Bloom’s Taxonomy

1) Details about Bloom and Co:

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, a framework for classifying educational objectives, was developed in 1956 by Benjamin Bloom along with Max Englehart, Edward Furst, Walter Hill, and David Krathwohl. This teaching paradigm, also referred to as Bloom’s Taxonomy, has been used by K–12 educators as well as college professors for many years.

Six main categories made up the framework developed by Bloom and his collaborators: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. With the assumption that knowledge was an essential prerequisite for using these skills and abilities in practice. Categories following Knowledge were represented by “skills and abilities.” Despite the fact that each category featured subcategories that ranged in depth from simple to complex and from concrete to abstract, the taxonomy is most commonly associated with its six main categories.

The updated Bloom’s Taxonomy resulted from Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl’s revision of the framework in 2001. The removal of “Synthesis” and the insertion of “Creation” as the top level of Bloom’s Taxonomy were the two biggest changes to the Cognitive Domain. Being at the highest level implies that it is the most challenging or sophisticated cognitive talent, or at the very least that it is the pinnacle of cognitive tasks.

2) What is Bloom’s Taxonomy?:

According to the updated Bloom’s Taxonomy, there are six levels:

Remember:

For instance, learn a poem by heart, recollect state capitals, or memorize math equations.

Understand:

Examples include classifying animals according to a predetermined framework, comparing rectangles and squares, and summarizing the events of a short novel.

Apply:

Use a formula to solve a problem, choose a design to achieve a goal, or reenact the passage of a new law through a certain government or system, as examples.

Analyze:

For instance, describe the “components of democracy,” describe how the processes of a scientific method interact, or explain why a machine isn’t operating.

Evaluate:

Make a decision on an ethical conundrum, explain the significance of a certain physical rule, or demonstrate the relative worth of a technological innovation in a certain context—such as a technology that enables topsoil farming, for example.

Create:

For instance, create a fresh approach to an “old” issue while recognizing and respecting the shortcomings of the past. Write a poem based on a predetermined theme and tone, and eliminate the least compelling essay points possible.

3) Why the need of Bloom’s Taxonomy?:

In order for teachers and students to both comprehend the purpose of a pedagogical exchange, it is crucial to create objectives. Clarifying one’s own and pupils’ objectives through organization is beneficial. An organized set of objectives aids teachers in creating effective assessment tasks and techniques, planning and delivering suitable instruction, and ensuring that both are in line with the objectives.

4) Criticisms of Bloom’s Taxonomy:

To improve their students’ learning, educators are seeking for solutions that are supported by research. There is no justification for using Bloom’s Taxonomy in educational contexts because it is neither grounded in scientific facts nor does it give an epistemological foundation that explains how knowledge is uniquely formed and updated within a sociocultural environment.

Contrarily, the benefits of a constructivist approach are clear: it is not important to categorically classify cognitive processes in order to check boxes. What matters is to verify how the learner has assembled cognitive constructs, what factors and motivations went into the creation of mental content, and how knowledge creation relates to more significant contexts like cultural identity, interpersonal relationships, reaching consensus, formulating policy, and the advancement of local and global communities.

Despite its historical value, Bloom’s Taxonomy should no longer be used as a guiding educational theory because it lacks scientific support. Instead of emphasizing on learners, the taxonomy concentrates on abstract cognitive domains. The taxonomy is not learner-centered and does not address issues with a learner’s autonomy, competence, and social relatedness, all of which are essential to learning. Bloom’s taxonomy excludes the relevance of real-world circumstances for the production of knowledge. The meaning that knowledge generates for a student or a group of collaborative learners is not taken into account by the taxonomy. An epistemological perspective does not operationalize the function of prior knowledge.

The idea excludes motivation, a vital element of learning. The taxonomy does not offer any logical, precise criteria for evaluation, such as measuring students’ abilities as team players, researchers, and problem solvers. The foundation of thought processes is not a rigid hierarchy or sequence. Learners organize their emotive, cognitive, and metacognitive processes in accordance with the type and complexity of the situation at hand. The fixation with certain cognitive abilities and procedures frequently comes at the expense of cooperative behavior development, social and communication skills, and personal growth.