Bloom’s Taxonomy has long been a foundational model for categorising educational goals, objectives, and outcomes. The beauty of Bloom’s Taxonomy, both in its original and revised forms, lies in its versatility. The framework is relevant across different subject areas, adaptable for learners of varying age groups and abilities, and applicable to a multitude of educational settings, whether it’s a traditional classroom, a virtual learning environment, or a homeschooling scenario.

However, the original taxonomy, proposed by Benjamin Bloom in 1956, underwent a significant revision in 2001. This blog post aims to explore the reasons behind this revision and its implications for modern educational practices.

The Original Bloom’s Taxonomy

Before delving into the reasons for the revision, it’s crucial to understand the original taxonomy. Bloom’s initial model was a hierarchical categorisation of cognitive skills, consisting of six levels: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. This hierarchy aimed to encourage educators to foster higher-order thinking skills in students, moving beyond mere rote memorisation.

The Need for Revision

Shift from Static to Dynamic:

The original taxonomy, established by Bloom in 1956, was perceived as static and linear. It presented a sequence of cognitive skills in a hierarchical order, typically visualized as a pyramid. The levels were:

1. Knowledge: Recalling facts and basic concepts.
2. Comprehension: Understanding the meaning of instructions and problems.
3. Application: Using new knowledge in different ways.
4. Analysis: Breaking down information into parts to understand its structure.
5. Synthesis: Putting information together in a novel way.
6. Evaluation: Judging the value of information or ideas.

Example: History Class Using Original Bloom’s Taxonomy

In a history class, a student first memorises facts about World War II (Knowledge), understands their significance (Comprehension), applies this knowledge in a discussion (Application), examines causes and effects (Analysis), writes an essay combining this with knowledge from another topic (Synthesis), and finally forms an opinion on the outcomes of the war (Evaluation).

This approach suggests a fixed progression where a student cannot engage in higher-order thinking (like Evaluation) without mastering the lower levels (like Knowledge and Comprehension). It was somewhat limiting, assuming that cognitive development followed a strict, linear path.

The 2001 revision, on the other hand, spearheaded by Anderson and Krathwohl, introduced a more dynamic model. This model recognises that cognitive processes are interrelated and fluid, not always following a linear progression. The revised levels are:

1. Remembering: Retrieving knowledge from long-term memory.
2. Understanding: Constructing meaning from messages.
3. Applying: Using knowledge in new situations.
4. Analysing: Breaking material into parts to explore understandings and relationships.
5. Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards.
6. Creating: Putting elements together to form a coherent whole or make something new.

Adapted Example: History Class Using Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

1. Creating: The students start by engaging in a creative exercise. They are asked to imagine an alternative history where key events of World War II had different outcomes. This task requires them to draw upon their understanding of the actual events (Understanding) and their significance (Remembering), but it places the emphasis on creativity right from the beginning.
2. Evaluating: Next, students critically evaluate the impact of these changes. They debate how different outcomes of key battles or diplomatic decisions could have reshaped the post-war world. This evaluation involves analysing the factual events of the war (Analysing) but does it in a manner that integrates higher-order thinking early in the learning process.
3. Analysing: Students are then asked to break down the actual causes and effects of the war. This might involve examining the economic, political, and social factors that led to the war and its global consequences. This step, while traditionally higher in the original taxonomy, is interwoven with other cognitive processes in the revised model.
4. Applying: The class applies this analysis to understand current world events. They might discuss how the outcomes of World War II continue to influence global politics today. This step integrates both lower and higher-order thinking skills, as students apply their knowledge in a new, real-world context.
5. Understanding: Throughout these activities, students are continuously interpreting and constructing meaning from the historical facts of World War II. They engage with primary and secondary sources, extracting and discussing the underlying themes and ideas.
6. Remembering: In tandem with these higher-order activities, students are also recalling and recounting specific facts and details about World War II. However, this is done in a way that is integrated with other cognitive processes, rather than as a standalone step.

As we can see, in this adapted example, the cognitive processes are not treated as a linear progression but rather as interconnected and often occurring simultaneously. This approach reflects the dynamic nature of learning and thinking as outlined in the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. It encourages students to engage in creative and critical thinking early on, while also building and applying their knowledge of the subject matter in varied and meaningful ways.

This approach is more reflective of real-world learning, where cognitive processes are often nonlinear and interconnected. A student might engage in higher-order thinking (like Creating or Evaluating) without sequentially moving through each lower level. It’s more adaptable to different learning styles and acknowledges that learning can begin at any point in the cognitive process, depending on the context and learner’s prior knowledge.

The Shift Towards Constructivist Approach

The revised taxonomy elevates skills such as analysing, evaluating, and creating to more prominent roles. These skills align well with the ideals of constructivist learning, encouraging students to think critically, engage in problem-solving, and develop original ideas.

The revision acknowledges that cognitive processes are fluid and overlapping, mirroring the constructivist view that learning is not a linear process but a complex, iterative one. Students may jump between different levels of cognitive skills as they engage with material, reflecting the natural flow of thought and understanding.

The revised taxonomy encourages the application of knowledge in diverse and real-world contexts, resonating with the constructivist emphasis on experiential learning. Students are not just recalling facts but are using their knowledge in practical, often unpredictable, situations.

The addition of the Knowledge Dimension (factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive) in the revised taxonomy supports the constructivist learning approach by recognising the varied types of knowledge students interact with. This dimension emphasises that understanding extends beyond mere facts to include concepts, processes, and self-awareness about one’s own understanding and learning strategies.

Incorporation of New Research & Theories

Cognitive Psychology Advances

1. Understanding of Memory and Learning: Research in cognitive psychology significantly expanded our understanding of how memory works and how learning occurs. The revised taxonomy takes into account the complexity of memory processes (encoding, storage, retrieval) and recognises that remembering is more than just recall; it involves a deep interaction with the material.
2. Cognitive Development Theories: Theories such as those proposed by Piaget and Vygotsky, which emphasise the stages of cognitive development and the social context of learning, influenced the revised taxonomy. These theories advocate that learning is not just a linear process of acquiring more complex skills but involves qualitative changes in thinking, problem-solving, and understanding.
3. Metacognition: The growing emphasis on metacognition – thinking about one’s own thinking – is reflected in the revised taxonomy. It recognises that effective learning involves not just acquiring knowledge but also understanding how to use that knowledge and evaluating one’s own understanding and learning strategies.

Educational Research Contributions

1. Differentiated Learning: Research on differentiated learning, which suggests that students have varied ways of learning and processing information, influenced the revision. The revised taxonomy acknowledges this diversity and is more adaptable to different learning styles and abilities.
2. Constructivist Learning Theories: The influence of constructivist theories, which suggest that learners construct knowledge actively rather than passively receiving it, is evident in the revised taxonomy. It emphasises active engagement with material, critical thinking, and the application of knowledge in new and diverse contexts.
3. Assessment Strategies: Advancements in understanding effective assessment strategies are integrated into the revised taxonomy. It supports a broader range of assessment techniques, moving beyond traditional tests to include projects, portfolios, and real-world problem-solving scenarios, reflecting a more comprehensive evaluation of student learning.

Implications for Teaching

The revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy has significantly influenced modern educational practices through three key shifts: from static to dynamic cognitive processes, towards a constructivist approach, and by incorporating new research and theories.

Firstly, the shift from a static to a dynamic model in the revised taxonomy has led to more flexible and integrated learning paths. Unlike the original linear progression, the revised taxonomy acknowledges the fluid and interconnected nature of cognitive processes, allowing educators to design lessons that engage multiple cognitive skills simultaneously. This approach has enhanced student engagement and led to more adaptive curriculum design, accommodating diverse learning styles and pathways.

Secondly, the move towards a constructivist approach has transformed classrooms into learner-centred environments. This shift has emphasised active learning, where students are encouraged to explore, inquire, and construct their own understanding. Teachers, acting as facilitators, encourage collaborative and social learning, focusing on critical thinking and problem-solving skills. This approach aligns well with the revised taxonomy’s emphasis on higher-order thinking skills, leading to a deeper understanding and retention of knowledge.

Lastly, the incorporation of new research and theories has led to significant changes in teaching strategies. Differentiated instruction, catering to diverse learning needs, has become more prevalent. The integration of technology in education, encouraged by recent research, has become essential, preparing students for a digital world. Additionally, there is a greater focus on metacognition, helping students to reflect on and regulate their learning processes. Assessment strategies have also diversified, moving beyond traditional tests to include projects, portfolios, and real-world tasks that assess a range of cognitive skills.

Concluding thoughts…

The revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy represents a pivotal evolution in the field of education, addressing the dynamic and ever-evolving landscapes of teaching and learning. This revision was necessitated by several key factors that collectively demanded a more nuanced and adaptive framework for understanding cognitive development and educational objectives.

One of the primary reasons for revising Bloom’s Taxonomy was the recognition that the original model, with its linear and hierarchical structure, did not adequately reflect the complexity and fluidity of the learning process. Cognitive processes are not strictly sequential but often occur simultaneously and interactively. The revised taxonomy, with its shift from a static to a dynamic model, acknowledges this interconnectedness and variability, offering educators a more realistic and effective tool for facilitating learning.

Furthermore, the shift towards a constructivist approach in education significantly influenced the revision. Modern educational practices emphasise student-centred learning, active engagement, and critical thinking. The revised taxonomy aligns with these principles by elevating higher-order thinking skills and promoting an active, inquiry-based learning environment. This approach encourages students to construct knowledge through exploration and interaction, fostering deeper understanding and retention.

The incorporation of new research and theories in cognitive psychology and educational research also played a critical role. Advances in understanding how memory works, the stages of cognitive development, and the importance of metacognition necessitated a taxonomy that could encapsulate these insights. The revised model integrates these advancements, accommodating varied learning styles, emphasising the role of technology in learning, and supporting differentiated instruction.

The impact of these changes on teaching has been profound and far-reaching. Educators now approach curriculum design with greater flexibility, creating learning experiences that are not bound by a strict order of cognitive skills but are more innovative and responsive to student needs. Classrooms have become more learner-centered, with a greater focus on collaboration, critical thinking, and problem-solving. Assessment strategies have evolved to include diverse and comprehensive methods, reflecting a broader range of cognitive abilities and skills.

In conclusion, the revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy was not merely an academic exercise but a response to the changing demands and understandings in the field of education. It offers a more flexible, detailed, and comprehensive framework for understanding and fostering the cognitive development of students. For educators, staying abreast of such revisions is imperative to align teaching practices with the latest educational research and theories. This alignment ensures that education remains relevant, effective, and capable of preparing students for the complexities of the modern world.

Over the last several weeks, our digital leaders and I have been working together to plan for and create a makerspace in school.  We have already selected a room that will be the makerspace – the current Reading Room.

We just need to move the books out of this room and into our Staff Development Office, then finally, move the necessary materials and resources in!  Before getting started with this endeavour, I’m sharing my notes here about what a makerspace is, why they exist and how to create them:

What is a Makerspace?

A makerspace is a unique, multipurpose learning environment that encourages tinkering, play and open-ended exploration.  Such activities demand an enquiry-based approach, and they epitomise what progressive education is all about.  The central idea to a makerspace is that children learn by doing.

The only thing that is required of a makerspace is a room with appropriate materials and resources, to encourage learners to make.  From the outset, it is important not to limit students to STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, Maths) projects alone.  The idea that a Makerspace is just for STEAM classes is a common misconception.  Making can be anything to anyone.  I particularly like, for example, the slogan from littleBits: “Make something that does something.”

Why use a Makerspace?

Pedagogically speaking, the whole maker movement is underpinned by the idea of “constructionism”, which has been coined by Seymour Papert, and it’s a similar-sounding term to constructivism.  Where constructivism is a well-established theory of learning indicating that people actively construct new knowledge by combining their experiences with what they already know, constructionism takes things a step further.  Although the learning happens inside the learner’s head, Papert’s constructionism states that this happens most reliably when the learner is engaged in a personally meaningful activity outside of their head that makes the learning real and shareable.

According to Sylvia Martinez and Gary Stager (2013), authors of Invent to Learn:

‘This shareable activity may take the form of a robot, musical composition, poem, conversation, or new hypothesis… This is much more than “hands-on” learning.  The meaningful part of constructionism is not just touchy-feely new age language.  It acknowledges that the power of making something comes from a question or an impulse that the learner has, and is not imposed from the outside… We seek to liberate learners from their dependency on being taught.’    

By creating a makerspace, students are given the opportunity to take ownership of their own learning as they explore their own passions.  Nevertheless, it is still possible to teach basic skills, then flip your makerspace, so that students can innovate and build on what they have learnt.  In this way, makerspaces are a fantastic way to bring creativity into learning and support deeper learning.  Makerspaces are also the perfect environments in which to challenge students, to try to solve problems in new ways.  These challenges can be created by either teachers or students.  What is particularly exciting about makerspaces, is how they can impact lessons, as teachers can become more innovative owing to the new tools available.

How do we Plan for a Makerspace?

Simon Sinek’s book, Start With Why, talks about the importance of knowing your why: the purpose, cause or belief that inspires you to do what you do.  This is as important to keep in mind when designing a makerspace as just about any other venture.  According to Laura Fleming, author of The Kickstart Guide to Making Great Makerspaces, great makerspaces begin with a vision for driving their space.  Providing our digital leaders with post-its, I asked them to first begin writing down what core values our makerspace should have:

After much discussion, we settled on:

– Learning, Resilience & Teamwork

To keep things simple and child-friendly, these makerspace core values also form our overarching vision statement.  Watch this space – more to come in Part 2!

In the meantime, Laura Fleming notes the following free apps, which are great to use for BYOD as a portable digital toolbox for students:

– iHandy Level

– Ruler App + Photo Ruler

– Protractor

– PadCAD Lite