Bloom Taxonomy

Bloom Taxonomy
Source: http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/edpsyint.html
• Beginning in 1948, a group of educators undertook the task of classifying education goals and
objectives. The intent was to develop a classification system for three domains: the cognitive,
the affective, and the psychomotor. Work on the cognitive domain was completed in 1956 and
is commonly referred to as Bloom's Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (Bloom et al., 1956).
Others have developed taxonomies for the affective and psychomotor domains.
• The major idea of the taxonomy is that what educators want students to know (encompassed in
statements of educational objectives) can be arranged in a hierarchy from less to more
complex. The levels are understood to be successive, so that one level must be mastered before
the next level can be reached.
• The original levels by Bloom et al. (1956) were ordered as
Student translates, Explain

The student will explain
comprehends, or Summarize
the purpose of Bloom's
COMPREHENSION interprets information Paraphrase
taxonomy of the
based on prior Describe
cognitive domain.
learning. Illustrate
Student selects, trans- Use
The student will
fers, and uses data Compute
write an instructional
and principles to Solve
APPLICATION objective for each
complete a problem Demonstrate
level of Bloom's
or task with a mini- Apply
taxonomy.
mum of direction. Construct
Student distinguishes,
Analyze
classifies, and relates The student will
Categorize
the assumptions, compare and contrast
ANALYSIS Compare
hypotheses, evidence, the cognitive and
Contrast
or structure of a affective domains.
Separate
statement or question.
The student will
Student originates, design a classification
Create
integrates, and scheme for writing
Design
combines ideas into a educational objectives
SYNTHESIS Hypothesize
product, plan or that combines the
Invent
proposal that is new cognitive, affective,
Develop
to him or her. and psychomotor
domains.
The student will
Student appraises, Judge
judge the effective-
assesses, or critiques Recommend
EVALUATION ness of writing
on a basis of specific Critique
objectives using
standards and criteria. Justify
Bloom's taxonomy.
follows: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. The
taxonomy is presented below with sample verbs and a sample behavior statement for each
level.
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revised Bloom's taxonomy to fit the more outcome-focused modern

education objectives, including switching the names of the levels from nouns to active verbs, and
reversing the order of the highest two levels. The lowest-order level (Knowledge)
became Remembering, in which the student is asked to recall or remember
information. Comprehension, became Understanding, in which the student would explain or describe
concepts. Application became Applying, or using the information in some new way, such as choosing,
writing, or interpreting. Analysis was revised to become Analyzing, requiring the student to differentiate
between different components or relationships, demonstrating the ability to compare and
contrast. These four levels remain the same as Bloom et al.’s (1956) original well-known and accepted
hierarchy.
In general, research over the last 40 years has confirmed the taxonomy as a hierarchy with the
exception of the last two levels. It is uncertain at this time whether synthesis and evaluation should be
reversed (i.e., evaluation is less difficult to accomplish than synthesis) or whether synthesis and
evaluation are at the same level of difficulty but use different cognitive processes. The two highest, most
complex levels of Synthesis and Evaluation were reversed in the revised model, and were renamed
Evaluating and Creating by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001). As they did not provide empirical evidence
for this reversal, it is my belief that these two highest levels are essentially equal in level of
complexity. Both depend on analysis as a foundational process. However, synthesis or creating requires
rearranging the parts in a new, original way whereas evaluation or evaluating requires a comparison to a
standard with a judgment as to good, better or best. This is similar to the distinction betweencreative
thinking and critical thinking. Both are valuable while neither is superior. In fact, when either is omitted
during the problem solving process, effectiveness declines (Huitt, 1992).
Synthesis Evaluation
Analysis
Application
Comprehension
Knowledge
In any case it is clear that students can "know" about a topic or subject at different levels. While most
teacher-made tests still test at the lower levels of the taxonomy, research has shown that students
remember more when they have learned to handle the topic at the higher levels of the taxonomy
(Garavalia, Hummel, Wiley, & Huitt, 1999). This is because more elaboration is required, a principle of
learning based on finding from the information processing approach to learning.
References
 Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing:
A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
 Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York,
Toronto: Longmans, Green.
 Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom's taxonomy: Original and revised.. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging
perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved January 2009,
from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt
 Garavalia, L., Hummel, J., Wiley, L., & Huitt, W. (1999). Constructing the course syllabus: Faculty
and student perceptions of important syllabus components. Journal of Excellence in College
Teaching, 10(1), 5-22. Available online
athttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/cons_course_syll.doc
 Huitt, W. (1992). Problem solving and decision making: Consideration of individual differences
using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.Journal of Psychological Type, 24, 33-44. Retrieved June
2004, from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/prbsmbti.html

Bloom Taxonomy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bloom Taxonomy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bloom Taxonomy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bloom Taxonomy

• The original levels by Bloom et al. (1956) were ordered as

Student translates, Explain

Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revised Bloom's taxonomy to fit the more outcome-focused modern

You might also like