What is Blooms taxonomy of educational objectives in the cognitive domain?
By Charlotte Ruhl, published May 24, 2021 Show
Take-home Messages
Take a moment and think back to your 7th-grade humanities classroom. Or really any classroom from preschool to college. As you enter the room, you glance up at the whiteboard to see the class objectives. “Students will be able to…” is written in a red expo marker. Or maybe something like “by the end of the class, you will be able to…” These learning objectives we are exposed to every day are a product of Bloom’s Taxonomy. What is Bloom’s Taxonomy?
You might have heard the word “taxonomy” in biology class before, because it is most commonly used to denote the classification of living things from kingdom to species. In the same way that this taxonomy classifies organisms, Bloom’s Taxonomy classifies learning objectives for students, from recalling facts to producing new and original work. Development of the TaxonomyBenjamin Bloom was an educational psychologist and the chair of the committee of educators at the University of Chicago.
Through conducting a series of studies that focused on student achievement, the team was able to isolate certain factors both inside and outside the school environment that affect how children learn. One such factor was the lack of variation in teaching. In other words, teachers were not meeting each individual student’s needs and instead relied upon one universal curriculum. To address this, Bloom and his colleagues postulated that if teachers were to provide individualized educational plans, students would learn significantly better. This hypothesis inspired the development of Bloom’s Mastery Learning procedure in which teachers would organize specific skills and concepts into week-long units. The completion of each unit would be followed by an assessment through which the student would reflect upon what they learned. The assessment would identify areas in which the student needs additional support, and they would then be given corrective activities to further sharpen their mastery of the concept (Bloom, 1971). This theory that students would be able to master subjects when teachers relied upon suitable learning conditions and clear learning objectives was guided by Bloom’s Taxonomy. The Original Taxonomy (1956)Bloom’s Taxonomy was originally published in 1956 in a paper titled Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom, 1956). The taxonomy provides different levels of learning objectives, divided by complexity. Only after a student masters one level of learning goals, through formative assessments, corrective activities, and other enrichment exercises, can they move onto the next level (Guskey, 2005). Cognitive Domain Concerned with thinking and intellectThe original version of the taxonomy, the cognitive domain, is the first and most common hierarchy of learning objectives (Bloom, 1956). It focuses on the acquisition and application of knowledge and is widely used in the educational setting. This initial cognitive model relies on nouns, or more passive words, to illustrate the different educational benchmarks. Because it is hierarchical, the higher levels of the pyramid are dependent on having achieved the skills of the lower levels. The individual tiers of the cognitive model from bottom to top, with examples included, are as follows:
Types of KnowledgeAlthough knowledge might be the most intuitive block of the cognitive model pyramid, this dimension is actually broken down into four different types of knowledge:
However, this is not to say that this order reflects how concrete or abstract these forms of knowledge are (e.g., procedural knowledge is not always more abstract than conceptual knowledge). Nevertheless, it is important to outline these different forms of knowledge to show how it is more dynamic than one may think, and that there are multiple different types of knowledge that can be recalled before moving onto the comprehension phase.
The Affective Domain (1964) Concerned with feeling and emotionThe affective model came as a second handbook (with the first being the cognitive model) and an extension of Bloom’s original work (Krathwol et al., 1964). This domain focuses on the ways in which we handle all things related to emotions, such as feelings, values, appreciation, enthusiasms, motivations, and attitudes (Clark, 2015). From lowest to highest, with examples included, the five levels are:
The Psychomotor Domain (1972) Concerned with skilled behaviorThe third and final domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy is the psychomotor domain. The psychomotor model focuses on physical movement, coordination, and anything related to motor skills. Mastery of these specific skills is marked by speed, precision, and distance. These psychomotor skills range from simple tasks, such as washing a car, to more complex tasks, such as operating an intricate piece of technological equipment. As with the cognitive domain, the psychomotor model does not come without its modifications. This model was first published by Robert Armstrong and colleagues in 1970 and included five levels: 1) imitation; 2) manipulation; 3) precision; 4) articulation; 5) naturalization. These tiers represent different degrees of performing a skill from exposure to mastery. Two years later, Anita Harrow (1972) proposed a revised version with six levels: 1) reflex movements; 2) fundamental movements; 3) perceptual abilities; 4) physical abilities; 5) skilled movements; 6) non-discursive communication. This model is concerned with the development of physical fitness, dexterity, agility, and body control and focuses on varying degrees of coordination from reflexes to highly expressive movements. That same year, Elizabeth Simpson (1972) created a taxonomy that progresses from observation to invention. The seven tiers, along with examples, are listed below:
The Revised Taxonomy (2001)In 2001, the original cognitive model was modified by educational psychologists David Krathwol (with whom Bloom worked on the initial taxonomy) and Lorin Anderson (who was a previous student of Bloom’s!) and published with the title A Taxonomy for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. This revised taxonomy emphasizes a more dynamic approach to education, as opposed to shoehorning educational objectives into fixed, unchanging spaces.
The figure below illustrates what words were changed as well as a slight adjustment to the hierarchy itself (evaluation and synthesis were swapped). Together, the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor models make up Bloom’s Taxonomy. How Bloom’s can aid in course designThanks to Bloom’s Taxonomy, teachers across the nation have a tool to guide the development of assignments, assessments, and overall curricula. This model helps teachers identify the key learning objectives they want a student to achieve for each unit because it succinctly details the process of learning. The taxonomy explains that 1) before you can understand a concept, you need to remember it; 2) to apply a concept, you need to first understand it; 3) to evaluate a process, you need to first analyze it; 4) to create something new, you need to have completed a thorough evaluation (Shabatura, 2013). This hierarchy takes students through a process of synthesizing information that allows them to think critically. Students start with a piece of information and are motivated to ask questions and seek out answers.
The revised version reminds teachers that learning is an active process, stressing the importance of including measurable verbs in the objectives. And the clear structure of the taxonomy itself emphasizes the importance of keeping learning objectives clear and concise as opposed to vague and abstract (Shabatura, 2013). Bloom’s Taxonomy even applies at the broader course level. That is, in addition to being applied to specific classroom units, Bloom’s Taxonomy can be applied to an entire course to determine what the learning goals of that course should be. Specifically, lower level introductory courses, that are typically geared towards freshmen, will target Bloom’s lower order skills as students build foundational knowledge. However, that is not to say that this is the only level that is incorporated, but you might only move a couple rungs up the ladder into the applying and analyzing stages. On the other hand, upper level classes don’t place as much emphasis on remembering and understanding because students in these courses have already mastered this skill. As a result, these courses focus instead on higher order learning objectives such as evaluating and creating (Shabatura, 2013). In this way, professors can reflect upon what type of course they are teaching and refer to Bloom’s Taxonomy to determine what they want the overall learning objectives of the course to be. Having these clear and organized objectives allows teachers to plan and deliver appropriate instruction, design valid tasks and assessments, and ensure that such instruction and assessment actually aligns with the outlined objectives (Armstrong, 2010). Overall, Bloom’s Taxonomy helps teachers teach and helps students learn! Critical EvaluationBloom’s Taxonomy accomplishes the seemingly daunting task of taking the important and complex topic of thinking and giving it a concrete structure. The taxonomy continues to provide teachers and educators with a framework for guiding the way they set learning goals for students and how they design their curriculum. And by having specific questions or general assignments that align with Bloom’s principles, students are encouraged to engage in higher order thinking. However, even though it is still used today, this taxonomy does not come without its flaws. As mentioned before, the initial 1956 taxonomy presented learning as a static concept. Although this was ultimately addressed by the 2001 revised version that included active verbs to emphasize the dynamic nature of learning, Bloom’s updated structure is still met with multiple criticisms. Many psychologists take issue with the pyramid nature of the taxonomy. The shape creates the false impression that these cognitive steps are discrete and must be performed independent of one another (Anderson & Krathwol, 2001). However, the vast majority of tasks require several cognitive skills to work in tandem with each other. In other words, a task will not be only an analysis or only a comprehension task. Rather, they occur simultaneously as opposed to sequentially. The structure also makes it seem like that some of these skills are more difficult and more important than others. However, when people adopt this mindset, it causes less of an emphasis to be placed on knowledge and comprehension, which are as, if not more, important that the processes towards the top of the pyramid. Additionally, author Doug Lemov (2017) argues that this contributes to a national trend that devalues the importance of knowledge. He goes even further to say that lower income students who have less exposure to sources of information suffer from a knowledge gap in schools. A third problem with the taxonomy is that the sheer order of elements is inaccurate. When we learn, we don’t always start with remembering and then move onto comprehension and through to creating something new. Instead, we mostly learn by applying and creating. For example, you don’t really know how to write an essay until you actually do it. And you might not know how to speak Spanish until you actually do it (Berger, 2020). The act of doing is where the learning lies, as opposed to moving through a regimented, linear process. Despite these several valid criticisms of Bloom’s Taxonomy, this model is still widely used today.
About the AuthorCharlotte Ruhl is a member of the Class of 2022 at Harvard University. She studies Psychology with a minor in African American Studies. On campus, Charlotte works at an implicit social cognition research lab, is an editor for the undergraduate law review, and plays softball. How to reference this article:How to reference this article:Ruhl , C. (2021, May 24). Bloom’s taxonomy of learning. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/blooms-taxonomy.html APA Style ReferencesAnderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman. Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/ Armstrong, R. J. (1970). Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives. Berger, R. (2020). Here's what's wrong with bloom's taxonomy: A deeper learning perspective (opinion). Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/education/opinion-heres-whats-wrong-with-blooms-taxonomy-a-deeper-learning-perspective/2018/03 Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 20, 24. Bloom, B. S. (1971). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice (pp. 47–63). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Clark, D. (2015). Bloom's taxonomy: The affective domain. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/Bloom/affective_domain.html Guskey, T. R. (2005). Formative Classroom Assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom: Theory, Research, and Implications. Online Submission. Harrow, A.J. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain. New York: David McKay Co. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218. Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Co. Lemov, D. (2017). Bloom's taxonomy-that pyramid is a problem. Retrieved from https://teachlikeachampion.com/blog/blooms-taxonomy-pyramid-problem/ Revised Bloom's Taxonomy. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/effective-teaching-practices/revised-blooms-taxonomy/ Shabatura, J. (2013). Using bloom's taxonomy to write effective learning objectives. Retrieved from https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/ Simpson, E. J. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the Psychomotor domain, Illinois University. Urbana. How to reference this article:How to reference this article:Ruhl , C. (2021, May 24). Bloom’s taxonomy of learning. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/blooms-taxonomy.html Home | About Us | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Contact Us Simply Psychology's content is for informational and educational purposes only. Our website is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. © Simply Scholar Ltd - All rights reserved
What is Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives in the cognitive domain?Bloom's taxonomy differentiates between cognitive skill levels and calls attention to learning objectives that require higher levels of cognitive skills and, therefore, lead to deeper learning and transfer of knowledge and skills to a greater variety of tasks and contexts.
What is cognitive domain according to Bloom's taxonomy?Cognitive Domain. The cognitive domain (Bloom, 1956) involves knowledge and the development of intellectual skills. This includes the recall or recognition of specific facts, procedural patterns, and concepts that serve in the development of intellectual abilities and skills.
What is Bloom's taxonomy of learning objectives explain each?Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives is a hierarchical ordering of skills in different domains whose primary use is to help teachers teach and students learn effectively and efficiently. The meaning of Bloom's taxonomy can be understood by exploring its three learning domains—cognitive, affective and psychomotor.
What is Bloom's taxonomy of education?Bloom's taxonomy is a classification system used to define and distinguish different levels of human cognition—i.e., thinking, learning, and understanding.
|