movement patterns to fit special requirements. Examples:
Responds effectively to unexpected experiences. Modifies instruction to meet the needs of the learners. Perform a
task with a machine that it was not originally intended to do (machine is not damaged and there is no danger in
performing the new task). Key Words: adapts, alters, changes, rearranges, reorganizes, revises, varies.
Origination
Creating new movement patterns to fit a particular situation or specific problem. Learning outcomes emphasize
creativity based upon highly developed skills. Examples: Constructs a new theory. Develops a new and
comprehensive training programming. Creates a new gymnastic routine. Key Words: arranges, builds, combines,
composes, constructs, creates, designs, initiate, makes, originates.
Definition of knowledge
In the appendix to Handbook I, there is a definition of knowledge which serves as the apex for an alternative,
summary classification of the educational goals. This is significant as the taxonomy has been called upon
significantly in other fields such as knowledge management, potentially out of context.
Knowledge, as defined here, involves the recall of specifics and universals, the recall of methods and
processes, or the recall of a pattern, structure, or setting.

[9]
The taxonomy is set out:
1.00 Knowledge
1.10 Knowledge of Specifics
1.11 Knowledge of Terminology
1.12 Knowledge of Specific Facts
1.20 Knowledge of Ways and Means of Dealing with Specifics
1.21 Knowledge of Conventions
1.22 Knowledge of Trends and Sequences
1.23 Knowledge of Classifications and Categories
1.24 Knowledge of Criteria
1.25 Knowledge of Methodology
1.30 Knowledge of The Universals and Abstractions in a Field
1.31 Knowledge of Principles and Generalizations
1.32 Knowledge of Theories and Structures
Bloom's taxonomy
6
Criticism of the taxonomy
As Morshead (1965) pointed out on the publication of the second volume, the classification was not a properly
constructed taxonomy, as it lacked a systemic rationale of construction.
This was subsequently acknowledged in the discussion of the original taxonomy in its 2000 revision,
[8]
and the
taxonomy reestablished on more systematic lines. It is generally considered that the role the taxonomy played in
systematising a field was more important than any perceived lack of rigour in its construction.
Some critiques of the taxonomy's cognitive domain admit the existence of these six categories, but question the
existence of a sequential, hierarchical link.
[10]
Often, educators view the taxonomy as a hierarchy and dismiss the
lowest levels as unworthy of teaching
[citation needed]
. The learning of the lower levels enables the building of skills in
the higher levels of the taxonomy. This scaffolding process is an application of Vygotskian constructivism.
[11]
Also
the revised edition of Bloom's taxonomy has moved Synthesis higher in the order than Evaluation. Some consider
the three lowest levels as hierarchically ordered, but the three higher levels as parallel.
[8]
Others say that it is
sometimes better to move to Application before introducing concepts
[citation needed]
, the idea being to create a
learning environment where the real world context comes first and the theory second to promote the student's grasp
of the phenomenon, concept or event. This thinking would seem to relate to the method of problem-based learning.
Furthermore, the distinction between the categories can be seenWikipedia:Avoid weasel words as artificial since any
given cognitive task may entail a number of processes. It could even be argued that any attempt to nicely categorize
cognitive processes into clean, cut and dry classifications undermines the holistic, highly connective and interrelated
nature of cognition.
[12]
This is a criticism that can be directed at taxonomies of mental processes in general.
Implications
Blooms taxonomy serves as the backbone of many teaching philosophies, in particular those that lean more towards
skills rather than content.
[8][7]
These educators would view content as a vessel for teaching skills. The emphasis on
higher-order thinking inherent in such philosophies is based on the top levels of the taxonomy including analysis,
evaluation, synthesis and creation. Blooms taxonomy can be used as a teaching tool to help balance assessment and
evaluative questions in class, assignments and texts to ensure all orders of thinking are exercised in students
learning.
Connections to literature
The skill development that takes place at these higher orders of thinking synergizes well with a developing global
focus on multi-literacies and multimodalities in learning and the emerging field of integrated disciplines.
[13]
The
ability to interface with and create media would draw upon skills from multiple levels of the taxonomy including
analysis, application and creation.
[14][15]
Bloom's taxonomy (and the revised taxonomy) continues to be a source of
inspiration for educational philosophy and for developing new teaching strategies.
Notes
[1] [1] Bloom et al. 1956.
[2] [2] Orlich et al. 2004.
[3] [3] Shane 1981.
[4] [4] Bloom 1994.
[5] [5] Bloom et al. 1956, p.4: "The idea for this classification system was formed at an informal meeting of college examiners attending the 1948
American Psychological Association Convention in Boston. At this meeting, interest was expressed in a theoretical framework which could be
used to facilitate communication among examiners.
[6] [6] Clark 1999.
[7] [7] Krathwohl 2002.
[8] [8] Anderson et al. 2000.
[9] [9] Bloom et al. 1956, p.201.
Bloom's taxonomy
7
[10] [10] Paul 1993.
[11] [11] Vygotsky 1978.
[12] [12] Fadul 2009.
[13] Kress & Selander 2012.
[14] Paul & Elder 2004.
[15] [15] The New London Group 1996.
References
Airasian, Peter W.; Cruikshank, Kathleen A.; Mayer, Richard E.; Pintrich, Paul R.; Raths, James; Wittrock,
Merlin C. (2000). Anderson, Lorin W.; Krathwohl, David R., eds. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn and Bacon. ISBN978-0-8013-1903-7.
Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay
Company.
Bloom, B. S. (1994). Reflections on the development and use of the taxonomy. In Rehage, Kenneth J.; Anderson,
Lorin W.; Sosniak, Lauren A. "Bloom's taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective". Yearbook of the National Society
for the Study of Education (Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education) 93 (2). ISSN 1744-7984 (http:/
/ www. worldcat. org/ issn/ 1744-7984).
Clark, Donald R. (1999). "Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning Domains" (http:/ / www. nwlink. com/ ~donclark/ hrd/
bloom. html). Retrieved 28 Jan 2014.
Dave, R. H. (1975). Armstrong, R. J., ed. Developing and writing behavioral objectives. Tucson: Educational
Innovators Press.
Fadul, J. A. (2009). "Collective Learning: Applying distributed cognition for collective intelligence". The
International Journal of Learning 16 (4).
Harrow, Anita J. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives.
New York: David McKay Company.
Krathwohl, D. R.; Bloom, B. S.; Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals. Handbook II: the affective domain. New York: David McKay Company.
Krathwohl, David R. (2002). "A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview". Theory Into Practice (Routledge)
41 (4): 212 218. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s15430421tip4104_2). ISSN
0040-5841 (http:/ / www. worldcat. org/ issn/ 0040-5841).
Kress, G.; Selander, S. (2012). "Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition". Internet and Higher
Education 15 (1): 265 268. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.003 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1016/ j. iheduc. 2011. 12.
003).
Morshead, Richard W. (1965). "On Taxonomy of educational objectives Handbook II: Affective domain". Studies
in Philosophy and Education 4 (1): 164 170.
Orlich, Donald; Harder, Robert; Callahan, Richard; Trevisan, Michael; Brown, Abbie (2004). Teaching
strategies: a guide to effective instruction (7th ed.). Houghton Mifflin. ISBN978-0-6182-9999-7.
The New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social futures. Harvard Educational
Review.
Paul, R. (1993). Critical thinking: what every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world (3rd ed.).
Rohnert Park, California: Sonoma State University Press.
Paul, R.; Elder, L. (2004). Critical and creative thinking. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical
Thinking.
Shane, Harold G. (1981). "Significant writings that have influenced the curriculum: 1906-1981". Phi Delta
Kappan 62 (5): 311 314.
Simpson, Elizabeth J. (1966). "The classification of educational objectives: Psychomotor domain". Illinois
Journal of Home Economics 10 (4): 110 144.
Bloom's taxonomy
8
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). "Chapter 6: Interaction between learning and development". Mind in society: the
development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp.79 91.
Article Sources and Contributors
9
Article Sources and Contributors
Bloom's taxonomy Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=602231172 Contributors: 041744, Aboluay, Alan Liefting, Alan Pascoe, Anniepoo, AnthonyJ Lock, AshFR,
Australopithecus2, Avalon, BD2412, Bdean42, Beetstra, Beland, Bgwhite, Bitjungle, Bmcm, Bobjane12345, Burningview, CS46, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Cataniaj, Charitwo,
ChasFAdams, Chris 73, ChrisGualtieri, Dairyllama, Dave6, David Radcliffe, Deedee229, DennisDaniels, Drkeithphd, EIA258B, Egolde, ElKevbo, Emurphy42, Epbr123, Eranb, Eric-Wester,
Eyesnore, Falcon8765, Fgnievinski, Fnielsen, Fraggle81, Fuhghettaboutit, Fylbecatulous, Glane23, Glbosco, Goelsan, Grafen, Gregory j, Hanche, Happysailor, Harej, Hede2000, Islander, Jack
Greenmaven, Jacob J. Walker, Jayp01, Jim1138, Jimp, Jkallison123, Jleedev, Jlevilofff, JohnManuel, June1969, K. Aainsqatsi, Keith-264, Kejood, King of Hearts, KoshVorlon, Kusyadi,
Lbpage60, LilHelpa, Logical Cowboy, Lugia2453, Mac Davis, Mailman0, Mark Arsten, Materialscientist, Mentorsmentor, Mikofski, Mjklin, Monty845, Mr impossible, Mstraverse, MusicTree3,
Mynameisnotpj, Nanatdaboy39, Nesbit, Nghtwlkr, NoisyJinx, Noloop, Orange Suede Sofa, OrenBochman, OutreachEditor, PaweMM, Perey, Philip Trueman, Pichpich, Plaasjaapie, Prjacoby,
Prof Wrong, Pukerua, R'n'B, Rcsprinter123, RichardF, Robertgreer, Rror, Saistrup, SamuelTheGhost, Samwaltz, Sangchaud, Sango123, Sfgiants1995, Snibborcaasi, Stranden1, Suidafrikaan,
TheDreamkeepersDaughter, Theopolisme, Tomchiukc, Tony1, Trbdavies, Ts08ts, Tuanomsoc, Turadg, Ukexpat, Uqrbarna, Vacation9, Velella, Vigyani, WarthogDemon, Waveguy, Wavelength,
Whg2n, Widr, Wikipelli, Xxglennxx, Zaqws, Zfeinst, Zudduz, 303 anonymous edits
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors
Image:Blooms rose.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Blooms_rose.svg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: K. Aainsqatsi
Image:BloomsCognitiveDomain.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:BloomsCognitiveDomain.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: Nesbit (converted by King of
Hearts into SVG)
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/