This is a resource used within the classroom either as a starter to assess the knowledge of the pupils prior to starting a topic or as a plenary to assess the knowledge gained. I have ammended so that it included the orginal Blooms taxonomy questioning and the revised Bloom taxonomy questioning and is a resources that can be adapted for any topic and tailored to meet the specific needs of the class.

1. Rachael Green

2.  Polanyi (1967, p4) suggested that we can know more
than we can tell and with pupils this is very much
likely to be the case. Taking this into account to try and
access students knowledge development of
questioning skills is essential. A useful starting point
would be Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) to which
his team developed classifications of levels of thinking
according to cognitive complexity.
 The original Blooms reflects different forms of thinking
(thinking is an active process) verbs describe actions
and nouns do not. Bloom’s taxonomy was traditionally
viewed as a tool best applied in the earlier years of
schooling (i.e., primary and junior primary years).

4.  Blooms taxonomy was revised 50 years later by Anderson and
Krathwohl (2001). The significant alteration come from two sources
firstly changing from noun to verbs and secondly moving evaluating
into the space of synthesis and adding creating at the top. It enable
creating to become part of the cognitive thinking process by placing it
within the hierarchal structure and by placing it in the higher order
thinking does not place it out of reach and makes it part of the logical
though process of all pupils (Fautley & Savage, 2007).
 The revised taxonomy is more universal and easily applicable at
elementary, secondary, and higher education levels. Revision
emphasizes explanation and description of subcategories. In
summary Bloom’s revised Taxonomy is systematic process of
thinking & learning, assists assessment efforts with easy-to-use
format, visual representation of alignment between goals & objectives
with standards, activities, and outcomes (Ferguson, 2002).

6.  Developing even further Blooms revised Taxonomy has now been
digitalised with the levels of thinking verbs now being associated
with a level of technology literacy as demonstrated within
Diagram D.
http://blogs.middlebury.edu/fluency/files/2010/05/Blooms_Digital_Taxonomy.jpg

7.  Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for
learning, teaching, and assessing. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals, by a committee of college and university
examiners. New York: Longmans. John Maynard, University of
Texas, Austin Marilla Svinicki, University of Texas, Austin
 Bloom, B.S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational objectives. Handbook
I: the cognitive domain. David McKay; New York
 Fautley, M. & Savage, J (2007) Creativity in Secondary Education:
Achieving QTS. Learning Matters. Exeter
 Ferguson, C. (2002). Using the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to plan
and deliver team-taught, integrated, thematic units. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 239-244
 Polanyi, M. (1967) The tacit dimension. Routledge & Kegan Paul;
London