Application, Analysis and Bloom’s Taxonomy

Application and analysis are levels three and four of Bloom’s Taxonomy:

• Knowledge
• Comprehension
• Application
• Analysis
• Synthesis
• Evaluation

Subsequent research has suggested swapping the top two levels, synthesis and evaluation.

For me, I don’t think this makes much difference and prefer the original formulation.

Ultimately, I think it’s contextual.

Sometimes evaluation is hardest, sometimes synthesis, depending on what the task is.

But the two always remain the most challenging objectives we ask learners to pursue.

Just before them are application and analysis.

Which can also be challenging.

And which bridge the gap between knowledge and comprehension and the top two levels.

Here, I want to take an opportunity to have a look at application and analysis in a bit of detail.

To think about their nature.

Before we begin, here are a couple of keyword lists, giving us a sense of the variety of subtly distinct cognitive processes that fall under the two umbrella terms:

Application:

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

Analysis:

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

These lists are useful for developing questions, tasks and learning objectives.

They also point to the range of options open to us when we are planning and teaching.

Thinking About Application

We apply knowledge and understanding.

That is, we take what we know and what we understand, and we use it in situations other than that with which we are familiar.

So, for example, we apply our knowledge to solve a problem, or we use our understanding to overcome an obstacle.

If we attend to what we are doing during the process of application, then we come to further develop the knowledge and understanding we seek to apply.

This is because the information and experience to which the application (or attempted application) gives rise is a supplement to our present knowledge and understanding of the thing in question.

For example, we might know and understand what the water cycle is.

Then, we might find ourselves faced with the challenge of applying this knowledge to a situation in which one part of the cycle appears to be out of kilter.

As part of this application, we are expected to ascertain why the cycle is not as we would expect it to be (and here, we note how application and analysis are often intertwined).

During this process, we find ourselves taking what we already know and applying it to a new situation.

Through this, we deepen our knowledge of the water cycle, and our understanding of it.

The expression of what we know and think in the new context is, in itself, new information.

A supplement to what we already possess.

In addition, the application causes us to look at our existing knowledge and understanding in a new light – to use it.

This usage reveals further information about its nature and the extent to which it can be used in a given situation.

Targeted Application is Best

For these reasons, application is always to be welcomed but active or targeted application – that is, application in which the learner is consciously directing their effort in pursuit of a goal – is generally preferred.

This type of application leads to greater learning gains than passive or undirected application.

To illustrate, consider two children learning to play the piano.

Their piano teacher teaches them an exercise.

They ask them to practice it during the week.

Practice, in this case, is a form of application.

The two children practice through the week.

One does so actively. They focus on what they are doing while they are doing it. They think about their practice. They make adjustments.

The other practices passively. They go through the motions. Their mind wanders. They don’t attend to what is happening while they practice.

Chances are the learner who is actively engaged with the application will make better gains than the learner who practices passively.

We know this also from our own experiences.

And from what we see when we teach.

A simple way to target application is to provide learners with a structure – like a set of success criteria or a checklist.

Another option is to ask learners to focus on implementing their targets while applying their knowledge and understanding.

For example, the piano teacher might ask one of their learners to focus on their target of increased finger dexterity while practicing the exercise they’ve shown them.

(Having a target like this to focus on sharpens the mind. Or, to put it another way, creates a focus that we can then pursue.)

If we take a step back, away from the classroom, and think about learning more generally, we can see just how important application is to the pursuit of mastery.

This point is encapsulated in the saying, ‘practice makes perfect’.

Indeed it does.

But attentive practice makes perfect faster.

This is because the attention we direct affords us the opportunity to learn continuously from the process of application, furthering the development of our knowledge and understanding more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

During lessons, giving learners opportunities to apply their learning means giving them chances to take the basics and go broader and deeper.

This is about widening learners’ experience of whatever content they are learning about.

Expertise and Repeated Practice

Returning to the idea of problem-solving, we can see how a learner who is given the chance to apply their knowledge and understanding to a series of different problems will, on each occasion, gain experience of the scope, nature and applicability of this.

It is for this reason that there is a strong connection between expertise and repeated practice.

Without sufficient opportunity to apply that which we have memorised and come to understand, we lose the chance to know and understand it more fully.

To reiterate, applying knowledge and understanding gives rise to at least two important opportunities, from both of which learning stems.

First, we gain access to information about the efficacy of applying what we know and understand in a given situation.

We broaden and deepen what we already have.

Second, the application itself represents new knowledge, a supplement, enhancing the position from which we began.

A final example will be helpful to reinforce the point.

Consider a trainee glassblower who has a basic knowledge and understanding of glassblowing.

Take them out of the learning process at this point and their stock of learning is limited.

Allow them to apply what they have learned by trying to blow glass in the workshop and, on every occasion that they engage in application, they learn.

That learning encompasses the effects of their efforts as well as the process of applying their efforts.

Both give access to new learning.

Both help them to become more proficient and more skilled in applying their knowledge and understanding in new contexts (every attempted glass blow is a new context).

Both help them to develop mastery.

Thinking About Analysis

Analysis is closely linked to application.

If we actively attend to the results of any application we do, then we are, at least in part, analysing the results of our endeavours.

This analysis involves examining what we are doing and noting its effects, as well as considering how our actions relate to other aspects (like the finished products we produce).

Furthermore, in looking at the similarities and differences between our expectations of what application will bring and the actual results of our application, we are once again engaging in analysis.

For example, I might apply my knowledge and understanding of cooking fish to a new problem: how to cook river cobbler, a fish I have not cooked before.

I examine the fish and note it’s similarity to other types of white fish with which I am familiar.

As a result, I decide to apply my existing knowledge and understanding by wrapping the fish in lightly oiled foil and placing a piece of lemon inside.

I place the fish in the oven and, after ten minutes or so, take it out.

Next, I open the foil parcel and begin to examine the fish.

I compare the results to my knowledge and understanding of what other white fish look like when cooked.

I taste a piece and make further comparisons.

Then I start to consider whether I should have seasoned the fish, what impact this might have had and whether I have cooked it for too long, in terms of the texture to which this cooking has given rise.

This whole process is one of analysis.

Analysis in which I am concerned with the results of my application.

We can therefore see how use of the latter is frequently followed – or tied up with – use of the former.

(I would also point out that evaluation can come in here as well, such as when we assess the quality of our application or the extent to which the results match our expectations. This demonstrates how there is often a fine line between analysis and evaluation.)

Analysis on its Own

Analysis can also be used independently of application, or as a next step.

For example, we might ask learners to analyse a text with which they are unfamiliar.

To do this, they will call on their prior knowledge and understanding, with this having been developed through repeated application.

This could see them analysing the effect a poem has on a reader, having previously learned about some of the tools you can use to dissect a text, and having then practised applying these to some simpler poems.

Here we see how the ability to effectively analyse does tend to rest on one’s having previously had the opportunity to work through the application of knowledge and understanding.

Leaping straight from comprehension to analysis can be tricky as the extent of the comprehension we possess may be limited by our inexperience in using it.

This is one of the reasons why, often unconsciously, we draw application and analysis together in the same activity.

Whether explicitly stated or not, we understand that being able to do the latter well means having at least some practice in the former.

In some cases, of course, the analysis we ask learners to do is of a more general type.

In these situations, the jump between comprehension and analysis is not so great.

Looking at the Nature of Things

Because analysis is concerned with unpicking the nature of things, it gives us access to additional information and learning, helping us to progress further than if we stop at the level of application.

For example, I might master the art of applying gloss paint to the walls of my living room, so it leaves a neat finish.

But if I then begin to analyse why it gives a neat finish and start comparing gloss paint to other types of paint, my understanding will deepen, compared to what it was.

I use this example specifically because it also illustrates why many learners can feel that it is OK to stop once effective application has been achieved.

In the case of my living room walls, the questions that jump out are:

• Do you really need to engage in the analysis?
• Haven’t you achieved what you wanted?
• Isn’t going any further just doing it for the sake of it?

I’m sure you will have encountered learners who convey these feelings in class.

Once they can do the minimum necessary to get by, they are happy and they often fail to accept, at first glance, the legitimacy of being expected to push on and move into the realm of analysis (and beyond).

Two points follow.

The first is that, if our aim is mastery, then application is not a sufficient endpoint.

Mastering how to apply what we know and understand is not the same as mastering the content in full.

What is more, by working our way through the levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation, we will come to see that what we previously perceived as the limits of our application were in fact only the limits that we could see at that point in time.

Enhancing our understanding as we move up the taxonomy affords us the chance to look at our previous application in a new light, and to see that it was only ever partial.

Second, effective application includes being able to apply our knowledge and understanding in situations where we don’t know what we are supposed to do.

This is much easier to achieve if we have a degree of analytical and evaluative understanding, as well as some experience of using what we know to create or develop something new.

To put this another way, a critical and creative understanding of ideas, information and skills lets us respond to uncertainty with greater confidence.

Compare this to stopping at application.

How do we know that the application we have mastered represents the extent of all the application there is?

Answer: we don’t.