<< Chapter < Page Chapter >> Page >

Bloom’s taxonomy revised

A few years ago two of Benjamin Bloom’s original colleagues, Linda Anderson and David Krathwohl, revised his taxonomy so as to clarify its terms and to make it more complete (Anderson&Krathwohl, 2001; Marzano, 2006). The resulting categories are summarized and compared to the original categories in Table 6. As the chart shows, several categories of objectives have been renamed and a second dimension added that describes the kind of thinking or cognitive processing that may occur. The result is a much richer taxonomy than before, since every level of the objectives can now take four different forms. Remembering, for example, can refer to four different kinds of memory: memory for facts, for concepts, for procedures, or for metacognitive knowledge. Table 6 gives examples of each of these kinds of memory.

Caption: The revision to Bloom’s Taxonomy distinguishes between cognitive processes (left-hand column in the table) and types of knowledge learned (right-hand column). The original version has terms similar to the cognitive processing terms in the revised version. According to the revised version, any type of knowledge (from the right-hand column) can, in principle, occur with any type of cognitive processing (left-hand column).
Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive objectives—revised
Original term from Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) Revised term emphasizing cognitive processing (2001) A new dimension added: types of knowledge learned (2001) Example of cognitive process remembering combined with possible types of knowledge
Knowledge Remembering Memory for facts: recalling the names of each part of a living cell
Comprehension Understanding
Application Applying
Analysis Analyzing
Evaluation Evaluating
Synthesis Creating
  • factual knowledge
  • conceptual knowledge
  • procedural knowledge
  • metacognitive knowledge
Memory for concepts: recalling the functions of each part of a living cell
Memory for procedures: recalling how to view a cell under a microscope
Memory for metacognition: recalling not the names of the parts, but a technique for remembering the names of the parts of a living cell

Taxonomies of affective objectives and psychomotor objectives

Although taxonomies related to affect, or the feelings and emotions of students, are used less commonly than cognitive taxonomies for planning instruction, various educators have constructed them. One of the most widely known was also published by colleagues of Benjamin Bloom and classifies affect according to how committed a student feels toward what he is learning (Krathwohl, Bloom,&Masia, 1964/1999). [link] summarizes the categories and gives brief examples. The lowest level, called receiving, simply involves willingness to experience new knowledge or activities. Higher levels involve embracing or adopting experiences in ways that are increasingly organized and that represent increasingly stable forms of commitment.

Taxonomies of objectives: affective domain and psychomotor domain
Affective domain Psychomotor domain
Receiving Willingness to attend to particular experience Imitation Repeating a simple action that has been demonstrated
Responding Willingness to participate actively in an experience Manipulation Practice of an action that has been imitated but only learned partially
Valuing Perception of experience as worthwhile Precision Quick, smooth execution of an action that has been practiced
Organization Coordination of valued experiences into partially coherent wholes Articulation Execution of an action not only with precision, but also with modifications appropriate to new circumstances
Characterization by a value complex Coordination of valued experiences and of organized sets of experiences into a single comprehensive value hierarchy Naturalization Incorporation of an action into the motor repertoire, along with experimentation with new motor actions

Taxonomies related to abilities and skills that are physical, or psychomotor, have also been used less widely than affective taxonomies, with the notable exception of one area of teaching where they are obviously relevant: physical education. As you might expect, taxonomic categories of motor skills extend from simple, brief actions to complex, extended action sequences that combine simpler, previously learned skills smoothly and automatically (Harrow, 1972; Simpson, 1972). One such classification scheme is shown in [link] . An example of a very basic psychomotor skill might be imitating the action of throwing a ball when modeled by someone else; an example of the latter might be performing a 10 minute gymnastics routine which the student has devised for himself or herself. Note, though, that many examples of psychomotor skills also exist outside the realm of physical education. In a science course, for example, a student might need to learn to operate laboratory equipment that requires using delicate, fine movements. In art classes, students might learn to draw, and in music they might learn to play an instrument (both are partly motor skills). Most first graders are challenged by the motor skills of learning to write. For students with certain physical disabilities, furthermore, motor skill development is an important priority for the student’s entire education.

Get Jobilize Job Search Mobile App in your pocket Now!

Get it on Google Play Download on the App Store Now




Source:  OpenStax, Educational psychology. OpenStax CNX. May 11, 2011 Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11302/1.2
Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google Inc.

Notification Switch

Would you like to follow the 'Educational psychology' conversation and receive update notifications?

Ask