Bloom's hierarchical frameworks of cognitive (mental), affective (emotional) and motor (physical) skills have influenced educational systems (including higher education) since the 1960s and are still used in various forms by contemporary teachers and lecturers for classifying the intended learning outcomes of a piece of teaching, be that a singular learning activity as part of a lesson or indeed a complete module or course programme. An understanding of Bloom's taxonomy and the role of learning outcomes and assessment criteria is great means of developing a greater assessment literacy and performance.
Bloom's cognitive hierarchy featured in his first book 'Taxonomy of educational objectives : the classification of educational goals. Handbook 1, Cognitive domain' published in 1956. The cognitive taxonomy has been particularly influential in the British education system at all levels. The taxonomy offers a model for classifying cognitive skills ranging from the simplistic and basic factual, to the conceptual, to procedural, through to the abstract metacognitive. The taxonomy has been developed and revised, particularly in 2001 by Krathwohl et al. The taxonomy is used as a model for writing learning outcomes focused on measuring what a student should be able to do as a result of their learning. As such the cognitive taxonomy has played a key role in shaping how teachers word assessment criteria, a brief glance at Cardiff Met's will highlight the emphasis on active verbs as outcomes, specifically higher order cognitive skills such as analysis, evaluation and synthesis. Associated with Bloom's cognitive taxonomy are a series of synonyms for the various levels of the hierarchy, these are a great way to expand your academic vocabulary offering ways of expressing the skills you are applying and flagging to your markers that higher order cognitive skills you are engaging in and evidencing to them.
Spend a few moments reading the following extract to get a feel for Benjamin Bloom, his taxonomies and the ways in which they are applied, the extract also contains some useful and interesting academic critiques of the taxonomies. Then have a look at the videos below, in particular the first one which offers a helpful and succinct overview of the cognitive taxonomy and its more recent evolutions, whilst the subsequent two videos offer useful tips on applying the cogntivie taxonomy in order to develop your criticality and assessment performance. Then spend some time searching for "Bloom's verbs" - you will find all sorts of versions and adaptations - perhaps there will be a version relevant specifically to your discipline. Do be sure to also take a look at few versions of a generic or standard set of "Bloom's verbs" to get a feel for how they map on to learning outcomes and assessment criteria.
The text in this concise overview consists of selected excerpts from: Chapter 6: Benjamin Bloom: Learning through taxonomies pp 107 - 127 extracted from: Aubrey, Karl, and Alison Riley. Understanding and Using Educational Theories. Available from: VitalSource Bookshelf, (3rd edition). SAGE Publications, Ltd. (UK), 2022 Ebook accessed at: https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781529786071 on 23/08/23
Bloom wrote seventeen books and numerous articles which had a significant role in shaping educational thought in the latter half of the twentieth century and today. His major theories were mostly a result of work conducted overseas, in particular India where he witnessed the widespread use of rote learning – learning which he considered was just the attaining of knowledge and was only retained long enough to pass examinations. As a result of this experience, he created the first of his taxonomies (classifications) of learning – the cognitive domain – which was published in the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1: Cognitive domain (1956). He later focused on enhancing ‘mastery’ in learning rather than rote learning just to pass examinations. He went on to develop his work in the affective domain which considered feelings and behaviours. Unfortunately, Bloom did not finish his work on the psychomotor domain relating to manual and physical skills. However, this and his earlier works on mastery and the cognitive and affective domains have been explored and developed by others (Williams, 2004). Each of the taxonomies offers a ‘hierarchy of goals, of “intended learning outcomes” defined in terms of the kind of behaviour the pupil is intended or expected to display through his or her thoughts, actions or feelings’ before it can be declared the objective has been attained (Kelly, 2004: 63). Bloom’s taxonomies, then, are classifications of behavioural learning objectives into these three domains; each domain has a list of hierarchical learning objectives categorised according to their level of complexity. Bloom’s taxonomies have ‘provided educators with one of the first systematic classifications of the processes of thinking and learning’ (Forehand, 2010: 4). These three taxonomy domains will be examined separately later in this chapter.
His initial interest came from helping universities become more confident and secure in their assessment practices, which would then enable them to evaluate the teaching and learning practices they employed. As a consequence of this interest... Bloom initially developed and produced two taxonomies of learning objectives. The first two domains were the cognitive and the affective domains. A third taxonomy for the psychomotor domain was added later. The original notion was that these taxonomies could be employed to ensure a focus on the assessment tasks of programmes and avoid students just memorising facts. However, the taxonomies became a widely used means for teachers to formulate behavioural learning objectives, plan and develop lessons and even programmes of learning. They could also be used to challenge learners and differentiate teaching methods. The use of Bloom’s taxonomies is widespread in many sectors of education. However, their function is not without some criticism, in that if the taxonomies were rigidly applied this could lead to a mechanistic approach to learning.
Bloom argued strongly that children who were culturally deprived were greatly hampered not only in their education but also in the quality of their lives after formal schooling... He contested that where such deprivation affected the most basic of children’s needs, such as insufficient rest, shelter and nutrition, there would be little hope of them achieving in school; their priorities would be to satisfy their basic needs rather than take an interest in school learning activities... Nevertheless, on a more optimistic note he found: "the culturally deprived child’s intelligence at one point does not determine the upper limits of what he [sic] might be able to learn in the schools if more favorable conditions are subsequently provided in the home and/or the school." (Bloom et al., 1965: 12) It is with this spirit of hope that he developed his domains of learning and the notion of mastery learning, which have transformed thinking about school curricula and pedagogy.
Bloom became interested in developing educational objectives which could be organised and ordered according to their cognitive complexity. This he argued would enable university examiners to reliably assess students and improve the validity of education practices. The result of this early work was the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1: Cognitive domain (1956), which Bloom edited. The cognitive taxonomy stated that cognitive functions can be ordered into six progressively more difficult levels. Students needed to achieve at the level which came before to progress to the next higher stage of the taxonomy. Bloom also set out his ideas for a further two domains of learning in this text which were developed later: the affective and psychomotor, each with a hierarchical taxonomy similar to that of the cognitive domain.
These taxonomies could be employed to evaluate tasks and offer a method of forming learning objectives (Eisner, 2000). This is accomplished by linking specific verbs or outcomes in the taxonomies with a level of attainment, which in turn has been helpful to educators in their lesson planning (Forehand, 2010).
The cognitive domain taxonomy was concerned with knowledge and information and contained the following six hierarchical levels, from simple to more complex, which students may be asked to perform:
This cognitive domain was followed by the affective domain, which related to matters of attitudes and emotions – particularly important for working with people. This has a taxonomy of five levels:
The third and final domain was the psychomotor domain, which related to the acquisition of practical or physical skills. The purpose of this domain is specifically important for learners in fields such as performing arts and in the vocational subjects of engineering and construction. The psychomotor taxonomy has six levels:
With each of these three domains Bloom was seeking to change the behaviour of learners... Though there are criticisms that some teachers employ Bloom’s taxonomies mechanistically, there is no doubt that they offer a valuable aid for the planning of lessons, assessments and programmes of study, as well as forming learning objectives.
To begin with Bloom considered his taxonomies as not just a means to assess pupils’ learning. He saw the three domains as providing a conventional set of terms which could be used by all teachers (and recognised by learners) in challenging learners from easier to more developmental tasks. These taxonomical terms could be used in setting learning objectives and employed in short-term planning for lessons and medium- and long-term planning such as schemes of work...The taxonomies, and the use of intended objectives, continue to be popular with curriculum planners as they help form levels of attainment in linear and hierarchical small staged phases; this is certainly well established in the National Curriculum for England and Wales, as well as in the curricula for further and higher education (Kelly, 2004). However, for the most part the taxonomies provide an excellent basis for a developmental learning framework and the setting of objectives to be used in the planning, teaching and assessment activities mentioned.
The taxonomies, particularly the cognitive domain, have been sequenced with the easiest first, starting with knowledge and ending with evaluation as the most complex... Petty (2009) suggests that the cognitive domain is divided into two categories of tasks: reproductive tasks and reasoning tasks. Reproductive tasks (knowledge, comprehension and application) require low cognitive effort, while reasoning tasks (analysis, synthesis and evaluation) involve a deeper learning experience for the student. Reproductive tasks are those which are given directly to the student by the teacher, such as copying or recounting information. With reasoning tasks, on the other hand, ‘the student must process and apply what they have learned, linking it with existing learning and experience’(Petty, 2009: 14)... So, the taxonomies give teachers a framework to check that their planning and teaching actually help progress children’s learning. The three different domains should be used accordingly... what is of note here is that although Bloom distinguished between the different domains, he did indicate that one domain influences the learning of the next domain and, as such, the learner develops as a whole. For example, the cognitive domain leads into the affective domain, which in turn leads into the psychomotor domain. As the pupil gains knowledge of their subject, their behaviour and awareness develop, which allows them to use and value the skills attained (Huddleston and Unwin, 2002). All of these activities range from the easier to the higher-order challenging outcomes of learning. Neary argues that, particularly in experienced-based programmes, all three domains – cognitive, affective and psychomotor – should be integrated in order that the student ‘can recognise the relationship between thinking, feeling and doing’(Neary, 2002: 141).
Bloom is also renowned for his concept of mastery learning, which emerged from the work of John Carroll, his optimism and his work on developing the taxonomies. This notion argued that almost all children can master any subject of knowledge given the time to do so and if they are provided with the appropriate pedagogy, and resources, which meet their individual needs. This is, to some thinkers, a worthy and inclusive idea and one which has the support of a number of other like-minded educational thinkers... Nonetheless, his ideas have attracted forthright criticism. For example, his taxonomies were considered to be linear and hierarchical which do not reflect the truth of real-life learning... What is important is that Bloom has left a functional set of ideas in his taxonomies, the use of the objectives curriculum model, and his notion of mastery learning which have been of benefit to numerous teachers who have applied these to their practice. He has also been a campaigner for children and communities perceived to be educationally deprived in the United States and internationally. But what is more noteworthy is that his ideas, driven by his deep belief in social justice, have advantaged numerous young people in accessing learning.
Bloom, B. (ed.) (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1: Cognitive domain. London: Longman.
Bloom, B., Davis, A. and Hess, R. (1965) Compensatory Education for Cultural Deprivation. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Eisner, E. (2000) Benjamin Bloom 1913–99. Prospects: The Quarterly Review of Comparative Education (Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), XXX(3), 1–7.
Forehand, M. (2010) Bloom’s Taxonomy: Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and technology. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.
Huddleston, P. and Unwin, L. (2002) Teaching and Learning in Further Education (Second Edition). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Kelly, A. (2004) The Curriculum: Theory and practice (Fifth Edition). London: Sage.
Neary, M. (2002) Curriculum Studies in Post-Compulsory and Adult Education: A teacher’s and student teacher’s study guide. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
Petty, G. (2009) Evidenced-Based Teaching (Second Edition). Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
Williams, J. (2004) Great Minds: Education’s most influential philosophers (A Times Education Supplement Essential Guide).