Attempting to Define Curriculum Design

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, a series of conferences were held in America in which educators came together to try to improve communication around curriculum design and the nature of examinations.

The period is notable for the wider transition in the West to a post-war society.

One increasingly characterised by changing relationships between citizens and the state, as well as one in which formal education came to play a greater role.

It could be argued that the desire to formalise and, to some extent, systematise, the development of curricula and examinations reflected these changing norms.

Certainly, it would seem difficult to argue that such a process would have been more likely in the period immediately prior, with this characterised by first the Great Depression and, subsequently, the Second World War.

Without wishing to engage in too much speculation regarding the influence of the period on the decision to hold the conferences, suffice to say that with the growth of formal education and its increasing importance to industrialised society, the necessity for some form of codification of educational objectives was greater than it had previously been.

On this logic, a delineation of some type was perhaps inevitable, although that it came in the form that it did is as much down to the motives of those involved as it is to the wider historical processes.

Put another way, the years following the end of the Second World War seem a fecund period in which new ideas and developments about formal schooling could grow.

Far more so than the years that preceded them.

The conferences were held between 1949 and 1953.

Benjamin S. Bloom chaired the committee of educators who developed the taxonomy.

He was an educational psychologist who studied at Pennsylvania State University and the University of Chicago.

The aim of the conferences was to codify the learning objectives educators set for their learners.

This codification came in the form of a taxonomy.

That is, a hierarchy of general processes that moves from simple to complex.

The Book is Published

As a result of the conferences, a book was published in 1956.

This was edited by Bloom and entitled Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain.

A subsequent book was published in 1965.

This was called Handbook II: Affective domain.

A third book was planned but never published.

This was intended to deal with the psychomotor domain.

Most teachers are familiar only with the first of the taxonomies.

That concerning the cognitive domain.

However, it is worth noting that the original attempts to classify the objectives of learning centred on a holistic view of education covering cognitive, affective and psychomotor processes.

This indicates that the educators who gathered at the conferences and who subsequently contributed to the books, Bloom among them, had an open and generous view of education – what it is and what it is for – rather than a reductive one.

(It also indicates that what we know as Bloom’s taxonomy was never intended to cover all aspects of learning. So, for example, if you teach French or maths or a practical area of the curriculum, that might explain why Bloom’s is a partial, rather than perfect, fit for your teaching.)

Nonetheless, it is clear that the taxonomy focussing on the cognitive domain is the area of the work that gained real traction in the years following its development.

This suggests that educators found it most useful for their classroom practice and that it most closely matches that which remains dominant in the discourse and practice around schooling: the development of cognitive thought processes.

That the affective and psychomotor domains are important few would argue against.

But that the cognitive domain takes precedence in most formal schooling is also true.

The taxonomy of the affective domain is concerned with emotional intelligence and the development of moral reasoning.

This is an important area.

But one that doesn’t lend itself to consensus in the way the cognitive domain does.

One person’s apex of moral reasoning may be different to someone else’s.

And there is no way to reconcile that.

The psychomotor domain was pursued by various academics in the decades after the creation and dissemination of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Many versions exist.

All seek to describe how mastery develops in the acquisition of practical skill.

My personal preference is for that of Dave (1971). It offers a simple, accessible overview of practical skill acquisition.

One I have shared with many teachers over the years, and which gets a good response from teachers of practical subjects.

A Dominant Influence on Education

Since its conception, it is Bloom’s taxonomy that has had by far the greatest influence though.

And rightly so.

It is this taxonomy that teachers are taught about during their training.

And this taxonomy to which we all return again and again, to help us plan lessons, assessments and questioning.

The influence of the taxonomy is not in doubt.

It has become a cornerstone of teaching and learning, acting as a one of the most important foundations on which much of contemporary education is based.

That it continues to be so influential is due in no small part to its simplicity.

Through the categorisation and ordering of various disparate processes, it provides teachers with a powerful tool through which to think about the learning their learners do and that their lessons promote.

For evidence of its ubiquity, simply pick a set of exam mark-schemes at random and read through them.

You will almost always see the taxonomy acting as an underpinning.

A framework of assessment.

Is that purely because of the taxonomy’s inherent power?

Or is it also because the taxonomy formalised the latent structure of knowledge common to how we think?

It’s a question to ponder.