Running head: BLOOM’S TAXONOMY, A CLOSER LOOK
1
James Murduca
March 20, 2016
“Bloom’s Taxonomy, a Closer Look”
The framework behind Bloom’s Taxonomy on educational evaluation came about at an
American Psychological Association Convention in 1948 by a team of psychologists focusing on
achievement testing. The goal of this meeting was to assess various plans and create a set of a
common language signifying the human behavioral traits in educational institutions (Krathwall,
Bloom, & Masia, 1964). An extensive cross-section of features of the self, human involvement,
and content of the curriculum was considered while forming the organizational piece.
Ultimately, Bloom’s Taxonomy was created and named after Benjamin Samuel Bloom, the
American educational psychologist who led the team that developed the taxonomy.
The team agreed to develop a thorough taxonomy of three main domains: cognitive,
affective, and psychomotor (Seaman, 2011). The first domain developed was the cognitive
domain, setting a foundation for the expansion of the affective and psychomotor domains. In
achieving this goal, behavioral objectives that were classified on a continuum, were tested
through performance, observation, and/or assessments to determine if the aim of the behavioral
objective was attained or not attained. The purpose of this list of behavioral objectives was to
clarify inferences made between the writer and reader. The first draft of the handbook was tested
and critiqued throughout the fields of educational professionals, testing services, and colleagues,
resulting in its ensuing revisions. After convening once a year from 1949 to 1953, with an
ongoing planning and revision process, a handbook was published in 1956 (Seaman, 2011).
In the development of the continuum for the cognitive domain, careful attention was
given to the placement and prioritization of the learning objective. Interestingly, knowledge
BLOOM’S TAXONOMY, A CLOSER LOOK
2
being placed at the earliest stage, soon after becomes a tool for more complex behaviors. After
numerous trials of ordering the objectives from the group of psychologists and its
subcommittees, the major factor in sequencing the objectives was derived from the principle of
complexity (Krathwall, Bloom, & Masia, 1964).
Although Bloom and the team of psychologists felt they had rendered a comprehensive,
classified, and prioritized list of behavioral objectives, critics argued that Bloom had created a
useful system of defining educational objectives, but did not create an accurate taxonomy. In
order to meet the more complex objectives, there must have been a significant level of
importance to a multitude of learning experiences directed toward these more complex objectives
within the curriculum and learning environment (Dressel, 1954 & Mayhew, 1958). Soon after
Handbook I: Cognitive Domain was written, it was hopefully anticipated that further research
would determine if the team had created a classification structure or an authentic taxonomy. It is
fascinating that the six classifications in the cognitive domain exist as taxonomy today. What is
more fascinating is how the taxonomy can be applied.
One interesting application of Bloom’s Taxonomy in the cognitive domain is how writing
teacher, Melissa Vosen, taught her students about plagiarism. Vosen planned a five-day unit of
study to help students learn about academic integrity using Bloom’s Taxonomy. The plan
initiated the first component, knowledge of plagiarism. Students identified passages in papers
that were not commonly used by people in their everyday speech. If no citation was given, it
may have constituted plagiarism (Vosen & Fink, 2008). For the second and third components,
comprehension and application, students viewed a video on the consequences of plagiarism at
Harvard University, as well as for their own university. Students then applied the fourth
component, analyze, and discussed the difference between incorrect citations and outright
BLOOM’S TAXONOMY, A CLOSER LOOK
3
plagiarism. For the fifth component, synthesis, students learned to paraphrase and use direct
quotations. Finally, for the sixth component, evaluation, students debated the question, “Should
students fail if they plagiarize?” Vosen thought the five-day plan of using Bloom’s Taxonomy
was worth the effort and still continues its implementation (Vosen & Fink, 2008).
A more complex application of Bloom’s Taxonomy facilitates the three domains:
cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The article, Examining Technology-Enhanced
Coursework in Rehabilitation Counselor Education Using Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning,
describes how the three domains are applied to educating and assessing rehabilitation counselors
in technology-enhanced and distance learning courses. The taxonomy used by the assessors in
the cognitive domain had similarities, in addition to some revisions. The taxonomy for each
domain, itemized as categories, is listed as follows:
Cognitive: 1. Conceptualization 2. Comprehension 3. Application 4. Evaluation 5. Synthesis
Affective: 1. Receiving 2. Responding 3. Valuing 4. Organization 5. Characterization
Psychomotor: 1. Perception 2. Simulation 3. Conformation 4. Production 5. Mastery
(Tansey, Schopieray, Boland, Lane, & Pruett, 2009). The relationship among the three domains
was essential to the pedagogical applications of the technology-enhanced coursework
implemented by the educators, as well as to the assessment of the rehabilitation counselors.
The Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) and The Commission on Rehabilitation
Counselor Certification (CRCC) jointly take part in the evaluation of the program. In the
evaluation of the educational process and measuring the validity of the technology-enhanced
program in the cognitive domain, CORE continues to use employer surveys as a form of
assessment and measurement (CORE, 2005) and the CRCC administers an occupation analysis
every half decade (CRCC, 2007). The proliferation of courses established with technology-
BLOOM’S TAXONOMY, A CLOSER LOOK
4
enhanced programs is evidence that facilitators have had an impact on the substantial
development in the cognitive domain. Evaluation in the affective domain is in the development
of attitudes, values, and beliefs regarding the inter-personal actions with their clientele.
Technology plays a vital role in the development of knowledge in the psychomotor domain.
Practicing students must provide supervisors with audio-visual recordings of their practices.
This gives supervisors the ability to accent the interaction between students and clients as the
students reflect on the innate physical communication of the rehabilitation process.
In 2001, 45 years after the first publishing of Bloom’s Taxonomy, Lorin W. Anderson
and David R. Krathwol, authors of the original Bloom’s Taxonomy, decided to gather a team of
8 members, which included cognitive psychologists, to create a revision for modern day
educators (Krathwol & Anderson, 2010). Krathwol and the team, which included cognitive
psychologist and creator of the Generative Model of Learning, Merl Wittrock, worked with two
notable authors on the revision, Paul Pintrich, author of the Knowledge Dimension and Richard
Mayer, author of the Cognitive Process Dimension. The revision of the taxonomy lasted over
the span of five years, whereas the members convened twice a year. Modifications to the six
original categories included changing nouns to verbs to facilitate a learner-centered approach.
Wittrock was instrumental in ensuring that these “inappropriate” nouns used in the original
taxonomy would be changed to verbs (Krathwol & Anderson, 2010). Special attention was
given to replacing “synthesize” with “create”. The knowledge category, being inherently twodimensional, was transformed from a one-dimensional list to a two-dimensional chart, linking
four aspects of the Knowledge Dimension to the six elements of the Cognitive Process
Dimension. The chart resulted in attaining twenty-four cells to characterize various teaching and
learning objectives. The specific changes in terminology of the Cognitive Process Domain axis
BLOOM’S TAXONOMY, A CLOSER LOOK
5
are remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create (Krathwol & Anderson, 2010).
An alternative to the taxonomy of learning objectives is Howard Gardner’s theory of
Multiple Intelligences (MI), stated in his work, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple
Intelligences, originally published in 1983. The theory contradicts the traditional opinion of
having a single intelligence to having multiple intelligences that are independent of each other.
Children learn differently. One child can perform below average in one area and perform
exceptionally in another. Gardner also points out two types of knowledge; tacit (know how) is
inborn like smiling, and propositional (know that) is acquired (Nolen, 2003). Let’s fast forward
thirty years later. According to Gardner, the number of multiple intelligences increases from
seven to about ten. Not wanting intelligences to be synonymous with learning styles, Gardner
compares the two, citing that a learning style is not comprehensible. All people possess multiple
intelligences, but distinguish one or more as a substantial processor. The learning style that a
person possesses may or may not be consistent throughout the list of multiple intelligences (as
cited in Strauss, 2013).
Another dimension to an alternative within Bloom’s Taxonomy is that some critics find
that the pyramid of the taxonomy should be inverted. They claim that the taxonomy does not
work for historians. When historians critique a document using past knowledge, which is the
base of Bloom’s pyramid, the historian is missing the vital component of new knowledge.
According to Wineberg & Schneider (2009), “… mastering new facts can help students see the
world more intelligibly and formulate opinions, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will teach
them to think.”
Problem solving methods and the Engineering Design Process (EDP) are often used in
real-world situations. Similarities and differences exist in comparing the EDP and Bloom’s
BLOOM’S TAXONOMY, A CLOSER LOOK
6
Taxonomy, in the sense that EDP is a cycle and Bloom’s Taxonomy is an ordered sequence.
After researching the revisions and critiques on the taxonomy, perhaps curriculum designers will
soon be varying the sequence or using it to revisit categories of the taxonomy in meeting the
needs of individual content areas.
7
BLOOM’S TAXONOMY, A CLOSER LOOK
References
Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC). (2007). CRCC certification
guide. Retrieved from://www.crccertification.com/pages/10certification.htmlhttp
Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE). (2005).
Retrieved from http://www.core-rehab.org/manual/c-accman0207.doc
Dressel, P. L. (1954). Interests—Stable or unstable?. Journal of Educational Research, 48,
95-102.
Helding, L. (2009). Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. Journal of
Singing, 66(2), 193-199.
Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock and the revision of Bloom's
taxonomy. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 64-65. doi:10.1080/00461520903433562.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. B., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives:
The classification of educational goals: Handbook II: Affective domain. New York,
NY: David McKay Company, Inc.
Mayhew, L. B. (1958). And in attitudes. In P. L. Dressel (Ed.). Evaluation in the basic
college at Michigan state university (chapter 4). New York, NY: Harper.
Nolen, J. L. (2003). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Education, 124(1), 115-119.
Seaman, M. (2011). Bloom’s taxonomy: Its evolution, revision, and use in the field of
education. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 13(1), 29-131A.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1017893795?accountid=12793
Strauss, V. (2013, October 16). Howard Gardner: ‘Multiple intelligences’ are not learning
styles. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/16/howard-
BLOOM’S TAXONOMY, A CLOSER LOOK
gardner-multiple-intelligences-are-not-learning-styles/
Tansey, T. N., Schopieray, S., Boland, E., Lane, F., & Pruett, S. R. (2009). Examining
technology-enhanced coursework in rehabilitation counselor education using Bloom's
taxonomy of learning. Rehabilitation Education, 23, 107-117.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/854860425?accountid=12793
Tutkun, O., Guzel, D., Koroğlu, M., & Ilhan, H. (2012). Bloom's revised taxonomy
and critics on it. Online Journal Of Counseling & Education, 1(3), 23-30.
Vosen, M. A., & Fink, L. S., R.W.T. (2008). Using bloom's taxonomy to teach students about
plagiarism. English Journal, 97(6), 43-46. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/237300817?accountid=12793
Wineburg, S., & Schneider, J. (2009). Was Bloom's taxonomy pointed in the wrong direction?.
Phi Delta Kappan, 91(4), 56-61.
8