/

Bloom's Taxonomy
From Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology
Mary Forehand
The University of Georgia

Introduction
been "Where do we begin in One of the basic questions facing educators has always we do not have to seeking to improve human thinklng?" (Houghton, 2004).-Fortunately The ;r;; flom scrat"h in searching foianswers to this complicated question' to begin is in place "One Communities Resoiving Our Pioblems [C.R.O.P') recommends, to know more of defining the nature of tf,inking. Before *. t* make it better, we need what it is" (Houghton, 2004).

authoring Benjamin S. Bloom extensively contemplated the,nature of thinking, eventually student former by written or cl-authoring 18 books. According to a biography of Bloorn, and Elliot W. Eisner, "it was clear that he was in love with the process of finding out' for a nose having was great talents finding out is what i think he did best. one of Bloom's what is significant" (2002).
has since Although it received little attention when first published, Bloom's Taxonomy and most often been translated into 22langaages and is one of the most widely applied 2004), ( cited references in educatiJn. (etraerson & Sosniak, 1994, preface), (Houghton, in this chapters other Krathwohl, Z0OZ), ( oz-TeacherNet, 2001). As of this writing, three ebook make reference to Bloom's Taxonomy, yet another testament to its relevance'

History
In 1780, Abigail Adams stated, "Leaming is not attained by chance; it must be souglrt for with ardor and attended to with diligence" ( quotationspage.com,2005). Learning, teaching, identifying educational goals, and thinking are all complicated concepts interwoien in an iniricate web. Bloom was arduous, diligent, and patient while seeking to
student demystify these concepts and untangle this web. He made "the improvement of learning'; (Bloom 197i, Preface) the central focus of his life's work.

led Discussions during the 1948 Convention of the American Psychological Association task of ambitious the undertook Bloom to spearheid a group of educators who eventually of classifying educationai-goais and objectives. Their intent was to develop a method

were believed to be important in the processes classification for thinking behaviors that became a taxonomy of three domains: of learning. eu"rrtoul"{, iftJit"*.*ork

.Thecognitive.knowledgebaseddomain,consistingofsixlevels levels, . The affectivJ- u[i*aioulUased domain, consisting of fivelevels.

and

The

psy"no*otoi- smrs based

domain, consisting of six

first began, 1x 1956, eiglrt years after the group reieiedto as "Bloom's completed and a rranJbook co-mmonty domain' ftris ctrapter focuses its attention on the cognitive

*ot.11the

cognitive domain was iaxonomy" was published'

others in the group resisted While Bloom pushed for the use of the term "taxonolny"' becauseoftheunfamiliarityofthetermwithineducationalcircles.EventuallyBloom for the term. The small volume intended prevailed, forever lirrki";ilrname and educators ihu', b""r, transformed into a basic reference for all university .xu*i.r"r, used by curriculum.planners' administrators' worldwide. Unexpectedly, it has been & Sosniak' u, ufi t""tls of education" (Anderson researchers, and classroom teachert ,h"t ;th"; educational taronomies and hierarchical 1994, p.1). While i tft""fa be noted gloom's iu*ooo*ywhich ternains' even after nearly systems have been d"""Ga, it is fifty years, the de facto standard'

What is Bloomrs Taxonomy?

helps dispel Understanding that "taxonomy" and "classification" T? :y"o"y'oous of classifying is a mufi-ti3:::::::::::::red model uneasiness with the term. Blo6m's Taxonomy Jf"mplexity' Throughout the years' the levels thinking according to six cognitive f*.it students leading many-tlachers to encourage their have often been d!fii"J u."u stairway, The liwestthree levels are: knowledge' to ,'climb to a trigfri, titt.f ofl thoughi." three-levels.are: analysis' synthesis' and comprehenrion, unJ application. fn-e.trigirest ,'The taxonomy is hirr*.hi."ul; [in that] each level is subsumed by the higher evaluation. at theiapplication'level has also mastered levels. In other words, a student nrnctioning ("UW TpachingAcademv' the material at the'knowledge' and'comprJhension'ievels'" led to naturdl divisions of lower and 2003). one can easily see how trris ullangement higlrer level thinking.

of time' Due to its long history and clearly, Bloom's Taxonomy has stood the test reinterpreted in a variety of ways' popularity, it has been condensed, expanded, and lf a veritabi" t*otgutbord of interpretations Research Sndings have led to tfte Aitiou"ry frolntiqft overviews to expanded and applicatio* iuliog on a continuumraoging t.uiti"ottia"signta Uy one of the co-editors of the explanations. NonethJess, one ,.r"ttt itoa""g merits particular attention' original taxonomy along with a former Bloom

Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (RBT)

nderstan di n g : U unqersLaururr5'

,il;gh

ffffi t";;;ffi ;'9."'1it,'1'10111,*11*;:"1"^YJ3;"#"7 :illi#it'"#.;tffi '#:Tr'"T;;':"";;;;;rdr'**"orpurposethroughdifferentiating,

:ffi "[:'Jffffi;o?'"'r"gup'"'i1:::T:i1^:1:*l'*i;Tj#ill1"#l"t . .
organizing, and attributing' checking on criteria and standards through Evaluating: Making judgments based and critiquing a coherent or functional whole; creating, el-ittiog elements together to form pattem or structure through generating' reorganizing elerients into a new planning, or Producing'

interpr"eting, exemplifying' "f comparing, and exPlaining'

me aning vv!ru-.I_-r-r?r-_ Constructing T:T "t'1: S33*c -Y"Til 3u' r""" ;, inferring, summanzrng classifying'

mes s ases

(Anderson & Krathwohl,2001' pp' 67-68)

Structural

changes

examined' atfirst, yet are quite logical when closely Structural changes seem dram atic form' With the addition of *"t'" Bloom's original cognitive taxonomy "t"-aimensiJnal ,h. for*,of a two-dimensional table' one t*., products, the RevisJd Bloom,s tu*orro*! nitnt*ion (or the kind of knowledge to be of the dimensions i;;;trft", The Knowl"lg. (or the process The C"ognitive Process Dimension leamed) while ,t r".orra identifies the'knowledge and " the gridbe"low, the intersection of used to learn). As represented on on the form twenty-four separate cells as represented cognitive process "at"gori"s "TaxonomY Table" below'
are defined as side is comprised of .four levels that The Knowledge Dimension on the left The Cognitive Process Dimension Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, *9 vi"i"-Cognitiu"' def,rned as Remember' Understand' th";l-**ists of six l*JtTft"t are across the top of the table is "f and create. r,actr levet of both dimensions Apply, Analyze,Eviuate,

subdivided

four levels is subdivided into either three or Each of the four Knowledge Dimension and Factual, Knowledge of Terminology' categories t..g. nu.touiis f,lvid"d into rnt Cognltive Process Dimension levels I(nowledge of sp""iir" Details *a Bf"*."it,' of three of sectois in each level ranging from a low are also subdividei *l}irn" number three Remember is. subdivided into the to a high of eight categories. For ex.ample, while the Understanding level is categories of nrm"mf,"r, Recognizingi*Jn.tulling *t"ftt"g-grid containing 19 subcategories is divided into eiglrt separate categories. i[" standards with curricular' most helpful ,o t.u.ti"r, in both-writi"g "i1"tti*t"dd ?ligttinguse of the Taxonomy ,,Why,, *a "fto*i sections of this-chapter further.discuss The of applications' Table as well as provide specifrc examples

Tablel. Bloom's TaxonomY

Anderson, led a new assembly During the 1990's, a former student of Bloom's, Lorin to add relevance for 21st hoping which met for the purpose of updating the taxonomy, of three groups [were present]: century students and teacherr. tt it time "representatives researchers, and testing .ognitiu. psychologists, curriculum theorists and instructional xxviii)' Likethe original 2001,p. and assessment specialists" (Anderson, & Krathwohl, diligent in their pursuit of learning, spending six years ;"* they wer"^also arduous and includes several seemingly minor to finalize their work. Published in 2001, the revision sources are available which detail yet actualiy quite signi}cant changes. Several excellent concise sunmary appears here' The the revisions and r"fsons for the clanges. A more emphasis' ,t urrg", occur in three broad categories: terminology, structure' and

TerminologY Changes
are perhaps the most obvious changes in terminology between the two versions Basically, Bloom's six major differences and can uirt .u,r." the most confusion. the lowest level of the Additionally, were changed from 1g1 t9 vg[$s. Finally, comprehension and "ut"gori", original, knowledge iur r.nurneTand bElffiiriffimembering' the ,yitfr"ri, *"r. r"t-itl.d to understanding and creating' In an effort to minimize ctnfusion, comparison images appear below'

Sld\Grsian

F{firr Ursltrt

NEW verbage Caption: Terminology changes "The graphic is a representation of the Nouns to changefrom the associated with the liigfamtltar Bloom's Taxonomy. Note levels of the taxonomy' verbs [e.g., Appticatioi-to Apptying] to describe the dffirent the Old to the New version'" Note that the top two levels iie-essenttally exchangedfrom the top, (Schultz, 2005) (Evaluation moved from ih" top to Evaluating in the second from 'synthesis moiedfrom second on top to the top as Creating.) Source:

The new terms are defined as:

from Remembering:Retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge long-term memory.

representation" (Krathwohl, 2002) of the alignment between standards and educational goals, objectives, products, and activities. Today's teachers must make tough decisions about how to spend their classroom time. Clear aiignment of educational objectives with local, state, and national standards is a necessity. Like pieces of a huge p:uzzle, everything must fit properly. The Revised Bloom's Taxonomy Table clarifies the fit of each lesson plan's purpose, "essential question," goal or objective. The twenty-four-cell grid from Oregon State University that is shown above aiong with the Printable Taxonomy Table Examoles can easily be used in conjunction with a chart. When used in this manner the "Essential Question" or lesson objective becomes clearly defined.

How can Bloom's Taxonomy Be Used?

A search of the World Wide Web will yield clear evidence that Bloom's Taxonomy has been applied to a variety of situations. Current results include a broad spectrum of applications represented by articles and websites describing everything from corrosion training to medical preparation. In almost all circumstances when an instructor desires to move a group of students through a learning process utilizing an organized framework, Bloom's Taxonomy can prove helpfrtl. Yet the educational setting (K-graduate) remains the most often used application. A brief explanation of one example is described below.
The educational journal Theory into Practice published an entire issue on the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy. Included is an article entitled, "Using the Revised Taxonomy to Plan and Deliver Team-Taught, Integrated, Thematic Units" (Ferguson, 2002). The writer describes the use of the revised Bloom's Taxonomy to plan and deliver an integrated English and history course entitled "Western Culture." The taxonorny provided the team-teachers with a common language with which to translate and discuss state standards from two different subject areas. Moreover, it helped them to understand how their subjects overlapped and how they could develop conceptual and procedural knowledge concurrently. Furthermore, the taxonomy table in the revised taxonomy provided the history and English teachers with a new outlook on assessment and enabled them to create assignments and projects that required students to operate at more complex levels of thinking (Abstract, Fergusorl 2002).

Additionally, The Encyclopedia of Educational Technology website contains an excellent and extensive description of the use of the Revised Taxonomy Table in writing, examining and revising objectives to insure the alignment of the objectives with both the standards and the assessments. Three charts can be found on the site one of which compares "LJnclear obj ectives" with "Revised Obj ectives".
Bloom's group initially met hoping to reduce the duplication of effort by faculty at various universities. In the beginning, the scope of their purpose was limited to facilitating the exchange of test items measuring the same educational objectives. Intending the Taxonomy "as a method of classifying educational objectives, educational

experiences, learning processes, and evaluation questions and problems" (Paul, 1985 p. 39), numerous examples of test items (mostly multiple choice) were included. This led to a natural linkage of specific verbs and products with each level of the taxonomy. Thus, when designing effective lesson plans, teachers often look to Bloom's Taxonomy for guidance.

Likewise the Revised Taxonomy includes specific verb and product linkage with each of the levels of the Cognitive Process Dimension. However, due to its 19 subcategories and two-dimensional organization, there is more clarity and less confusion about Al nt of a specific verb or product to a given level. Thus the Revised Taxonomy offers teachers an even more powerful tool to help design their lesson plans. As touched upon earlier, through the years, Bloom's Taxonomy has given rise to educational concepts including terms such as high and low level thinking. It has also been closely linked with multiple intelligences (Noble, 2004) problem solving skills, creative and critical thinking, and more recently, technology integration. For example, currently, the State of Georeia K- l2 Technoloey Planhas included in its website an excellent graphic depicting technology alignment using Bloom's Taxonomy with leaming though the two axes of insffuctional approach and authenticity.
Using the Revised Taxonomy in an adaptation from the Omaha Public Schools Teacher's Corner, a lesson objective based upon the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears is presented for each of the six levels of the Cognitive Process as shown on. the Revised Taxonomy Table.

Remember: Describe where Goldilocks lived.

Understand: Summarize what the Goldilocks story was about.

Apply: Construct

a theory as to why Goldilocks went into the house.

Analyze: Differentiate between how Goldilocks reacted and how you would react in each story event Evaluate: Assess whether or not you think this really happened to Goldilocks.

create: Compose a song, skit, poem, or rap to convey the Goldilocks story in a new
form.

Although this is a very simple example of the application of Bloom's taxonomy the author is hopeful that it will demonstrate both the ease and the usefirlness of the Revised Taxonomy Table.

The

Knowledge
List

The Cognitive Process Dimension

Understand

Dimension Remember
Factual Knowledqe
Conceptural

Applv

Analyze
Order

Evaluate Create

Summarize Classifv Interpret

Predict

Rank

Combine
Plan

Knowledge
Procedural

Describe Tabulate
Aooronriate
USC

Experiment

Explain Assess

Knowledge

Calcr"rlate Differentiate Conclude Compose

Meta-Cosnitive I(nowledge

bxecute

Construct

Achieve Action

Actualize

http ://ecampu

Copyright (c) 2005 Extended Campus -- Oregon State University s. ore gon state. ed u Desi gner/Developer - Dianna Fisher

Caption: As one can see from the Oregon State chart above, the intersection of the six Cognitive Process defined dimensions (Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create) with the four Knowledge Dimensions (defined as Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, and Meta-Cognitive) forms a grld with twenty-four separate cells as represented. Each of the cells contains a hyperlinked verb that launches a pop-up window containing definitions and examples.

Changes in Emphasis
Emphasis is the third and final category of changes. As noted earlier, Bloom himself recognized that the taxonomy was being "unexpectedly" used by countless groups never considered an audience for the original publication. The revised version of the taxonomy is intended for a much broader audience. Emphasis is placed upon its use as a "more authentic tool for curriculum planning, instructional delivery and assessment" (gzTeacherNet, 2001).

Why use Bloom?s Taxonomy?

As history has shown, this well known, widely applied scheme filled a void and provided. educators with one of the first systematic classifications of the processes of thinking and leaming. The cumulative hierarchical framework consisting of six categories each requiring achievement of the prior skill or ability before the next, more complex, one, remains easy to understand. Out of necessity, teachers must measure their students' ability. Accurately doing so requires a classification of levels of intellectual behavior important in learning. Bloom's Taxonomy provided the measurement tool for thinking.

Wift

in society over the last five decades, the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy provides an even more powerful tool to fit today's teachers' needs. The sffucture of the Revised Taxonomy Table mafrix "provides a clear, concise visual
the dramatic changes

Summary
Countless people know, love and are comfortable with the original Bloom's Taxonomy and are understandably hesitant to change. After all, change is diffrcult for most people. The original Bloom's Taxonomy was and is a superb tool for educators. Yet, even "the original group always considered the [Taxonomy] framework a work in progress, neither finished nor frnal" (Anderson & Krathwohl200l p. xxvii). The new century has brought us the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy which really is new and improved. Try it out; this author thinks you will like it better than cake.

References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition, New York : Longman.

Anderson, L.W., & Sosniak, L.A. (Eds.). (1994). Bloom's taxonomy: a forfy-year retrospective. Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Pt.z . , Chicago , IL . , University of Chicago Press. Bloom, Benjamin S. & David R. Krathwohl. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York , Longmans.
Cruz, E. Q004). Encyclopedia of Educationai Technology: Bloom's Revised Taxonomy. Retrieved March 1 9, 2 005 from http ://coe. sdsu. edu/eeVArti c I es/b loomrev/ Eisner, E.W. (2002) Benjamin Bloom 1913-99, Retrieved March 31, 2005 from International Bureau of Education: UNESCO, http://www.ibe.unesco.ore/lnternational/Publications/Thinkers/ThinkersPdf/bloome.pdf
Ferguson , C. Q002). Using the Revised Taxonomy to Plan and Deliver Team- Taught, Integrated, Thematic Units. Theory into Practice,4T (4),239-244.

Georgia Department of Education (2005). Georgia Department of Education: Office of information technology, Atlanta Georgia : Educational technology & media: Technology integration plan: Introduction, Retrieved March 24, 2005 from http://techservices.doe.k I 2. ga.us/edtech/TechP lan.htm Houghton, R.S.. (2004. March 17). Communities Resolving Our Problems (C.R.O.P.): the basic idea: Bloom's Taxonomy - Overview. Retrieved March 12, 2005 from http ://www.ceap.wcu. ed u/Hou ghton/Learner/think/bloomsTaxonomv.html

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 212-218.

taxonomy with multiple intelligences: Noble, T. (2004). Irrtegrating the rwised bloom's (Vol' 106' pp' differentiation, Teachers College Record A planning tool for "rril"ofi* tOil: nUctwell Publishing Limited' comer: Comprehension: Bloom's taxonomY' Omaha Public Schools, (2005) Teacher's .'ol"enrlin s/'hl ooms taxonomy.hlml Retrieved March 27, 2005 from http://www'ops'
extended campus: coruse development: oregon state university . (2004).osy Retrieved April 3, 2005 from Instructional design -iht iu*o,,o*y Table. Teachers helping teachers: Revised Bloom's oz-TeacherNet. (2001). oz-TeacherNet: http ://rite' e-d'q ut'edu'au/ozTaxonomy. Retrievei Vf *"n 1g, 2005 from .,--^-" P' fi rr"c:d i cnlav&- ceid:29 index.php?

instruction' Educational paul, R. w. (1985a). Bloom's taxonomy and critical thinking for Supervision & Cuniculum Development' Leadership (Vol. aZ,;: *lt Association from Page: QuotationDetails: Quotation #3073 The Quotatigns Quotations Page (2005). Ritrieved March 20, 2005 from Laura Moncur,s ivtotirrational Quotations, trttp:i/www.quotati onspage'com/quote/l0ZZ'html
Schulrz, L. (2005, January 25). Lynn Schultz: taxonomy. Retrieved March 5, 2005, from

old Dominion university : Bloom's

(2005)' Myscschools'com: South Carolina South Carolina State Department of Education (A Taxonomy for Lachrng,.te=ning, and assessing:
objectives)' Retrieved March 12'2005 revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational htm 1io* htt',l***.,,,,nsJr"ho J s.co*/offi cet/cto/enhance/Tuxono*o-T*ble'
State Department of Education:

UWTeachingAcademyShort-Corrrse'(2003).Examquestiontypes&st$enJ Blbom's'Taxonomy' Retrieved competencies: How to *"ur*" leaming accuately: October 1,2007 from