Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Transcript of Bloom's Taxonomy
The cognitive domain represented the thinking process that students would undergo while in the classroom (Benjamin Bloom, 2013; (Committee of College and University Examiners, 1956; Unger, 1996). Knowledge was the most basic level, and involved recall of previously learned materials. Comprehension was next in complexity, and constituted demonstrating understanding by manipulating the concepts learned. Application was third, and consisted of applying the knowledge to new situations or in different ways. The fourth level, analysis, was to break down information into parts, making inferences, and finding data to support generalizations. Synthesis, the fifth level, involved setting up elements to make new patterns. Evaluation was sixth, and consisted of presenting and defending opinions based on validity of findings.
The affective domain dealt with the emotional skills that students would exhibit while at school (Benjamin Bloom, 2013; Unger, 1996). This domain had five stages: receiving, responding, valuing, organizing, and characterizing. Receiving was when students passively listened to speakers. Responding was for students to react in some way to speakers. Valuing was when students gave emotional meaning to things, people, occurrences, and/or information. Organizing was for students to place knowledge and values in a greater scheme of things. Characterizing involved students having opinions that affected their behavior consistently.
The psychomotor domain described skills that had to do with the physical manipulation of objects (Unger, 1996). Even though Bloom and his colleagues acknowledged the existence of this domain, they did not establish its categories (Benjamin Bloom, 2013).
Instructional Problems NOT Addressed
Anderson, L. (2002). Benjamin Samuel Bloom (1913-1999).
American Psychologist, 57
Benjamin Bloom. (2013, January 29). New World Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Benjamin_Bloom&oldid=966656
Bloom, B. S. (1976).
Human characteristics and school learning.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Booker, M. (2007). A roof without walls: Benjamin's Bloom taxonomy and the misdirection of American education.
Academic Questions, 20
Committee of College and University Examiners. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives (Vol. 1). New York: David McKay.
Eisner, E. (2000). Benjamin bloom.
Prospects: The quarterly review of comparative education, 30
Gershon, M. (2013, October 28). Classroom practice: Still blooming after almost 60 years.
. Retrieved from http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6369675
Hains, B. J., & Smith, B. (2012). Student-centered course design: Empowering students to become self-directed learners.
Journal of Experiential Education, 35
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Unger, H. G. (1996). Encyclopedia of American education. New York: Facts on File.
Wineburg, S., & Schneider, J. (2010). Was Bloom's taxonomy pointed in the wrong direction? Phi Delta Kappan, 91(4), 56-61.
Wright, S. (2012, May 15). Flipping Bloom's taxonomy. Retrieved from http://plpnetwork.com/2012/05/15/flipping-blooms-taxonomy/
Published in 1956 by Dr. Benjamin Bloom &
The taxonomy is weighted toward knowledge (remembering) rather than creativity:
By placing knowledge at the base, it receives all the glamor, and implies all the facts of the world are fully known, therefore forcing critical thinking to deal with the assembly of those facts (Wineburg & Schneider, 2009).
As Hains and Smith (2012) state, mastering knowledge and reason is no longer acceptable because they must learn to apply knowledge outside the classroom.
Flipping the taxonomy, so it begins with creativity, allows students to explore all directions rather than being stagnant (Wright, 2012).
List of Publications
Anderson, Lorin W. & Krathwohl, David R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: a Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy
Biggs, John & Tang, Catherine. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University
Bloom, Benjamin S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain
Bloom, Benjamin S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals
Bloom, Benjamin S. (1976). Human Characteristics and School Learning
Bloom, Benjamin S. (1980). All Our Children Learning
Knowles, Malcolm S. (1970). The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy
Knowles, Malcolm S. (1973). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species
Marzano, Robert (2001). Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
Instructional Problems Addressed
According to Eisner (2000), Bloom's Taxonomy has the following characteristics:
What students experience is what matters
The taxonomy leads students to higher level thinking
The focus is goal attainment rather than student comparison
It offers ways of optimizing human aptitude
It can be used in curriculum building, teaching, and assessment
Sylvia Beste & Sarah Viesca
Co. (Booker, 2007). The idea developed when a
group of academics decided to create a
framework of classifying statements for what was
expected/intended to be learned by students,
and thus produced a 6 level hierarchal
framework (Gershon, 2013).
Though it didn't necessarily replace a theory, it merged with what was established and soon became the de facto standard (Marzano & Kendall, 2007).
1960's - fit in nicely with instructional objects devised by Robert Mager (Marzano & Kendall, 2007)
1970's - became the preferred Title I system for determining program objectives (Marzano & Kendall, 2007)
1980's - with the hype of standardized testing and the emphasis on higher levels of thinking, educators felt there was a need for revisions (Marzano & Kendall, 2007)
2000 - David Krathwohl and Lorin Anderson, colleagues of Bloom, devised a new version (Gershon, 2013)
While the new version still contains 6 categories,
3 were renamed and 2 changed positions.
Synthesis of Perspective
Benjamin Bloom believed, and his research findings supported, that favorable learning conditions could lead most students to develop high learning ability, rate of learning, and desire for further learning (Anderson, 2002; Bloom, 1976). To this end, he and other collaborators created a classification of educational objectives to help stakeholders – administrators, teachers, curriculum builders, etc. – plan curriculum and assessment devices to accurately measure student learning (Committee of College and University Examiners, 1956), as well as to guide students from basic knowledge to higher complexity understanding and practice of their skills (Eisner, 2000). This hierarchical classification was divided into three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Each domain contained categories and subcategories that employed descriptive terms as indicators of student learning, and overall development.
Oversimplifies the nature of thought and its relationship to learning:
The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, according to Bloom (1956) had the focus of:
Helping curriculum builders specify objectives to plan learning experiences
Facilitating the exchange of information about curriculum development and forms of evaluation
Classifying the goals of the educational system
Clarifying descriptive terms for student activities
Offering easier measurement of objectives
The taxonomy assumes a simple construct of difficulty in the characteristics separating one level from another (Marzano & Kendall, 2007). In other words, it is often difficult to recognize if questions at higher levels of the hierarchy are really more difficult.
Part of why this happens is due to the fact that the taxonomy was intended as a tool for post secondary instruction and not curriculum design (Booker, 2007).