Bloom’s Taxonomy in the Classroom

What are the implications of Bloom’s Taxonomy for teaching and learning?

How does delineating and defining the cognitive processes we ask learners to pursue in school help us in our work?

First, let me flesh out the bare bones of the taxonomy by providing a non-exhaustive list of keywords connected to each of the levels.

This will help us to think about each of the categories rather more clearly:

Knowledge Keywords:

• Arrange, Define, Describe, List, Match, Memorise, Name, Order, Quote, Recognise, Recall, Repeat, Reproduce, Restate, Retain.

Comprehension Keywords:

• Characterise, Classify, Complete, Describe, Discuss, Establish, Explain, Express, Identify, Illustrate, Recognise, Report, Relate, Sort, Translate.

Application Keywords:

• Apply, Calculate, Choose, Demonstrate, Dramatize, Employ, Implement, Interpret, Operate, Perform, Practise, Role-Play, Sketch, Solve, Suggest.

Analysis Keywords:

• Analyse, Appraise, Categorize, Compare, Contrast, Differentiate, Discriminate, Distinguish, Examine, Experiment, Explore, Investigate, Question, Research, Test.

Synthesis Keywords:

• Combine, Compose, Construct, Create, Devise, Design, Formulate, Hypothesise, Integrate, Merge, Organise, Plan, Propose, Synthesise, Unite.

Evaluation Keywords:

• Appraise, Argue, Assess, Critique, Defend, Evaluate, Examine, Grade, Inspect, Judge, Justify, Rank, Rate, Review, Value.

Giving Nuance to Thinking

Some words could reasonably be placed in more than one category.

This reflects the fact that the words in question have multiple meanings, as well as the interrelated nature of thinking.

Looking over the lists, we can see that each collection of words points to a range of ways in which the general process can play out in practical terms.

This is important.

The different words exist for good reason.

They refer to different things.

While these things may be similar and, on occasion, almost identical, the words would be unlikely to remain in currency if they did not serve some specific purpose.

If they did not name something that is different, if only subtly, from something else.

Take defend and critique, for example.

These both see us engaging in a process of assessment.

In each case, though, the assessment is in a different direction.

To defend something, we need to assess its strengths and weaknesses, marshal these in a way that puts the best case forward for the thing in question, and marry this up with criticisms of the alternatives.

To critique something, we must work in the opposite direction.

Our aim is more heavily circumscribed.

We are drawing out the weaknesses of the thing in question and, while we may do this in part by making unfavourable comparisons to strengths found in other places, we will focus our attention on the negative things associated with the object of our assessment.

Compare and differentiate offers another example, here taken from the category of analysis.

When comparing two things our aim is to see to what extent they are similar and, by extension, different.

Any acknowledgement of the degree of similarity is, at least implicitly, an acknowledgement of the degree of difference as well (if we say that two things are roughly similar, it follows that they are not particularly dissimilar).

If our aim is to differentiate, we focus our analysis on picking out the things that are different – that separate out the things in question.

We might call on a degree of comparison to do this, but the act itself is different from comparison, because our aim is firmly bound up with accentuating and cataloguing the differences on view.

These examples illustrate how each category of the taxonomy is home to a wide range of variations on a theme.

These variations exist because they refer to different things.

Put together, they make up the wider category.

Individually, they represent cases within each category.

Give Yourself an Unfair Advantage

When it comes to teaching and learning, we find ourselves at a significant advantage if we are familiar with a range of keywords for each general process.

This allows us to plan objectives, outcomes, activities, and questions more precisely.

And to bring variety into our lessons.

Consider how limited our scope would be if we only ever referred to the six category titles: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

It would be like trying to create an intricate carving using only a hammer and a single chisel.

Our job would be far harder than if we had a wide range of tools at our disposal, allowing us to differentiate, specialise and make thoughtful choices based on the part of our work in which we were engaged at any one time.

Synthesis is the category in which this is perhaps most apparent.

The world is unwieldy at a classroom level.

It also possesses a rather striking chemistry connotation (this is not a bad thing in itself, it merely serves to point out that the word is not that closely tied to the set of words that fall under its umbrella – ‘create’ being an obvious example – and which we seek to promote in the classroom).

Two things follow.

First, familiarising yourself with the categories of the taxonomy, their order and their meaning is helpful.

Second, getting to know a range of keywords for each level is even better, as this gives you greater scope with which to act when applying the taxonomy to your planning, teaching and marking, as well as to the construction of any assessments.

(And, you may be wondering, why is this and unfair advantage? Well, surely all advantages are unfair, otherwise they wouldn’t be advantages …)