5. - Bloom's Taxonomy of Cognitive Domain
Bloom et al.'s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain
Citation: Huitt, W. (2009). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved [date], from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/bloom.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 follows: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. The taxonomy is presented below with sample verbs and a sample behavior statement for each level.
| DEFINITION | SAMPLE VERBS | SAMPLE BEHAVIORS | |
| KNOWLEDGE | Student recalls or recognizes information, ideas, and principles in the approximate form in which they were learned. | Write List Label Name State Define | The student will define the 6 levels of Bloom's taxonomy of the cognitive domain. |
| COMPREHENSION | Student translates, comprehends, or interprets information based on prior learning. | Explain Summarize Paraphrase Describe Illustrate | The student will explain the purpose of Bloom's taxonomy of the cognitive domain. |
| APPLICATION | Student selects, trans- fers, and uses data and principles to complete a problem or task with a mini- mum of direction. | Use Compute Solve Demonstrate Apply Construct | The student will write an instructional objective for each level of Bloom's taxonomy. |
| ANALYSIS | Student distinguishes, classifies, and relates the assumptions, hypotheses, evidence, or structure of a statement or question. | Analyze Categorize Compare Contrast Separate | The student will compare and contrast the cognitive and affective domains. |
| SYNTHESIS | Student originates, integrates, and combines ideas into a product, plan or proposal that is new to him or her. | Create Design Hypothesize Invent Develop | The student will design a classification scheme for writing educational objectives that combines the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. |
| EVALUATION | Student appraises, assesses, or critiques on a basis of specific standards and criteria. | Judge Recommend Critique Justify | The student will judge the effective- ness of writing objectives using Bloom's taxonomy. |
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 between creative 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, fromhttp://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 at http://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
No comments:
Post a Comment