BLOOM’S TAXONOMY OF LEARNING DOMAINS 7
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Kristi N. Garrett
University of Alabama
In 1956, Dr. Benjamin Bloom chaired a committee of educational psychologist in effort to develop a system of categories of learning behavior that would assist in the design and assessment of educational learning (“Bloom’s taxonomy-learning domains,” Bloom’s taxonomy domains section). Bloom and his colleagues developed three domains: Cognitive, Affective, and Psycho-motor; often referred to as Knowledge, Attitude, and Skills respectively (“Bloom’s taxonomy-learning domains,” Bloom’s taxonomy domains section). It was Bloom’s believe that education should promote mastery levels of knowledge based learning opposed to memorization based learning. He considered education as a continuous process, in which the learning process and the cognitive growth are analyzed and measured in order to evaluate the learners understanding of the educational goals to reach the desired level of knowledge.
The Cognitive domain is used by educators to help learners achieve optimal learning and categorize learning objectives. This domain consists of six levels: Recall, Grasp, Apply, Analyze, Synthesize, and Judge (“Instructional objectives: Bloom’s taxonomy,” Bloom’s taxonomy overview section). Those levels were revamped by Bloom into the following respectively (“Instructional objectives: Bloom’s taxonomy,” Bloom’s taxonomy overview section):
· Knowledge- focuses on the recognition and memorization of information (“Instructional objectives: Bloom’s taxonomy,” Bloom’s taxonomy overview section).
· Comprehension- focuses on the organization of ideas and ability to draw conclusions (“Instructional objectives: Bloom’s taxonomy,” Bloom’s taxonomy overview section).
· Application- focuses on acquired knowledge for use in problem solving (“Instructional objectives: Bloom’s taxonomy,” Bloom’s taxonomy overview section).
· Analysis- focuses on the ability to dissect and organization information into logical conclusions (“Instructional objectives: Bloom’s taxonomy,” Bloom’s taxonomy overview section).
· Synthesis- focuses on applying new and creative methods to the learned knowledge (“Instructional objectives: Bloom’s taxonomy,” Bloom’s taxonomy overview section).
· Evaluation- focuses on the ability to make logical judgment (“Instructional objectives: Bloom’s taxonomy,” Bloom’s taxonomy overview section).
Bloom’s Cognitive level names were revised from noun to verb form in addition to slight order rearrangement in the 1990’s by Lorin Anderson, one of his [Bloom’s] students (Clark, 1995). Using the new domain levels, a person’s learning process starts at the Knowledge/Remembering level and progresses in sequential order until reaching the Evaluation/Creating level. Below is a table that illustrates correlation between the old and new Cognitive levels (Clark, 1995):
Old Domain Levels / New Domain LevelsEvaluation / Creating
Synthesis / Evaluating
Analysis / Analyzing
Application / Applying
Comprehension / Understanding
Knowledge / Remembering
The Affective domain does not have the same level of detail as the Cognitive level. According to Atherton (2009), it is concerned with values, or more precisely perhaps with perception of value issues, and ranges from mere awareness (Receiving), through to being able to distinguish implicit values through analysis (Kratwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964). Clark (1995) summarizes the five levels of the Attitude domain as (Kratwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1973):
· Receiving Phenomena- requires a learner’s awareness in addition to willingness to listen (Clark, 1995).
· Responding to Phenomena- requires active participation from the learner (Clark, 1995).
· Valuing- focuses on the value a learner attaches to a particular object (Clark, 1995).
· Organization- organizes values into priorities by contrasting and creating a unique value system (Clark, 1995).
· Internalizing Values- focuses on a learner having a value system that controls their behaviors (Clark, 1995).
The psycho-motor domain (Clark, 1995) includes physical movement, coordination, and use of the motor-skill areas (Simpson, 1972). Development of these skills requires practice and is measured in terms of speed, precision, distance, procedures, or techniques in execution (Clark, 1995). Below are the seven major categories listed from the simplest behavior to the most complex according to Clark (1995):
· Perception- The ability to use sensory cues to guide motor activity (Clark, 1995).
· Set- A person’s readiness to act in a situation (Clark, 1995).
· Guided Response- The early stages in learning a complex skill that includes imitation and trial and error (Clark, 1995).
· Mechanism- Learned responses have become habitual and the movements can be performed with some confidence and proficiency (Clark, 1995).
· Complex Overt Response- The skillful performance of motor acts that involve complex movement patterns (Clark, 1995).
· Adaptation- Skills are well developed and the individual can modify movement patterns to fit special requirements (Clark, 1995).
· Origination- Creating new movement patterns to fit a particular situation or specific problem (Clark, 1995).
In a distance learning environment, the Cognitive domain would be more appropriate since it focuses on progressing the learner’s knowledge from the ability to recall information into creating and formalizing new ideas and solutions. In the distance learning environment, classes should be designed to allow the learner to master skills in a variety of methods. For example, using the Cognitive domain, a distance education Microsoft Publisher class would be developed to assist learners in migrating from the Remembering level to the Creating level. In the Remembering level, the instructor would make reading assignments and then have the learner to take a multiple choice/matching test. This would allow the learner to reflect on the material read in order to memorize and make associations while taking the test. In the Understanding level, the instructor would develop discussion questions based on the assigned reading that allows the learner to summarize into their own words, therefore showing their level of understanding. Next at the Applying level, the instructor would use practical assignments to allow the learner to practice what was read and discussed into an applicable situation using Microsoft Publisher. This would give the learner the hands on experience therefore correlating the reading assignments to the practical exercise. Once the learner has grasped the applying level, the instructor would then ask follow up discussion questions that require the learner to share their finished practical assignments with the class in order for each learner to compare and dissect at the Analyzing level. Moving into the Evaluating level, the instructor would then ask the learner to propose new ideas of how other learners could improve their practical assignment. This would serve as a peer review opportunity for all learners and allow each to collaborate on the practical assignment. The learner has now elevated from the lowest Cognitive level to the highest once they move into the Creating level. This would be accomplished by the learner reflecting on the peer review comments and applying the feedback to new projects. These levels would give the instructor the opportunity to continuously evaluate how well each learner is receiving the course material. At this point the instructor has developed each learner in a manner that fosters thinking outside of the box.
References
Atherton, J. S. (2009). Bloom's taxonomy. Retrieved from
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/bloomtax.htm
Business Balls. (n.d). Bloom’s taxonomy-learning domains. Retrieved from
http://www.businessballs.com/bloomstaxonomyoflearningdomains.htm
Clark, D. (1995). Bloom’s taxonomy of learning domains: The three types of learning. Retrieved
from http://www.nwlink.com/~Donclark/hrd/bloom.html#affective
Connecticut Network ToolBox. (n.d.). Instructional objectives: Bloom’s taxonomy of
educational objectives. Retrieved from http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/civics/bloom.asp#_ftn1
Kratwohl, D.R, Bloom, B.S., Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the
classification of educational goals-Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: McKay
Co., Inc.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1973). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,
the Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York:
McKay Co., Inc.
Simpson E. J. (1972). The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain.
Washington, DC: Gryphon House.