Select Page

Hello, attached below are two readings from the class. Please read both and write a 1-2 page single spaced paper from what you learned from the papers. One can be used more than the other, but please make sure you are using information from the papers and citing the papers properly.


Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Approaches to Biology Teaching and Learning discussion
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Unformatted Attachment Preview

This article was downloaded by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi]
On: 04 November 2012, At: 12:19
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Theory Into Practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview
David R. Krathwohl
Version of record first published: 24 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: David R. Krathwohl (2002): A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview, Theory Into
Practice, 41:4, 212-218
To link to this article:
Full terms and conditions of use:
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the
contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and
drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy
David R. Krathwohl
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 12:19 04 November 2012
A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy:
An Overview
is a framework for classifying statements of
what we expect or intend students to learn as a
result of instruction. The framework was conceived
as a means of facilitating the exchange of test items
among faculty at various universities in order to
create banks of items, each measuring the same
educational objective. Benjamin S. Bloom, then
Associate Director of the Board of Examinations of
the University of Chicago, initiated the idea, hoping
that it would reduce the labor of preparing annual
comprehensive examinations. To aid in his effort, he
enlisted a group of measurement specialists from
across the United States, many of whom repeatedly
faced the same problem. This group met about twice
a year beginning in 1949 to consider progress, make
revisions, and plan the next steps. Their final draft
was published in 1956 under the title, Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain
(Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956).1
Hereafter, this is referred to as the original Taxonomy. The revision of this framework, which is the
subject of this issue of Theory Into Practice, was
developed in much the same manner 45 years later
(Anderson, Krathwohl, et al., 2001). Hereafter, this
is referred to as the revised Taxonomy.2
David R. Krathwohl is Hannah Hammond Professor of
Education Emeritus at Syracuse University.
Bloom saw the original Taxonomy as more than
a measurement tool. He believed it could serve as a
• common language about learning goals to facilitate communication across persons, subject matter,
and grade levels;
• basis for determining for a particular course or
curriculum the specific meaning of broad educational goals, such as those found in the currently
prevalent national, state, and local standards;
• means for determining the congruence of educational objectives, activities, and assessments in
a unit, course, or curriculum; and
• panorama of the range of educational possibilities against which the limited breadth and depth
of any particular educational course or curriculum could be contrasted.
The Original Taxonomy
The original Taxonomy provided carefully
developed definitions for each of the six major categories in the cognitive domain. The categories
were Knowledge, Comprehension, Application,
Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation.3 With the exception of Application, each of these was broken
into subcategories. The complete structure of the
original Taxonomy is shown in Table 1.
The categories were ordered from simple to
complex and from concrete to abstract. Further, it
was assumed that the original Taxonomy represented a cumulative hierarchy; that is, mastery of
THEORY INTO PRACTICE , Volume 41, Number 4, Autumn 2002
Copyright © 2002 College of Education, The Ohio State University
An Overview
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 12:19 04 November 2012
Table 1
Structure of the Original Taxonomy
1.0 Knowledge
1.10 Knowledge of specifics
1.11 Knowledge of terminology
1.12 Knowledge of specific facts
1.20 Knowledge of ways and means of dealing with
1.21 Knowledge of conventions
1.22 Knowledge of trends and sequences
1.23 Knowledge of classifications and categories
1.24 Knowledge of criteria
1.25 Knowledge of methodology
1.30 Knowledge of universals and abstractions in a
1.31 Knowledge of principles and generalizations
1.32 Knowledge of theories and structures
2.0 Comprehension
2.1 Translation
2.2 Interpretation
2.3 Extrapolation
3.0 Application
4.0 Analysis
4.1 Analysis of elements
4.2 Analysis of relationships
4.3 Analysis of organizational principles
5.0 Synthesis
5.1 Production of a unique communication
5.2 Production of a plan, or proposed set of operations
5.3 Derivation of a set of abstract relations
6.0 Evaluation
6.1 Evaluation in terms of internal evidence
6.2 Judgments in terms of external criteria
each simpler category was prerequisite to mastery
of the next more complex one.
At the time it was introduced, the term taxonomy was unfamiliar as an education term. Potential users did not understand what it meant,
therefore, little attention was given to the original
Taxonomy at first. But as readers saw its potential, the framework became widely known and cited, eventually being translated into 22 languages.
One of the most frequent uses of the original
Taxonomy has been to classify curricular objectives and test items in order to show the breadth,
or lack of breadth, of the objectives and items
across the spectrum of categories. Almost always,
these analyses have shown a heavy emphasis on
objectives requiring only recognition or recall of
information, objectives that fall in the Knowledge
category. But, it is objectives that involve the understanding and use of knowledge, those that would be
classified in the categories from Comprehension to
Synthesis, that are usually considered the most important goals of education. Such analyses, therefore,
have repeatedly provided a basis for moving curricula and tests toward objectives that would be classified in the more complex categories.
From One Dimension to Two Dimensions
Objectives that describe intended learning
outcomes as the result of instruction are usually
framed in terms of (a) some subject matter content
and (b) a description of what is to be done with or to
that content. Thus, statements of objectives typically
consist of a noun or noun phrase—the subject matter
content—and a verb or verb phrase—the cognitive
process(es). Consider, for example, the following
objective: The student shall be able to remember
the law of supply and demand in economics. “The
student shall be able to” (or “The learner will,” or
some other similar phrase) is common to all objectives since an objective defines what students are
expected to learn. Statements of objectives often
omit “The student shall be able to” phrase, specifying just the unique part (e.g., “Remember the
economics law of supply and demand.”). In this
form it is clear that the noun phrase is “law of
supply and demand” and the verb is “remember.”
In the original Taxonomy, the Knowledge category embodied both noun and verb aspects. The noun
or subject matter aspect was specified in Knowledge’s
extensive subcategories. The verb aspect was included in the definition given to Knowledge in that the
student was expected to be able to recall or recognize knowledge. This brought unidimensionality to
the framework at the cost of a Knowledge category
that was dual in nature and thus different from the
other Taxonomic categories. This anomaly was eliminated in the revised Taxonomy by allowing these
two aspects, the noun and verb, to form separate dimensions, the noun providing the basis for the Knowledge dimension and the verb forming the basis for
the Cognitive Process dimension.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 12:19 04 November 2012
Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy
The Knowledge dimension
Like the original, the knowledge categories
of the revised Taxonomy cut across subject matter
lines. The new Knowledge dimension, however,
contains four instead of three main categories.
Three of them include the substance of the subcategories of Knowledge in the original framework.
But they were reorganized to use the terminology,
and to recognize the distinctions of cognitive psychology that developed since the original framework was devised. A fourth, and new category,
Metacognitive Knowledge, provides a distinction
that was not widely recognized at the time the original scheme was developed. Metacognitive Knowledge involves knowledge about cognition in general
as well as awareness of and knowledge about one’s
own cognition (Pintrich, this issue). It is of increasing significance as researchers continue to
demonstrate the importance of students being made
aware of their metacognitive activity, and then using this knowledge to appropriately adapt the ways
in which they think and operate. The four categories with their subcategories are shown in Table 2.
The Cognitive Process dimension
The original number of categories, six, was retained, but with important changes. Three categories
were renamed, the order of two was interchanged,
and those category names retained were changed to
verb form to fit the way they are used in objectives.
The verb aspect of the original Knowledge
category was kept as the first of the six major categories, but was renamed Remember. Comprehension was renamed because one criterion for
selecting category labels was the use of terms that
teachers use in talking about their work. Because
understand is a commonly used term in objectives,
its lack of inclusion was a frequent criticism of the
original Taxonomy. Indeed, the original group considered using it, but dropped the idea after further
consideration showed that when teachers say they
want the student to “really” understand, they mean
anything from Comprehension to Synthesis. But,
to the revising authors there seemed to be popular
usage in which understand was a widespread synonym for comprehending. So, Comprehension, the
second of the original categories, was renamed
Understand. 4
Table 2
Structure of the Knowledge Dimension
of the Revised Taxonomy
A. Factual Knowledge – The basic elements that students must know to be acquainted with a discipline
or solve problems in it.
Aa. Knowledge of terminology
Ab. Knowledge of specific details and elements
B. Conceptual Knowledge – The interrelationships
among the basic elements within a larger structure
that enable them to function together.
Ba. Knowledge of classifications and categories
Bb. Knowledge of principles and generalizations
Bc. Knowledge of theories, models, and structures
C. Procedural Knowledge – How to do something; methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms,
techniques, and methods.
Ca. Knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms
Cb. Knowledge of subject-specific techniques and
Cc. Knowledge of criteria for determining when
to use appropriate procedures
D. Metacognitive Knowledge – Knowledge of cognition
in general as well as awareness and knowledge of
one’s own cognition.
Da. Strategic knowledge
Db. Knowledge about cognitive tasks, including
appropriate contextual and conditional
Dc. Self-knowledge
Application, Analysis, and Evaluation were retained, but in their verb forms as Apply, Analyze,
and Evaluate. Synthesis changed places with Evaluation and was renamed Create. All the original subcategories were replaced with gerunds, and called
“cognitive processes.” With these changes, the categories and subcategories—cognitive processes—of the
Cognitive Process dimension are shown in Table 3.
Whereas the six major categories were given
far more attention than the subcategories in the original Taxonomy, in the revision, the 19 specific cognitive processes within the six cognitive process
categories receive the major emphasis. Indeed, the
nature of the revision’s six major categories emerges most clearly from the descriptions given the specific cognitive processes. Together, these processes
characterize each category’s breadth and depth.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 12:19 04 November 2012
An Overview
Like the original Taxonomy, the revision is a
hierarchy in the sense that the six major categories
of the Cognitive Process dimension are believed to
differ in their complexity, with remember being
less complex than understand, which is less complex than apply, and so on. However, because the
revision gives much greater weight to teacher usage, the requirement of a strict hierarchy has been
relaxed to allow the categories to overlap one another. This is most clearly illustrated in the case of
the category Understand. Because its scope has
been considerably broadened over Comprehend in
the original framework, some cognitive processes
associated with Understand (e.g., Explaining) are
more cognitively complex than at least one of the
cognitive processes associated with Apply (e.g.,
Executing). If, however, one were to locate the
“center point” of each of the six major categories
on a scale of judged complexity, they would likely
form a scale from simple to complex. In this sense,
the Cognitive Process dimension is a hierarchy,
and probably one that would be supported as well
as was the original Taxonomy in terms of empirical evidence (see Anderson, Krathwohl, et al., 2001,
chap. 16).
The Taxonomy Table
In the revised Taxonomy, the fact that any
objective would be represented in two dimensions
immediately suggested the possibility of constructing a two-dimensional table, which we termed the
Taxonomy Table. The Knowledge dimension would
form the vertical axis of the table, whereas the
Cognitive Process dimension would form the horizontal axis. The intersections of the knowledge and
cognitive process categories would form the cells.
Consequently, any objective could be classified in
the Taxonomy Table in one or more cells that correspond with the intersection of the column(s) appropriate for categorizing the verb(s) and the row(s)
appropriate for categorizing the noun(s) or noun
phrase(s). To see how this placement of objectives
is accomplished, consider the following example
adapted from the State of Minnesota’s Language
Arts Standards for Grade 12:
A student shall demonstrate the ability to write using grammar, language mechanics, and other conventions of standard written English for a variety of
Table 3
Structure of the Cognitive Process
Dimension of the Revised Taxonomy
1.0 Remember – Retrieving relevant knowledge from
long-term memory.
1.1 Recognizing
1.2 Recalling
2.0 Understand – Determining the meaning of instructional messages, including oral, written, and graphic
2.1 Interpreting
2.2 Exemplifying
2.3 Classifying
2.4 Summarizing
2.5 Inferring
2.6 Comparing
2.7 Explaining
3.0 Apply – Carrying out or using a procedure in a given
3.1 Executing
3.2 Implementing
4.0 Analyze – Breaking material into its constituent parts
and detecting how the parts relate to one another and
to an overall structure or purpose.
4.1 Differentiating
4.2 Organizing
4.3 Attributing
5.0 Evaluate – Making judgments based on criteria and
5.1 Checking
5.2 Critiquing
6.0 Create – Putting elements together to form a novel,
coherent whole or make an original product.
6.1 Generating
6.2 Planning
6.3 Producing
academic purposes and situations by writing original
compositions that analyze patterns and relationships
of ideas, topics, or themes. (State of Minnesota, 1998)
We begin by simplifying the standard (i.e., objective) by ignoring certain parts, particularly restrictions such as “using grammar, language mechanics,
and other conventions of standard written English
for a variety of academic purposes and situations.”
(Some of these specify scoring dimensions that, if
not done correctly, would cause the student’s composition to be given a lower grade.) Omitting these
restrictions leaves us with the following:
Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 12:19 04 November 2012
Write original compositions that analyze patterns and
relationships of ideas, topics, or themes.
Placement of the objective along the Knowledge dimension requires a consideration of the noun
phrase “patterns and relationships of ideas, topics, or
themes.” “Patterns and relationships” are associated
with B. Conceptual Knowledge. So we would classify the noun component as an example of B. Conceptual Knowledge. Concerning the placement of the
objective along the Cognitive Process dimension, we
note there are two verbs: write and analyze. Writing compositions calls for Producing, and, as such,
would be classified as an example of 6. Create.
Analyze, of course, would be 4. Analyze. Since
both categories of cognitive processes are likely to
be involved (with students being expected to analyze before they create), we would place this objective in two cells of the Taxonomy Table: B4,
Analyze Conceptual Knowledge, and B6, Create
[based on] Conceptual Knowledge (see Figure 1).
We use the bracketed [based on] to indicate that
the creation itself isn’t conceptual knowledge; rather, the creation is primarily based on, in this case,
conceptual knowledge.
By using the Taxonomy Table, an analysis
of the objectives of a unit or course provides,
among other things, an indication of the extent to
which more complex kinds of knowledge and cognitive processes are involved. Since objectives from
Understand through Create are usually considered
the most important outcomes of education, their
inclusion, or lack of it, is readily apparent from
the Taxonomy Table. Consider this example from
one of the vignettes in the revised Taxonomy volume in which a teacher, Ms. Gwendolyn Airasian,
describes a classroom unit in which she integrates
Pre-Revolutionary War colonial history with a persuasive writing assignment. Ms. Airasian lists four
specific objectives. She wants her students to:
1. Remember the specific parts of the Parliamentary
Acts (e.g., the Sugar, Stamp, and Townshend
2. Explain the consequences of the Parliamentary
Acts for different colonial groups;
3. Choose a colonial character or group and write
a persuasive editorial stating his/her/its position
on the Acts (the editorial must include at least
one supporting reason not specifically taught or
covered in the class); and
4. Self- and peer edit the editorial.
Categorizing the first objective, 1. Remember
is clearly the cognitive process, and “specific parts
of the Parliamentary Acts” is Ab. Knowledge of specific details or elements, a subcategory of A. Factual Knowledge. So this objective is placed in cell
A1.5 “Explain,” the verb in the second objective,
is the seventh cognitive process, 2.7 Explaining,
The Cognitive Process Dimension
The Knowledge
1. Remember
2. Understand 3. Apply
4. Analyze
5. Evaluate
6. Create
A. Factual …
Purchase answer to see full

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHSELP