Bloom Taxonomy

Bloom Taxonomy

Remembering (Knowledge / Recall)

🧠 At this level, an expert can accurately **define** core terms related to Bloom’s taxonomy and **name** its main parts, people, and artifacts.

• Core terminology & definitions
  • [taxonomy] – A hierarchical framework for classifying educational learning objectives in the [domain] from simple recall to complex creation.
  • [domain] – The domain of learning concerned with mental skills such as remembering, understanding, and problem solving.
  • [domain] – The domain of learning related to attitudes, emotions, values, and motivation.
  • [domain] – The domain of learning involving physical movement, coordination, and motor skills.
  • [objective] – A specific statement of what a learner should know or be able to do as a result of instruction.
  • [outcome] – The observable result of learning, often expressed in terms of knowledge, skills, or attitudes.
  • [of Educational Objectives] – The original handbook series in which Bloom and colleagues published the taxonomy.
  • [thinking skills] – Cognitive processes such as analyzing, evaluating, and creating that go beyond basic recall.
  • Lower-order thinking skills – Placeholder for skills focused on basic recall and simple comprehension (link to be added).

• Key components & actors
  • [Bloom] – American educational psychologist who chaired the committee that developed the original taxonomy.
  • David Krathwohl – Placeholder for co-author of the taxonomy and contributor to the later revision (link to be added).
  • Lorin Anderson – Placeholder for former student of Bloom who co-led the revision of the taxonomy (link to be added).
  • [psychology] – The field that studies how people learn and frequently uses Bloom’s taxonomy to describe cognitive processes.
  • [[1]] – Practitioners who use the taxonomy to plan lessons, write objectives, and design assessments.
  • [designers] – People who structure courses and programs around progressive levels of learning difficulty.

• Canonical tools & frameworks
  • [Bloom's taxonomy (1956)] – The initial six-level classification: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation.
  • [Bloom's taxonomy (2001)] – The updated six-level classification using verbs: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create.
  • [design models] – Frameworks for course design that often embed Bloom’s levels into learning objectives and assessments.
  • [alignment] – An approach that aligns learning objectives, teaching methods, and assessments, commonly using Bloom’s taxonomy as a reference for objective wording.

• Fundamental standards & specifications
  • [standards] – National or regional documents that describe expected learning, often phrased in ways compatible with Bloom’s levels.
  • [outcomes frameworks] – Systems that categorize what students should know and be able to do, frequently referencing Bloom’s taxonomy.
  • [frameworks] – High-level guides for what is taught in schools or programs, which may implicitly or explicitly reflect Bloom-level progression.

• Common status & "error codes" (typical mistakes in use)
  • Misuse of Bloom's taxonomy – Placeholder for general category of incorrect applications, such as treating verb lists as the taxonomy itself (link to be added).
  • [in education] – For Bloom’s taxonomy, these include:
    • Reversing or misordering the levels (e.g., placing [[2]] below [[3]]).
    • Labeling simple recall questions as [[4]] or [[5]] just because they sound complex.
    • Assuming that using any “higher-level” verb automatically guarantees higher-order thinking, regardless of task design.

---

Understanding (Comprehension)

📖 Ability to explain what Bloom’s taxonomy is, how its parts relate, and how it differs from alternatives.

• Conceptual relationships & contrasts
  • [vs. revised Bloom’s taxonomy] – Comparison of the first hierarchy with the updated version.
  • [of learning] – How the cognitive domain in Bloom’s taxonomy complements affective and psychomotor domains.
  • [taxonomy] – An alternative model that classifies learning based on the structural complexity of responses.

• Core principles & paradigms
  • [models of learning] – The idea that more complex skills build on simpler ones.
  • [(education)] – The view that learners actively build understanding, which Bloom’s levels can help describe.

• Core operational concepts
  • [verbs] in learning objectives – Using verbs like “define,” “explain,” “analyze,” or “design” to signal cognitive demand.
  • [for learning] – Using questions and tasks at different Bloom levels to support and check understanding.

• Producer vs. consumer perspectives
  • [designer] – Uses Bloom’s taxonomy to plan objectives, activities, and assessments.
  • [[6]] – Experiences tasks at various cognitive levels and demonstrates understanding through performance.

Applying (Application / Use)

🛠️ Ability to use Bloom’s taxonomy in real course, lesson, or assessment design.

• "Hello, World" & canonical examples
  • [plan] – A basic lesson where objectives are explicitly tagged with Bloom levels (e.g., “Students will be able to list… (Remember)”).
  • [question] – Simple example re-written across different Bloom levels (recall vs. interpret vs. evaluate).

• Guides for core task loops
  • [design] – Loop: define outcomes → map to Bloom levels → design learning activities → design aligned assessments.
  • [design] – Start from desired outcomes (with Bloom levels) and work backward to teaching and assessment.

• Reference of common commands/“functions”
  • [[7]] lists for Bloom’s taxonomy – Practical lists of action verbs used to write objectives at each level (remember, understand, apply, etc.). (Bloom verb list – missing)
  • [[8]] – Scoring tools that describe performance in ways aligned with Bloom levels.

• Contextual use cases
  • [training] – Using Bloom to design onboarding and skills-development programs.
  • [education] – Structuring course sequences so students move from recall in early years to creating and evaluating in capstone projects.

Analyzing (Analysis / Break Down)

🔬 Ability to break down Bloom’s taxonomy, compare it to other models, and examine its limitations.

• Comparative analysis (pros & cons)
  • [of Bloom’s taxonomy] – Concerns about oversimplification and lack of empirical validation.
  • [taxonomy] vs. Bloom – Comparison of focusing on structural complexity vs. cognitive process labels.

• Failure modes & root cause analysis
  • [to the test] – When misused, Bloom’s taxonomy may encourage narrow exam-driven teaching.
  • [approach] – Treating Bloom levels as boxes to tick rather than tools for thoughtful design (root cause: superficial adoption).

• Troubleshooting & observability techniques
  • [mapping] – Analyzing where objectives, teaching, and assessment misalign in Bloom levels.
  • [analytics] – Using data on student performance at different difficulty levels to infer gaps in instruction or misclassified tasks.

Creating (Synthesis / Create)

🏗️ Ability to design new learning experiences, curricula, and systems using Bloom’s taxonomy.

• Design patterns & best practices
  • [(education)] – Gradually moving tasks from lower to higher Bloom levels with support.
  • [learning] – Designing activities that push learners into analyzing, evaluating, and creating.

• Common security & ethical patterns
  • [equity] – Ensuring all learners have access to higher-order learning opportunities, not just recall tasks.
  • [curriculum] – Being aware of implicit messages when only low-level objectives are emphasized.

• Lifecycle management strategies
  • [redesign] – Periodically revising objectives and assessments to ensure a healthy spread across Bloom levels.
  • [improvement] – Using feedback and outcomes data to iteratively refine learning designs.

• Scalability & optimization patterns
  • [management system] – Embedding Bloom-aligned objectives and item banks into digital platforms.
  • [banks] – Large repositories of assessment items tagged by Bloom level for reuse and scaling.

Evaluating (Evaluation / Judge)

⚖️ Ability to judge the quality, impact, and suitability of using Bloom’s taxonomy in a given context.

• Evaluation frameworks & testing tools
  • [evaluation] – Assessing whether Bloom-aligned curricula actually improve learning outcomes.
  • [measurement] – Studying reliability and validity of assessments designed with Bloom’s taxonomy.

• Maturity & adoption models
  • [of innovations] – Understanding how Bloom’s taxonomy spread through schools, universities, and training organizations.
  • [design models] – Positioning Bloom’s taxonomy among other widely adopted frameworks.

• Key performance indicators (KPIs) & metrics
  • [outcomes] achievement – Evidence that students can perform tasks at targeted Bloom levels.
  • [engagement] – Degree to which higher-order tasks (analysis, evaluation, creation) increase motivation and participation.

• Strategic decision criteria (rubrics & trade-offs)
  • [frameworks] – Choosing Bloom vs. alternatives like SOLO or Community_of_practice (missing) based on goals.
  • [analysis] – Weighing the effort of tagging and redesigning curricula against gains in clarity and learning.

• Holistic impact analysis
  • [cost of ownership] – Considering time, training, and tooling needed to adopt Bloom’s taxonomy across a program.
  • [[9]] and [[10]] – Evaluating how well Bloom’s framework supports both child and adult learning contexts.