Downloaded 51 times
![R E F E R E N C E S
Aviles, C.B. (1999). Understanding and testing for "critical thinking" with Bloom's Taxonomy
of educational objectives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Council
on Social Work Education (45th, San Francisco, CA, March 10-13, 1999. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED446025.pdf
Bloom, B., S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive domain. NY: Longman.
Chan, C.V., Matthews, L.A. & Kaufman, D.R. (2009). A taxonomy characterizing complexity of
consumer ehealth literacy. AMIA Annual Symposiums Proceedings, 2009, 86-90.
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815448/
Tigerskins Unreleased Ambient & Electronika Nuggets Mixtape 1994-96. [Audio recording].
Retrieved from Tigerskins Unreleased Ambient & Electronika Nuggets Mixtape 1994-96
Van Der Volgen, J. (2014, April 9). Bloom’s taxonomy tool [Blog post]. National Network of
Libraries of Medicine. Retrieved from http://nnlm.gov/ntc/2014/04/09/blooms-taxonomy-
tool/
Wiggins, G., McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/bloomstaxonomy-140918080332-phpapp02/75/Bloom-s-taxonomy-27-2048.jpg)
More Related Content
Bloom’s taxonomy
- 1. BLOOM’S TAXONOMY AB R I E F I N T R O D U C T I O N T O T H E O R I G I N A L A N D R E V I S E D T A X O N O M I E S
- 2. WHAT IS BLOOM’S TAXONOMY? • A classification system for levels of behavior that are important in learning – Knowledge is acquired at certain definable levels • The taxonomy is cumulative and hierarchical – Levels build on top of each other – Each level contains all behaviors from previous levels – Simple recall of facts at the lowest level – Mastery of a level required before moving up to the next higher one – Students continue moving up levels to the highest one (Evaluation in original, Create in
- 3. H O WD I D I T H A P P E N ? Benjamin Bloom headed a committee of educational psychologists that devised the classification system in 1956. The committee was formed out of a meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA). The group came up with three major areas of educational activities: - Cognitive: mental skills (Knowledge) - Psychomotor: manual or physical skills (Skills) - Affective: growth in feelings or emotional areas (Attitude) The committee focused on the cognitive domain and developed six levels within it.
- 4. W H AT I S I T F O R ? Writing educational objectives Development of most testing formats Identifying critical thinking in students Taxonomy does not explicitly define critical thinking Six knowledge levels constitute critical thinking Levels clarify what critical thinking and understanding mean
- 5. BLOOM’S ORIGINAL SIX LEVELS
- 6. BLOOM’S ORIGINAL SIX LEVELS RETRIEVING, RECOGNIZING, AND RECALLING RELEVANT KNOWLEDGE FROM LONG-TERM QUOTE READ NAME SEQUENCE STATE MEMORY IDENTIFY TELL WRITE AFRRIANNGDE LABE COUN DTRAWL DEFINE DESCRIB LIST E DUPLICATE LOCAT MATCH E MEMORIZE ORDER OUTLINE POINT RECAL L RECITE RECOGNIZ E REPRODU CE RETRIEVE SELEC T
- 7. BLOOM’S ORIGINAL SIX LEVELS RETRIEVING, RECOGNIZING, AND RECALLING RELEVANT KNOWLEDGE FROM LONG-TERM QUOTE READ NAME SEQUENCE STATE MEMORY IDENTIFY TELL WRITE AFRRIANNGDE LABE COUN DTRAWL DEFINE DESCRIB LIST E DUPLICATE LOCAT MATCH E MEMORIZE ORDER OUTLINE POINT RECAL L RECITE RECOGNIZ E REPRODU CE RETRIEVE SELEC T
- 8. BLOOM’S ORIGINAL SIX LEVELS CONSTRUCTING MEANING FROM ORAL, WRITTEN, AND GRAPHIC MESSAGES THROUGH INTERPRETING, EXEMPLIFYING, SUMMARIZING, CLASSIFYING, INFERRING, COMPARING, AND EXPLAINING ASSOCIA TE CLASSIF Y COMPAR E COMPUT E CONCLUD E REQUIRES KNOWLEDGE CONTRAS CONVER T T DEFEN D DEMONSTR ATE DIFFERENTI ATE DISCUS DISTINGUI ESTIMA EXPLAI EXPRES S SH TE N S EXTEN D EXTRAPOL GENERALI ATE ZE GIVE EXAMPLES IDENTIF Y ILLUSTRA TE INDICA TE INFER INTERPR ET LOCAT E PARAPHRA SE PREDIC T RECOGNIZ E REPOR RESTA T TE REVIE W SUMMARIZE
- 9. BLOOM’S ORIGINAL SIX LEVELS USING KNOWLEDGE TO EXECUTE A PROCEDURE US E TRANSLATE SHOW SKETC REQUIRES KNOWLEDGE & COMPREHENSION AD D APPL Y CALCULA TE CHANG E CHOOS E CLASSIFYCOMPLE TE COMPUT E DEMONSTRA TE DETERMI NE DEVELO P DISCOVE R DIVID E DRAMATIZ E EMPLO Y EXAMIN E FORMULAT E GRAPH INTERVIEWMANIPULAT E MODIF Y MULTIPL Y OPERATE ORGANIZ E PERFOR M PRACTI CE PREPARE PRODUCE RELAT E ROLE-PLAY SCHEDU LE SELECT SHOP H SOLV E SUBTRA CT TRANSF ER
- 10. BLOOM’S ORIGINAL SIX LEVELS BREAKING MATERIAL INTO CONSTITUENT PARTS, AND breaking material into constituent parts, and determining how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose through differentiating, organizing, and attributing DETERMINING HOW THE PARTS RELATE TO ONE ANOTHER AND TO AN OVERALL STRUCTURE OR PURPOSE THROUGH DIFFERENTIATING, ORGANIZING, AND ATTRIBUTING ANALYZE DEBA TE DIAGRA M CHARACTERI ZE CRITICI SUBDIVIDE SEPARATE EXPERIMEN T INSPECT INVENTORY BREAK DOWN QUESTION APPRAISE DISCRIMINATE DEDUCE UTILIZ E OUTLIN E RESEARCH REQUIRES KNOWLEDGE, APPRAISE ZE COMPREHENSION & APPLICATION
- 11. BLOOM’S ORIGINAL SIX LEVELS MAKING JUDGMENTS BASED ON CRITERIA AND STANDARDS R E Q U I R E S K N O W L E D G E , C O M P R E H E N S I O N , A P P L I C A T I O N & A N A L Y S I S ARGU E ASSES S ATTA CK COMPOS E CONSTRU CT CREAT E CRITIQU E DESIG N DEVELOP EVALUA TE INTEGRA TE INVEN T JUDGE MAKE MEASUR E ORGANIZ E PERFOR M PLAN PRODUC E PROPOSE RAN K RAT E REVIS E REWRIT E SCOR E SUPPOR T TEST VALU E WEIG H
- 12. BLOOM’S ORIGINAL SIX LEVELS PUTTING ELEMENTS TOGETHER TO FORM A COHERENT OR FUNCTIONAL WHOLE; REORGANIZING ELEMENTS INTO A NEW PATTERN OR STRUCTURE THROUGH GENERATING, PLANNING, OR PRODUCING ARRANG EASSEMB LCEATEGORIZ ECOLLE CTOMBINE COMPILE DERIVE DEVISE INTEGRAT EMANAGE MODIFY PRESCRIBE PRIORITIZ EPROVE RELATE T SYNTHESIZE TRANSFORM T RESTATE T SET UP T SPECIFY T RECONSTRUCTT REORGANIZE T R E Q U I R E S K N O W L E D G E , C O M P R E H E N S I O N , A P P L I C A T I O N . A N A L Y S I S & S Y N T H E S I S
- 13. C R IT I C I S M S O F T H E T A X O N O M Y • Hierarchical structure over-simplifies learning behaviors - Hierarchy can misstate an objective’s complexity • Objectives from lower levels can be more complex than those in higher levels • Sequential nature does not reflect actual cognitive processes
- 14. C R IT I C I S M S O F T H E T A X O N O M Y ( c o n t . ) • Does not consider all knowledge modalities • Students expected to think critically without adequate factual knowledge • Cumulative nature of levels doesn’t suit all learning tasks - Mastery of skills in a higher level can occur prior to mastery of skills from the levels beneath it • Behaviorism basis for the taxonomy - Behaviorism pedagogy now largely rejected - Taxonomy should reflect more learner-centric pedagogies - Cognitivism - Constructivism
- 15. R E VI S I N G T H E T A X O N O M Y 1 9 9 5 Responding to criticisms, Lorin W. Anderson (a former student of Bloom’s) met with a consortium of educational experts in 1995 in order to revise the taxonomy. Over the next six years, the consortium met annually to make recommendations and report findings. In 2001, the group released Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, with significant differences from the original taxonomy.
- 16. T H ER E V I S E D T A X O N O M Y 2 0 0 1 • Some hierarchical aspects removed • Less complex levels not prerequisite to more complex levels • Structural changes: - Levels’ nouns changed to verbs - Reflects active process of learning - Top two levels transposed - Three levels renamed
- 17. T H ER E V I S E D T A X O N O M Y 2 0 0 1 ( c o n t . ) • Move from one-dimensional taxonomy to two dimensional structure • Knowledge dimension added to Cognitive process dimension - Meant to better represent duality of learning - Taxonomy set up in a 4 x 6 matrix - Knowledge dimension on horizontal axis - Cognitive processes dimension on vertical axis
- 18. T H ER E V I S E D T A X O N O M Y
- 19. T H ER E V I S E D T A X O N O M Y
- 20. T H ER E V I S E D T A X O N O M Y
- 21. T H ER E V I S E D T A X O N O M Y
- 22. T H ER E V I S E D T A X O N O M Y
- 23. T H ER E V I S E D T A X O N O M Y
- 24. T H ET A X O N O M Y The Cognitive Process Dimension The Knowledge Dimension 1 Remember 2 Understand 3 Apply 4 Analyze 5 Evaluate 6 Create A. Factual Knowledge B. Conceptual Knowledge C. Procedural Knowledge D. Meta-Cognitive Knowledge M A T R I X
- 25. T H ET A X O N O M Y The Cognitive Process Dimension The Knowledge Dimension 1 Remember 2 Understand 3 Apply 4 Analyze 5 Evaluate 6 Create A. Factual Knowledge B. Conceptual Knowledge C. Procedural Knowledge D. Meta-Cognitive Knowledge M A T R I X
- 26. T A XO N O M Y T O O L A useful tool for helping to create lessons was developed by the Virginia Commonwealth University Medical School to help choose outcome verbs and match instructional to assessment questions for each level of the taxonomy. Go here to try it out.
- 27. R E FE R E N C E S Aviles, C.B. (1999). Understanding and testing for "critical thinking" with Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education (45th, San Francisco, CA, March 10-13, 1999. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED446025.pdf Bloom, B., S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive domain. NY: Longman. Chan, C.V., Matthews, L.A. & Kaufman, D.R. (2009). A taxonomy characterizing complexity of consumer ehealth literacy. AMIA Annual Symposiums Proceedings, 2009, 86-90. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815448/ Tigerskins Unreleased Ambient & Electronika Nuggets Mixtape 1994-96. [Audio recording]. Retrieved from Tigerskins Unreleased Ambient & Electronika Nuggets Mixtape 1994-96 Van Der Volgen, J. (2014, April 9). Bloom’s taxonomy tool [Blog post]. National Network of Libraries of Medicine. Retrieved from http://nnlm.gov/ntc/2014/04/09/blooms-taxonomy- tool/ Wiggins, G., McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Editor's Notes
- #3 Bloom’s Taxonomy outlines six levels of cognitive processes: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. These levels were ordered from concrete to abstract and have been categorized between lower- and higher-order thinking skills. Lower-order thinking is often characterized by the recall of information or the application of concepts or knowledge to familiar situations and contexts. Higher- order thinking calls for more cognitively complex processes that require conceiving, manipulating, and dealing abstractly with ideas.
- #4 Formally released as the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain it has become simply become known as Bloom’s Taxonomy to educators, educational psychologists and learning theorists.
- #5 Educators and researchers have been using the taxonomy as a guide not only for writing and evaluating objectives and assessments but also for the use and evaluation of questioning strategies. Critical thinking is a theoretical construct; instead of measuring it directly, we must measure behaviors that point to it.
- #6 In the original taxonomy, lower-order thinking skills provided the prerequisites required for achieving higher-order thinking skills. In the schema of Bloom’s original taxonomy, the cognitive process levels build in increasing sophistication and complexity, moving from knowledge to comprehension to application to analysis to synthesis and, finally, to evaluation.
- #7 At the lowest level, Knowledge, the student exhibits mastery of previously learned material by recalling facts, terminology, basic concepts and answers attached to specific questions. At the knowledge level, expectations of learning are about simple recall, the ability to access facts from long-tem memory and then state them as appropriate responses. These verbs characterize cognitive processes at the knowledge level.
- #9 Having mastered the basic knowledge of a subject, the student then moves to the comprehension level by demonstrating an elementary understanding of facts and ideas. That mastery is exhibited by organizing, comparing, translating, interpreting, giving descriptions and stating main ideas of a particular subject. Rather than just repeating information about a particular subject, the student can assign meaning to previously learned facts,
- #10 With knowledge and comprehension as a foundation, the student can begin solving problems in the application level, applying acquired knowledge, facts, techniques and rules in different ways
- #11 examining the breaking information into parts of identifying motives or causes; making inferences and finding evidence to support generalizations.
- #12 compiling information together in a different way by combining elements in a new pattern or proposing alternative solutions.
- #13 presenting and defending opinions by making judgments about information, validity of ideas or quality of work based on a set of criteria.