Click on the above link to view the ppt associated with this essay
My rationale for selecting this paper is that I felt at the time I wrote it, it was important for me to know and understand the taxonomy since the Adult Basic Education (ABE) and General Education Diploma (GED) study material and tests are based on this. My research and synthesis of the literature also provides an understanding for any teacher regarding how this taxonomy can be applied when creating learning material. I used current sources for my research, summarized it and reflected on how it is useful in adult education. I chose the content carefully because the information regarding the taxonomy is abundant. I also backed up any opinions that I expressed with research related to the facts. The information I presented in this paper is accurate and the quality of the sources is not only current but reliable.
————————————————
This essay will summarize Benjamin Bloom’s cognitive and affective taxonomy, how the taxonomies can be used in teaching adults and some positive and negative criticisms of the taxonomies. My motivation for researching this subject is that I think the taxonomies provide a way for instructors to express with more precision what their intent is in teaching any given lesson in formal teaching environments. To help understand the content of the taxonomies, I have included a ppt presentation.
Bloom was primarily interested in the development and process of thinking in his students (Bloom, 1956). He wanted to know how cognitive functions and higher levels of thinking could be promoted in learning. Bloom wanted to create a procedure where learning could be systematically implemented. Out of his interest and research in educational psychology he and others developed the cognitive, affective and psychomotor taxonomies. Although this essay will only concern itself with the cognitive and affective domains, the psychomotor domain has also been useful in some types of learning environments (Costa, 200).
Bloom’s revised cognitive taxonomy provides a way of classifying knowledge and cognitive processes into goals for education (Bloom, 1956). This classification is similar in its hierarchical nature to the type of scientific taxonomy that classifies the order of plants and animals into their presumed natural relationships. It can be used at any level and for any subject matter that is taught. I think that it is important for those who teach adults to have an understanding of the taxonomy. The taxonomy helps education professionals talk about goals in a more precise way. For example, when an instructor says that he or she wants the students to, “really understand a concept” or to “internalize knowledge” or “grasp the essence” of some subject, the taxonomy provides a way for an instructor to express those ideas more accurately when they are creating lesson plans and evaluations. Using the taxonomy helps educators express these ideas by referencing them to a specific set of classifications so that these phrases are not as vague.
Instructors have a range of possible educational goals in the cognitive/ knowledge domain. The taxonomy provides a model for analyzing educational outcomes in the areas that deal with recall or recognition of knowledge (this is the knowledge domain) and the development of intellectual skills (this is the cognitive domain) (Marzano, 2000). The taxonomy does not classify instructional methods, or how instructors relate to students or the different kinds of materials instructors should use to instruct. What is classified is the cognitive behavior of students as a result of some element of instruction. Any kind of educational goal can be represented by the taxonomy in a fashion that doesn’t make a judgment about it (Marzano, 2000). It provides a way of knowing if a certain level of thinking and understanding has been reached through instruction.
There are two dimensions in the taxonomy; the cognitive process dimension and the knowledge dimension. Together they create a table. The cognitive process dimension has six categories: Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating (Bloom, 1956). (The ppt elaborates on the definition of these categories) Underlying the categories is the assumption that the first is the least complex and the last is the most complex. The knowledge dimension has four categories: Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, and Meta-cognitive. These also lie along a continuum that goes from concrete knowledge to the most abstract. All of the categories overlap to some degree.
To create precise objectives for any course of study, instructors use the taxonomy to organize large amounts of vague objectives into a framework that makes the objectives more specific so that goals can be achieved (Costa, 2000). The framework provides the compartments into which ideas, experiences and concepts can be placed. The categories in the framework are placed along a continuum. The continuum consists of objectives that are classified hierarchically. An objective will contain a verb and a noun. The verb will describe the cognitive process and the noun will describe the knowledge students are expected to gain (Costa, 2000). For example, students will learn to distinguish (This is a cognitive process) among a Marxist, Communist and Democratic form of government (This is the knowledge) (Anderson, 2001). It is important to understand that objectives are the end to the instructional process. The taxonomy is the means by which an instructor can determine if students possess the knowledge and cognitive processes students must have in order to attain the objective. In the example just mentioned, when students understand the distinctions between the three forms of government, the instructor can move onto more abstract concepts that relate to this subject matter, thus moving onto the next level of the taxonomy (Anderson, 2001).
Given the importance of understanding objectives in using the taxonomy, it seems appropriate to focus on what objectives are. Objectives can take many forms (Marzano, 2000). They can be highly specific or very broad. The important points are these: different types of objectives need different instructional methods and similar types of objectives may require similar instructional methods regardless of the subject matter (Marzano, 2000). The taxonomy helps the instructor organize objectives that are cognitive outcomes of instruction. Since it can help instructors by acting as a guide for the selection of methods of instruction and for selecting and designing appropriate assessments, it is important to be familiar with the taxonomy and the value it can provide to promote instruction that leads to students being able to apply, analyze, evaluate and create new knowledge (Bloom, 1956). Since students attending ABE and GED classes often have not had much experience in developing the higher order thinking skills, it is critical that instruction to this population provide the opportunity to exercise the cognitive functions that provide this type of learning.
Instruction that directs students to the correct categories of knowledge and cognitive processes is the concept of alignment. Alignment has to do with aligning the instruction and objectives to the correct knowledge and cognitive dimensions. For instance, if students are to “analyze conceptual knowledge” on a given topic, instruction should direct students toward that goal. If instruction is not aligned with the objectives then even high quality instruction will not have an effect on student performance. An instructor cannot evaluate for the objectives if alignment has not occurred because students will not have had the opportunity to reach the objective. So in other words, if the objective is for students to define three different forms of government, the objective would be aligned with remembering what are the cognitive processes and understanding factual knowledge in the taxonomy. In this way, alignment helps determine what is worth learning, how the students will learn it, how the instructor will evaluate whether the students have learned it or not and if the students are ready to move onto more abstract concepts when dealing with the material.
It is also important to know the difference between knowledge and content (Anderson, 2001). Content can be used in different ways to get different types of knowledge. For instance, in the example I used earlier regarding the different types of government, Instructor A wants the students to learn the names of the different types of government. Students should also know who the famous leaders are and what countries practice each type of governing. Because instructor A focuses on specific details and elements of each government, in the language of the taxonomy this instructor is concerned with remembering (a cognitive task) and understanding (a cognitive task) factual knowledge (The first dimension in the taxonomy). Instructor B wants the students to learn important concepts that have to do with the effect each type of government has on peoples’ attitudes about freedom and personal ambition. For instance, what role would ambition play in the life of a person who lives in a democracy as opposed to a communist government. In this case, the Instructor is trying to teach ideas and relationships and how they affect the human condition. The instructor would be concerned with conceptual knowledge (knowledge dimension) and analyzing (cognitive dimension and a higher order thinking skill). Instructor C wants the students to think about governments in general. This instructor focuses on how each government operates and what the weaknesses and strengths of each are. In the language of the taxonomy, Instructor C would be focusing on procedural knowledge (knowledge dimension and evaluation which is the cognitive dimension and a higher order thinking skill). And finally, Instructor D knows that studying these forms of governments contributes to how the students will learn to use tools they can use to understand, analyze and appreciate other forms of government. This instructor wants students to examine what their ethics are by identifying with a particular government. This Instructor is concerned with meta-cognitive knowledge and creating new information. So in other words, content can be used in different ways to reach the different levels of learning. These categories are often not separate from one another but overlap and, depending on the complexity of the knowledge, several dimensions can be included (Anderson, 2001). However, the taxonomy does not contain all types of knowledge. Since there are so many different types and sub-types of knowledge, and lack of scholarly agreement on the characteristics of knowledge categories, the taxonomy has adopted the four categories mentioned because they incorporate general types of knowledge (Marzano, 2000)
I think it’s important to continue to discuss the distinction between factual and conceptual knowledge. Factual knowledge is knowledge that is distinct isolated bits of information (Bloom, 1956). Conceptual knowledge is more complex, organized knowledge that contains numerous bits (Bloom, 1956). For instance, the names of different governments are factual knowledge. The theory behind a governments operation is conceptual knowledge. One of the characteristics of student learning that is mentioned in the research material that I used (Marzano, 2000) is that students often are not able to make a connection between the facts they learn about any given subject and the larger scheme of ideas that an expert has in the knowledge of a discipline (Marzano,2000). They do not gain the conceptual knowledge that is required to transfer what they know to new situations. In ABE/GED preparation this is a major challenge because since students have not exercised this skill in an academic environment, they are unable to apply new knowledge and think critically about it. Since I am familiar with the taxonomy, I often will show students how knowledge is acquired so they have an idea about the purpose of exercising their cognitive abilities.
According to Marzano (2000), there is a focus on factual knowledge in education. The cognitive process of instruction often focuses on remembering or gaining knowledge which is the lowest level of the taxonomy. If two of the more important objectives in any class of instruction is to promote retention of what is being taught and to promote transfer of the information to new situations, as it is in ABE/GED instruction, it is critical to get students to the higher levels of the cognitive process. Since the taxonomy includes six levels, instructors can use that framework to broaden their objectives to make sure that the higher levels of learning are included. Only one of the cognitive processes relates to retention. This is the first one called “knowledge”. The rest all have to do with the process of transferring what is remembered to new situations. In my opinion, this is the greatest value of the taxonomy. It gives a framework for Instructors to design lessons that reach for the higher levels of learning.
Under each of the six main categories are sub-categories that break down the broader category (Bloom, 1956). An instructor can consider the entire range of cognitive process categories to create more meaningful learning by deepening understanding of the subject matter. Often, however, instructors are under pressure because of semester deadlines to cover certain content. Therefore I think they hastily feed the facts to students but not a lot of time is spent on making sure the students can apply, analyze, evaluate and create new information.
So how can instructors use the table when they teach? Classroom instruction is complex. Every student is different. No matter how diligent an Instructor is, the objectives, instructional activities and assessments may not be applicable to every student. But the value of the taxonomy is that it provides a framework to start from and hopefully ends where the knowledge and cognitive processes need to end for a student to have attained the desired knowledge and critical thinking skills. In ABE/GED classes this is critical because the GED tests are written to assess higher level skills. It also helps Instructors clarify how subject matter will fit with other considerations such as pre-requisite knowledge for a higher level course, the age of the students, the developmental stage of the students and the cognitive abilities of the students. It also helps instructors clarify what equipment and/or material needs to be used for the instructional activities. Other questions such as how much time should be allocated to developing certain cognitive processes or knowledge can be determined by understanding what outcomes are to be achieved. An instructor can also determine how to assess students based on which cognitive processes and what knowledge has been obtained.
Some kind of reasoned order of categories to assess learning is, in my opinion, an important component of teaching. The framework contains categories that are ordered by increasing levels of complexity. The categories form a cumulative hierarchy. It is important to understand that the categories are not separate from each other but rather that they overlap. Not all of the categories are necessarily included in all types of knowledge. It is assumed that when a more complex category has been mastered, a less complex category has been mastered also (Costa, 2000). Without having knowledge of the taxonomy, Instructors would not be able to determine if the students have achieved their objectives?
One of the problems that I see with the table is that it assumes a nice linear and rational process. Humans don’t work that way. Another issue is that the taxonomy does not provide a way to determine what objectives to include and how the decision to include any given objective will be made. I think it also assumes that all important educational intentions can be determined in advance. For example, the Instructor wants students to think about how living in a democracy as opposed to a country with a Marxist government affects personal ambition. If the students don’t understand the two different types of government, they cannot think abstractly about it. This may be the case with many subjects, but is not always the case with every subject. Success in teaching does not always have to bring out predictable outcomes or follow the order of the taxonomy. Adults come with prior knowledge. Their life experiences may have taught them to think critically. Instructors can’t assume that adults have or have not developed higher level skills.
However, If Instructors assume that creating curriculum begins with creating objectives that teaching activities and assessments can be aligned with, the taxonomy is very useful. Sometimes the thrill of having a learning activity is that it creates the need to have an objective. For instance, “These are great computers. What can we teach these seniors to do with them?” Often there is an idea which doesn’t have an end yet. An idea exists not knowing where that idea will go. Too much planning can harm the spontaneity, creativity and flexibility that are sometimes needed for learning to occur and for critical thinking skills to be developed. Reaching those levels of thinking is not necessarily a planned event.
It is also not realistic to expect that all learning involves just thinking. Learning also involves emotions, beliefs and the social and cultural perspectives of the students and instructors. Another important point to consider is the research done by Marzano (2000). He states that knowledge does not necessarily move from the simplest level to the most difficult. The structure of the taxonomy implies that since it is ordered in a hierarchy, higher level skills can only be attained when the skills below it have been mastered. Marzano disagrees with this. Higher level skills sometimes occur without lower level skills coming first. Also, nearly all complex learning uses several different cognitive skills at one time.
Even though the taxonomy has weaknesses, its’ strength is that it has takes the topic of thinking and puts a structure around it that can be used by instructors to provoke higher level thinking skills in students. I think Instructors who are familiar with this process for learning have a better chance of attaining the objectives they set out to achieve than Instructors who do not have any kind of gauge to use.
In the case of ABE/GED preparation, since the taxonomy contributes to the creation of the GED practice material and testing material in that rather than signifying the completion of a course of study, it validates academic knowledge and cognitive skills that have not been obtained in the traditional academic setting. The performance standard is the understanding and application of concepts. These are the higher level skills in the taxonomy. For instance, the GED reading test not only measures the basic comprehension skills of adults, it also measures the ability to construct meaning from a variety of life skills selections and prose. On the math test, computation skills are measured, but more importantly and carrying more weight, is the ability to apply a wide range of basic math skills, methods and concepts to tasks such as budgeting, planning, predicting results and interpreting information. These skills span the range of knowledge and skills necessary for general adult competence, confidence and lifelong learning. The GED tests have been rewritten several times to keep up with the need to incorporate higher level thinking skills. This change has occurred because we have come from an industrial society to an information society.
Learning is not an isolated event that only involves cognitive skills in the classroom. If learning is going to be effective it has to translate from the classroom to the students’ personal, professional, and other academic environments. Instructors have an important role in this because it is up to them to create the appropriate environment for learning in the cognitive domain to occur. Rather than learning being just an intellectual experience, using the taxonomy creates the opportunity for students to give meaning to what they are learning and be able to apply it to their lives. Creating experiences that the students can relate to and use are useful in helping them to test new knowledge in the real world. Letting students examine their values and beliefs by exposing them to new experiences helps to work on higher thinking characteristics. The taxonomy is a valuable tool for successful instructional processes.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Lorin & Krathwohl, David (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and And Assessing. New York: Longman.
Bloom, Benjamin (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook 1, Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman.
Marzano, R. J. (2000). Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Costa, A. L. (Ed.). (2000). Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J. (2000). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lefrancois, Guy R. (1988). Psychology for Teaching. Belmont, CA: Wadswort
