How do you use Bloom's taxonomy to classify learning objectives and outcomes?

In addition to what is mentioned above regarding the missuse of Blooms, we invalidate our praxis as Instructional Designers when we do not critique Blooms, i.e. the oversimplification of thought in relation to learning.

When I receive source content for instructional design, I employ a structured approach to ensure effective learning materials. Initially, I engage in chunking to identify crucial components such as facts, concepts, processes, procedures, and guidelines. Subsequently, I assess the appropriate cognitive level for each chunk, drawing upon Bloom's Taxonomy to gauge the depth of comprehension required. In addition to cognitive evaluation, I consider practical utilization. I scrutinize which activities and assessments can best complement each content chunk, aligning them with the identified cognitive level. This facilitates a seamless connection between knowledge acquisition and practical application.

We have misused Bloom, for year's, classifying questions based on the taxonomy and creating tables of verbs for each. Webb makes that clear it is not about the verb but the task. Several of Blooms associates h ave tried to stem the practice of misuse of the taxonomy, through revisions of the Taxonomy.

Bloom's Taxonomy helps classify learning objectives by categorizing cognitive skills into levels. At the base are 'Remember' tasks, like recalling facts. Moving up, 'Understand' involves explaining ideas. 'Apply' means using knowledge in new situations, 'Analyze' is breaking info into parts, and 'Evaluate' is making judgments. The top level, 'Create,' involves generating new ideas. Align learning objectives with these levels, progressing from basic to complex. For instance, a history lesson may start with 'Remembering' dates, leading to 'Analyzing' historical events' impacts. Using Bloom's Taxonomy guides a systematic approach, ensuring a comprehensive learning experience.

As a teacher in a STEM class, Aerospace Engineering, the revised version of Bloom’s aligns with the EPD Engineering Design Process, which I happen to think is model process for all classrooms. Activating prior knowledge when confronted with new content, and then working through process of learning to understand, learning to analyze, learning to evaluate, learning to apply, and learning to create… all of which is a continuous cycle and requires constant re-evaluation, because as you learn new things your previous understanding may also change. It really is just learning how to learn, learning how to think, and then applying.

The Affective domain is the most challenging out of the three domains. For example, you want staff to show self-reliance when working independently; cooperate in group activities (displays teamwork); use an objective approach in problem-solving; and demonstrate a professional commitment to ethical practice daily; revise judgments, and change behavior in light of new evidence; and value people for what they are, not how they look. These are all great expectations, but how do you measure them when these are subjective judgments? The affective domain is less easily measured because it relies upon the fallibility of human decision making to assign a score or grade.

100% agree with this. A great exercise I used when I was starting as an Instructional designer was to work backwards. I pictured the outcome of the project, then, outlined activities that would help me achieve that outcome. And the final step, after outlining the level of immersion needed to perform those activities was to select carefully the verbs I’ll use to phrase the learning objectives.

It’s high time that we go back to the basics of what research projects are all about! Bloom’s Taxonomy is a critical & creative higher order thinking skills tools that allow people to fact check information for authenticity and to analyze/evaluate its content in a stringent hierarchical framework. It’s imperative that, in today’s advanced technological society, such critical & creative thinking skills should be a part of our daily life!

Utilizing Bloom's Taxonomy in educational design allows for the construction of a structured learning journey, promoting a scaffold approach to knowledge progression. As an instructional designer, leveraging the taxonomy's various levels—from remembering to creating—enables the crafting of learning outcomes that are SMART. This precision in objective setting ensures that the instructional materials and assessments developed are aligned with these outcomes, providing a clear path to measure learner success. Furthermore, engaging learners with tasks that demand higher-order thinking not only deepens understanding but also fosters intrinsic motivation, as learners tackle challenges that stimulate them.

Além do que foi mencionado, a taxonomia de bloom tem uma enorme vantagem ao embarcar o aluno de forma mais ativa no seu aprendizado. Compartilhar os objetivos de aprendizado no início das aulas ou facilita??es convida para que os alunos também tenham seu papel rumo ao objetivo tra?ado. E finalmente, ter objetivos claros e observáveis traz mais concretitude para o processo, de modo n?o apenas a ajudar aqueles diretamente envolvidos, mas também ajudam a prestar contas do progresso, marcando início e fim da jornada de aprendizado proposta.

Start with the higher cognitive levels: Those must be what your program course, lesson must aim for: Evaluate, create, analysis, apply, understand and know. With knowledge and understanding just a click away, you want to provide plenty of opportunities to develop critical thinking skills, creativity and communication whatever the topic.

There is no such thong as higher order thinking. Thinking is cyclical not hierarchical in any task you are asked to do. The requirements to complete may be more complex but not hierarchical.

A common error when applying Bloom's, is to use verbs such as know, learn, be, become, think, and understand. Learning outcomes should be specific and measurable, especially ones that are lesson, module, or even course level. Some people choose to couple two or more different verbs within a learning outcome. Specificality must be met for learners to achieve the outcome. For instance, an outcome for automotive students might be to diagnose and repair a problem with a specific part of a car. If a student can only diagnose the problem, the student did not achieve the outcome because the student only met a portion of the criteria indicated in the outcome. It is recommended to separate outcomes with action verbs from different domains (levels).

Although most instructors want to go for the higher level critical thinking skills in their instruction, One of the biggest problem is the engagement of the learner. Without engaging the learner completely you are not going to get the higher level blooms taxonomy skills skills achieved.

Bloom’s taxonomy not only helps guide teachers such as myself to encourage different levels of student thought, it can also help organize content expectations. I cross-reference Bloom’s levels with specific types of historical thinking and activity (primary source evaluation, differing perspectives, summarization, etc.) on test questions for my advanced high school history students. Doing do not only helps me evaluate teaching effectiveness, it documents their participation in these required outcomes. Additionally, I can use their familiarity with these terms and skills in later class assignments to enhance their comfort levels with such tasks. Bloom provides severe great ways to track understanding and success.

For instance, In a maritime course, you might start with “Remember” by having learners recall key navigation terms and regulations. Then, move to “Apply” by asking them to plot a course using nautical charts. At the “Analyze” level, students could assess different route options considering weather and safety. For “Evaluate,” they might critique a case study of a past maritime incident, and for “Create,” develop a safety plan for a hypothetical voyage. Similarly, in a math lesson, students could “Understand” a concept, “Apply” it in problem-solving, and finally “Create” their own word problems. These examples illustrate Bloom’s Taxonomy across subjects.

Some actionable steps for using Bloom's when evaluating or writing objectives includes: 1. Quality and Objectivity. Use concrete taxonomies (identify, assess) rather than abstract terms (e.g., appreciate, work with, increase mindfulness) to begin building an effective objective. 2. Singularity and Multiplicity. Use singular taxonomy wherever possible so that what you want to see achieved can be measured rather than crossing with another action/task. 3. Subject Compatibility. Use Taxonomy that complement the level of learning and the subject. For example, it makes sense to solve an equation, but it wouldn't be as appropriate to solve a sentence error. Rather, one would identify the error.

The above article addresses only the cognitive domain. This is original, canonical Bloom's, but the importance of the affective and psychomotor domains has risen to prominence in the past few decades. In my experience, these are the tricky ones: a significant portion of instructional design inefficiencies I witness happen because a well-meaning instructor has tried to apply cognitive "canonical Bloom's" strategies to an affective or psychomotor domain outcome that have been mis-classified on the cognitive taxonomy.

I don't. For the most part I prefer modern, research-backed understandings of how learning works coming out of cognitive science and neurology to stuff psychologists in the 1950s pushed because it sounded good to them.

When I saw this discussion of Bloom’s Taxonomy. I knew I wanted to point out the often overlooked affective and psychomotor domains and I am glad to see that there were 2 people who had the same idea! I’m not sure why the cognitive domain overshadowed the affective and psychomotor domains these are the places where we could really use some direction on learning objectives especially in corporate training. So many of the skills we try to impart are soft skills that are difficult to create training for and the lack of adequate learning objectives and a use of a cognitive taxonomy can make it nearly impossible.

I agree with Vance McPherson (below). The Bloom, Krathwahl, et al. Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain goes back to 1956. Though it has been used over the years, it has also been misused and misunderstood. Other taxonomies have improved on this conception by examining and including affective and psychomotor domains. Please see for example, my conception as a Confluent Taxonomy melding aspects of all three domains of learning. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248939879_Toward_a_confluent_taxonomy_of_cognitive_affective_and_psychomotor_abilities_in_communication.

FORGET LEARNING OBJECTIVES (unless client insists) Consider this shift: Focus less on conventional learning objectives and more on practical performance objectives. Companies hire to get the job done, not to meet learning objectives. So, design training to get learners to actively perform tasks and skills that directly mirror their job responsibilities. Think about when you need to learn something: You never search for learning objectives. You turn to Google or watch a YouTube video for quick, actionable answers. Practical skills matter most. So, consider centring your training around doing. This way, learners practice and simulate job tasks and skills right in the training, preparing them to excel when they step into their roles. ????