Taxonomies of learning aims and objectives:
Bloom, neoBloom, and criticisms

Tables of neo-Bloom (Anderson & Krathwohl -- A&K)

1) Multi-dimensional Bloom: domains of knowledge: (Levels X domains)
level		Old (Bloom)	Cognitive (new, A&K)	Affective	Affective2 (Norman Reid)	Psycho-motor	Psychomotor2 (e.g. dance)	Perceptual (me)
6		Evaluation	Creating	-	World view	-	Communicative movement	Create complex perceptions in others
5		Synthesis	Evaluating	Characterising by value or value concept	Values	Naturalisation	Skilled moves	Complex scene understanding
4		Analysis	Analysing	Organising and conceptualising	-	Articulation	Physical abilities	Connoisseurship, classify perceptions
3		Application	Applying	Valuing	Attitudes	Precision	Perceptual abilities	Active perceptual skills
2		Comprehension	Understanding	Responding	Beliefs	Manipulation	Fundamental movements	Recognise novel cases
1		Knowledge	Remembering	Receiving	Knowledge	Imitation	Reflexes	Recognise standard cases
0		Understanding language	Understanding language	Feeling	-	Moving	Moving	Sensing

2) Multi-dimensional neo-Bloom: types of knowledge [Levels X types, for cognitive domain only] neoBloom scheme in old Bloom table format.
level	Processes (internal, mental)	Factual	Conceptual	Procedural (external behaviour)	Metacognitive
6	Creating	Combine	Plan	Compose	Actualise
5	Evaluating	Rank	Assess	Conclude	Action
4	Analysing	Order	Explain	Differentiate	Achieve
3	Applying	Classify	Experiment	Calculate	Construct
2	Understanding	Summarise	Interpret	Predict	Execute
1	Remembering	List	Describe	Tabulate	Appropriate use

3) A&K usual presentation of the 2 dimensions as a blank table to use in analysing a course
	Cognitive process dimension Increasing mental complexity of processing →
Knowledge (type) dimension: ↓ increasing abstractness ↓	1 Remember	2 Understand	3     Apply	4   Analyse	5 Evaluate	6   Create
Factual
Conceptual
Procedural
Metacognitive

4) A&K example use The definitions of each objective etc. for the course being analysed are normally given in footnotes or a key to the table.
	Cognitive process dimension Increasing mental complexity of processing →
Knowledge (type) dimension: ↓ increasing abstractness ↓	1 Remember	2 Understand	3     Apply	4   Analyse	5 Evaluate	6   Create
Factual	Objective1, Activity1, Assess3
Conceptual		Activity1
Procedural		Activity3	Objective3, Activity3, Assess1
Metacognitive		Objective2, Activity3

5) A&K filled with verb-noun phrases
Level:	1	2	3	4	5	6
Processes (internal, mental):	Remembering	Understanding	Applying	Analysing	Evaluating	Creating
Factual	Remember facts	Understand facts	Apply facts	Analyse facts	Evaluate facts	Create facts
Conceptual	Remember concepts	Understand concepts	Apply concepts	Analyse concepts	Evaluate concepts	Create concepts
Procedural (external behaviour)	Remember procedures	Understand procedures	Apply procedures	Analyse procedures	Evaluate procedures	Create procedures
Metacognitive	Remember metacognitive items	Understand metacognitive items	Apply metacognitive items	Analyse metacognitive items	Evaluate metacognitive items	Create metacognitive items

6) A&K filled with keywords invented by others This is a transposed version of table 2
Level:	1	2	3	4	5	6
Processes (internal, mental):	Remembering	Understanding	Applying	Analysing	Evaluating	Creating
Factual	List	Summarise	Classify	Order	Rank	Combine
Conceptual	Describe	Interpret	Experiment	Explain	Assess	Plan
Procedural (external behaviour)	Tabulate	Predict	Calculate	Differentiate	Conclude	Compose
Metacognitive	Appropriate use	Execute	Construct	Achieve	Action	Actualise

8) Definitions of processes or levels? -- my rationale / restatement of the levels i.e. of the first dimension N.B. A&K call the set of 6 levels the dimension of cognitive processes
level	Processes, internal A&K redefinition of Bloom levels as internal mental processes	Procedural, external Examples of A&K's Procedural knowledge type (external behaviour)	New definition (me)
7	-	-	Create new categories, concepts, or rules
6	Creating	Compose	Generate a new complex case from old elements
5	Evaluating	Conclude	Weighted overall judgement of several given complex cases, relating elements
4	Analysing	Differentiate	Break down a given complex case into known elements
3	Applying	Calculate	Apply old knowledge to new cases (transfer across cases)
2	Understanding	Predict	Paraphrase (transfer across descriptions)
1	Remembering	Tabulate	Name, recall, and reproduce (elements, relationships)
0	-	-	Understanding language

Some explanatory points

Graphical orientation

A&K however show the 6 levels horizontally, with the more complex to the right. Table 3 shows them this way.

Table 2 is intermediate: it shows the basic A&K 2-D scheme, but in the old orientation.

The 3 dimensions

• Bloom is mainly remembered and used as a 1-D view: the levels of knowledge.
• Bloom offered a 2-dimensional view: Level X Domains (cognitive, affective, ...).
• A&K diagrams are 2-D, but of Level X types of knowledge, all for the cognitive domain alone.
• Presumably a full view would be a 3-D table of 6 levels X 4 domains X 4 types.

A&K revision of the levels

The A&K ordering of the levels is used in the various A&K tables above.

The last table (8) (which uses the A&K ordering) addresses a question of the processes. The A&K labels refer to internal, mental ("cognitive") processes. There are corresponding external behavioural tasks, which are examples of A&K's "procedural knowledge type", and which you might require learners to do for instance in an assessment: shown in col.3. A longer definition of what I imagine these intellectual operations really mean is offered in the last column.

What A&K felt they were doing

• Take and use a slightly modified view of Bloom's 6 levels. This is one dimension: of cognitive complexity, along which every learning objective, every assessment, every L-act may be classified. (These are usually diagrammed as a vertical list with the most complex at the top.)
• Introduce a second independent dimension of types of knowledge with 4 levels or types, of increasing degree of abstractness.
• This gives a 4 X 6 = 24 cells. Every learning objective, assessment, and learning activity may thus be classified as belonging to 1 of 24 types: an increase in precision from the 1 in 6 of Bloom.
• A&K repeatedly present these as an empty 2D table, with 24 empty cells (table 3). A teacher is recommended to analyse a lesson or course by classifying each learning objective by placing each one in 1 of these cells. Then to classify each learning-activity similarly. Then to classify each assessment on the course similarly. (See table 4.)
• They are thus very interested in "alignment" (alignment of the 3 things: not the 7 things Biggs discusses). When a cell has all 3 of {Objective, activity, assessment} this suggests good alignment. They are interested in alignment but NOT identity: they discuss the problems that arise when learners or teachers see, for example, an assessment as essentially the same thing as an objective.
• A&K do NOT assign a keyword as a prompt to each of the 24 cells: this is the work of later people, and probably not approved by A&K. A&K regard each learning objective as typically expressed with a noun and a verb, which can fairly easily be mapped on to the k-type and cognitive (mental) process dimensions respectively. (See table 5. A&K assumed readers did not need this actually spelled out graphically.)

Thus A&K are fully aware that language is at best a partial clue to classifying objectives. In their main vignettes they often discuss this, and end by re-classifying an ILO from where they had first assigned it. Against this is a strong desire many of us feel to summarise every category by a single mnemonic word label -- specially useful when you are scanning a whole table trying to get an overview, to reflect on contrasts and coverage. This web page is primarily motivated by a desire to find or create such a useful visual overview, and it leads to a use of 1-word labels. This is however dangerous, problematic, and leads to many errors. A&K did NOT do this.

Metacognition

They subdivide it into:

1. Strategic: tag a procedure (both thinking and learning ones) with the metacognitive knowledge that it applies more widely.
2. About "cognitive tasks": actually about test tasks. This is probably the "rules of the game" knowledge that students must pick up in order to do well in exams. What the tasks are that are being demanded (explicitly or implicitly); which tasks are relatively easy for this particular learner and her particular talents.
3. Self-knowledge -- a person's estimate of their own: capability (self-efficacy); intrinsic interests; valuation of each type of task.

Some diagrams

xx

References

• Old Bloom:
  Bloom, B.S. (ed.) (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the classification of educational goals -- Handbook I: Cognitive Domain (New York: McKay)
• Neo-Bloom: "A&K":
  Anderson,L.W., Krathwohl,D.R., Airasian,P.W., Cruikshank,K.A., Mayer,R.E., Pintrich,P.R., Raths,J. & Wittrock,M.C. (eds.) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (New York: Longman).
• See also Atherton's Doceo website:
  Atherton,J.S. (2009) Learning and Teaching; Bloom's taxonomy [On-line] UK: Available: http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/bloomtax.htm Accessed: 10 November 2009
• Affective:
  Kratwohl,D.R., Bloom,B.S. & Masia,B.B. (1964) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the classification of educational goals -- Handbook II: Affective Domain (New York: McKay)
• psycho-motor:
  Dave, R. (1967) "Psychomotor domain". (Berlin: International Conference of Educational Testing).
  also said to be in: Ingenkamp, K.H. (ed.) (1969) Developments in Educational Testing vol.1 (University of London Press, London)
  Dave, R.H. (1970 / 1975?) "Psychomotor levels" pp.33-34 in Developing and Writing Behavioural Objectives (R J Armstrong, ed.) (Tucson, Arizona, USA; Educational Innovators Press)
  The "R." in R.H.Dave is said to be "Ravindrakumar". He seems to have been one of Bloom's students.
  1975 is quite widely given but may be spurious. (Bloom for instance cited 1970.) Interestingly, Dave is NOT cited by Harrow (1972), which is available.
  A related book/edition I've seen a citation for is: Armstrong,R.J., Cornell,R.D., Kraner,R.E. & Roberson,E.W. (eds.) (1968) A systematic approach to Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives: A Handbook Designed to Increase the Communication of Laymen and Educators
  I have the impression that the Armstrong book, and Dave's two page chapter, and not easily available.
  See also link1 link2
• psycho-motor2:
  Harrow, Anita (1972) A taxonomy of psychomotor domain: a guide for developing behavioral objectives (New York: David McKay)
• Perceptual: me, this web page.

Part B: Digital Bloom

One model for reviewing use of techno in teaching is the SAMR model (Substitution; Augmentation; Modification; Redefinition).

Putting SAMR together with neo-Bloom you get Bloom's Digital Taxonomy:- Web page; or a 5-min video ...

which first reviews the Bloom taxonomy; then the changes which the neo-Bloom revised version makes; and then how to link that to modern technology in education.

Some further reading

• Digital and Bloom: 53 page PDF with many diagrams.
• from http://educationalelearningresources.yolasite.com/resources/guildresearch_blooms2013%20(1).pdf
• Screenshot from Youtube: ?v=0LZhid-STbo, about 2mins 12 seconds in.
• from http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom%27s+Digital+Taxonomy and scroll down a page.
• from http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom%27s+Digital+Taxonomy.

Part C: Criticisms of these taxonomies

Alex Johnstone, Norman Reid

Johnstone's categorisation of types of problem-solving subverts it in another way. Problem-solving is close to the heart of assessment tasks in science, but instead of classifying them as a developmental sequence with 6 levels, Johnstone suggested there were 8 types (only 2 of which were widely seen in teaching), made up of all combinations of 3 binary properties: whether the data were given or incomplete; whether the outcomes or goals of the task were given or "open" (decided by the learner before or during the task); and whether the methods were familiar or unfamiliar.

Types of problem for solving (Johnstone 1993)
Type	Data	Methods	Outcomes/goals	Skills bonus
1	Given	Familiar	Given	Recall of algorithms.
2	Given	Unfamiliar	Given	Looking for parallels to known methods.
3	Incomplete	Familiar	Given	Analysis of problem to decide what further data are required. Data seeking.
4	Incomplete	Unfamiliar	Given	Weighing up possible methods and then deciding on data required.
5	Given	Familiar	Open	Decision making about appropriate goals. Exploration of knowledge networks.
6	Given	Unfamiliar	Open	Decisions about goals and choices of appropriate methods. Exploration of knowledge and technique networks.
7	Incomplete	Familiar	Open	Once goals have been specified by the student these data are seen to be incomplete.
8	Incomplete	Unfamiliar	Open	Suggestion of goals and methods to get there; consequent need for additional data. All of the above skills.

Johnstone,Alex. (1993) "Introduction" in Creative problem solving in chemistry: Solving problems through effective groupwork (London: Royal Society of Chemistry)

What are Bloom taxonomies good for?

• Tests, assessments, and especially MCQs.
• Learning objectives
• And for thinking about your real course design and whether you are teaching too little or too much at each Bloom level or domain.

It is particularly useful for help in designing MCQs (multiple choice questions), since we tend to assume that MCQs can only test rote learning, but with care, you can test much "higher" kinds of learning.

The helpfulness is generally by associating each Bloom category with keywords and using these to prompt a teacher's imagination. This operation works with teachers who apply masses of commonsense when using the prompts. However the inverse operation works very badly: scanning text for the keywords and automatically classifying with the Bloom level, because English isn't simplistic like that.

In fact the "level" of a question actually depends on the processing it triggers in the learner's mind, and not on the words. Brain teasers (e.g. Mazur's "ConcepTests") have the surface form of simple factual questions, but trigger deep thinking about reasons for and against.

Better alternatives

1. One good one is to take Laurillard's 12 learning activities, and use them as a checklist for examining whether a given course supports all of them. One big hole in Bloom's scheme which this exposes is the need to get courses to connect each topic with perceptual aspects of experience (see the section on this below).

2. Another kind of checklist is of question types. One type which I've found very useful (as do audiences whom I've addressed) is the "assertion-reason question". Another type is the brain teaser I mentioned above.

3. I want a different hierarchy, one based on critical thinking (Perry, Kuhn):
   1. Facts (and concepts)
   2. Reasons: that make a fact more or less likely to be true. Evidence.
   3. Knowledge of alternative, rival, possible conclusions
   4. Decision on which is more likely to be right, given all the evidence available.
   There is no trace in Bloom of [2], no admission that [3] is not only possible but important, and [4] is only discussed w.r.t. finding faults in conclusions, not to addressing the making of decisions under uncertainty.

4. Steve Brindley used the following as a checklist for teaching (for lesson plans / learning designs).

   Steve Brindley's check list for learning designs (brindley@physics.gla.ac.uk)
   Intellectual aims and goals	Practical aims and goals	Attitudes and interests
   Recall previous work	Lab observations	Individual / group work
   Problem recognition & awareness	Record data	Safety consciousness
   Problem solving	Communication/ discussion	Personal context
   Hypotheses, Prediction, Test	Using powers of observation	Practical problem solving.
   Generate ideas	Using equipment	Experimental learning
   	Following practical instructions
   	Recording facts / ideas in words
   	Manipulating equipment

Bloom level / question level / task level

Bloom taxonomy levels don't really work; particularly not for classifying test questions.

• English marker words such as "why" do NOT fix a Bloom level.
  Draper,S.W. "What's going on in everyday explanation?" in C.Antaki (ed.) Analysing everyday explanation (1988) (Sage Publications: London) pp.15-31.
• There probably AREN'T a universal set of cognitive operations in a hierarchy, even if we knew how to map language to each one. (See some of the arguments below under "Level of education".)
• Particularly striking is the absence of "giving a reason for" as a task or level, or in general, relating one fact or concept to another in a network with possible conflicts. In other words, it is incompatible with Perry's work, and critical thinking as a learning objective, because it seems to assume that knowledge consists of isolated items that are true or false: not connected items, still less ones of uncertain validity. While some of the higher level words (analyse, conclude) might seem to hint at Perry, the give-away is the absence of a basic level of learning reasons (justifications) for facts in addition to facts themselves.
• General context matters i.e. a question changes type depending, not on what is in the question, but what is in the context. For example, in a physics course, asking what makes an apple fall to the ground: gravity or angels, is easy by eliminating answers irrelevant to the course; but in a theology course it might be different, and in a health and safety course the answer is likely to be failure to provide a safety net, failure of the fruit picker to follow approved procedures, etc.
• Specific context matters: the most powerful assertion-reason questions give both a true fact and a list of reasons all taught on the course. But if a reason is listed that was not taught on the course, it can be eliminated by a sensible student (i.e. the context of that specific course affects how a student can infer what the right answer is).

In fact the "level" of a question depends on the processing it triggers in the learner's mind, and not on the meanings of the words, let alone their surface form.

In fact, especially in HE, each discipline typically has a core test activity type e.g. essay writing in History, problem solving using calculations in physics. These are usually a fairly good match to the Bloom level demanded, inherently requiring high level cognitive functioning; although the highest marks may require additional functioning that is not explicitly required by the question i.e. the student must know the implicit demands of the discipline (see below) e.g. whether to display originality or not, whether to redefine the exam question or whether this will be penalised.

The fallacy of one word labels

Here's where good examples would fit, referring to the "level of a question".

Not psychomotor but sensori-motor, and above all perception

For instance: In school biology (since Bloom's time) it has become compulsory for pupils to learn to distinguish in photomicrographs and diagrams eukaryote from prokaryote cells; animal from plant cells, etc. A physician must be able to recognise a disease in a patient, not just talk about it to other medics. A student of chemistry should know what gold looks like compared to copper. These things are taught and assessed. Bloom's taxonomy misses their important place, and A&K perpetuate this major omission.

In using a checklist to review a course's content and assessment, I would always look at what connection it makes to students' personal experience, and especially to perceptual experience and skills.

The above are educational arguments why splitting motor from perception is a blunder. It was an old-fashioned psychological tradition to split them; but one that is regarded as wrong by some important cognitive approaches since Bloom e.g. J.J.Gibson, and work on robotics. You can't build a practicable robot by splitting them: Rodney Brooks argued and demonstrated that you have to have layers each of which have both sensing and motor action, distinguished by how fast (but stupidly) they can respond.

The psychomotor itself

My impression is that there is no good work on this domain; and that defining a domain as motor without perception is a serious error both educationally and psychologically.

Level of education and Bloom

• It entails that Bloom's taxonomy is a stage theory of human development / education. It is not.
• It is clear from the literature on "misconceptions" in science that there is no fixed order of acquiring notions about many things. Thus many studies show dissociations, for a given question, between what some children will predict, how they will explain it, and what their physical behaviour implies about it. E.g. you set up a toy helter-skelter: a small tower, with a slide spiralling down the outside. You pick up a ball and hold it at the top: when released it will roll down and round, and fly off at the bottom in some direction. You can either ask them to predict what direction; ask them to catch it and observe where they place their hands, or let them see it and then ask them to explain the direction. There doesn't seem to be a fixed order in which they get this right.
• If you look at a 5 year old's command of their first language, it seems already to match all six Bloom levels including creative use.
• On the other hand, to call an accountant "creative" is to accuse them of fraud. No-one wants their own doctor to be creative unless they are desperate: we pay them to to apply known remedies to known diseases. Pilot training is exactly to remove creativity and have them pre-prepared to recognise all situations. In fact there is no cross-disciplinary consensus on the value orderings implied in the taxonomy (see below).

Disciplinarity

• This does not represent a consensus across disciplines (it is the narrow view of some disciplines, arrogantly applied to others).
• The relative importance, value, priority of these is different in different disciplines.
• So strong, within many disciplines, is the requirement for some but not others of these values, that students are expected to know the requirement without it being stated. And that is indeed reasonable: knowing a subject is in part knowing its disciplinary values. Yet that conflicts with the educationalist values underpinning the taxonomy: that learning objectives should be stated, that assessment tasks should explicitly say what is required.
• Disciplines have core assessment tasks that automatically require some levels, and offer an opportunity to display other levels.

For instance, Arts schools (which at least in the UK award HE degrees), require for admission, in year 1, and in all exercises, that students exhibit different compositions from each other: i.e. they demand "creativity", the top Bloom level, pervasively. In contrast in psychology (for instance) students are drilled in an impersonal and conformist voice, not to put their own experiences forward as evidence, to produce the right answer not a creative one. Creativity is explicitly penalised.

The old Bloom hierarchy put Evaluation at the top, above synthesis. That aligned with the view that the best paid jobs were executives, filtering what was offered by underlings to select the best things for the bosses' needs. As in the Renaissance, artists were relatively low paid employees. A more romantic view, expressed in the revised taxonomy, puts a higher value on creativity. Yet this fails to distinguish the synthesis a plumber shows (selecting a novel combination of off-the-shelf pipe and joint elements to suit a unique need) from the creativity described in product design texts, where design is not about assembling existing components, but finding a design that optimises multiple conflicting demands (that the product be cheap, be functional, be easily assembled, be easily cleaned, .....).

In chemistry you will need to reproduce the symbol "W" for Tungsten, and paraphrasing that as "Wolfram" (which would demonstrate historical understanding) will be penalised: rote reproduction of the symbol is required. In many other disciplines however paraphrase will be a required demonstration. Not only does this show a difference in values between disciplines, but it would not be stated in test questions for chemistry: students must know this value.

History as a discipline can usefully be considered as a training in writing "the History essay". Students will eventually be expected to take the question, redefine it (and state and justify their own redefinition), relate it to theories (probably to more than one) thus demonstrating "applying" and "analysing", and produce a weighted evalution. But they will get the highest marks by arguing a hypothesis of their own (demonstrating "creating") although it would never be called that. However in many other disciplines, this would be penalised as "not answering the question". This is not because Bloom is right and all academics across the world are wrong: it is because there are different values in different discipines, and Bloom's taxonomy does not and can not represent this.

According to A&K, Bloom was aware that discipline area matters and said as much in writing. In that case, this criticism is not that they missed noticing the issue, but that their continued failure to address it does indeed undermine the whole enterprise.

End summary

What is bad about it includes the points above, such as its neglect of perceptual learning, and its denial that different discipines require different kinds of thinking. And that even if the taxonomy is valid, it is a taxonomy of invisible aspects of learners' minds, and we cannot systematically and reliably translate this into question formats or other concrete teaching and learning activities.

Its connection to improving teaching really amounts to a corrective for the pervasive tendency to design courses around "covering content", and instead prompts teachers to devote course time and effort to the mental tasks that are central to a given discipline: these are not merely higher types of cognitive processing than rote learning of answers, but more generally are what feedback and tutoring need to be concentrated on. (Content largely takes care of itself.) These are different in different disciplines, but what is common is the need to focus learning objectives, tests, and staff time on something more than reproduction of content.

Appendix: Wanted -- killer examples of questions

Aims to fulfill

• Sound examples of assertion-reason questions.
• In more than one discipline.
• Illustrate that a lot of MCQ reasoning is not even rote learning but contextual. [And that this is true of essay questions too.]
• But that questions may have the same form yet evoke reasoning about
  • not context
  • not rote learning
  • but reasons for the assertion
• => Mazur brain teaser
• => Howe peer constructive interaction: use my example of -1 times -1.

Examples wanted

1. A good assertion reason qu
2. One with physics reasons but not on the course
3. A qu. that could be physics OR other disc
4. Antaki: types of why
5. Aristotle: types of cause
6. Health & Safety: types of cause
7. wider: crystal healing, astrology
8. Brain teaser: Mazur's ConcepTests (get real eg.s.)
9. Brain teaser: Levis I.e. evoke strong reasoned attractions in 2 or more response items. I.e. the context of noticing internal contradiction
10. Brain teaser: The 3 recent ones, like Levis (exp. growth, ...)
11. (Howe) It's the context of peer challenge.

Examples

Web site logical path: [www.psy.gla.ac.uk] [~steve] [best] [this page]
[Top of this page]