Beyond bloom


Author: Dr Diana Whitton
University of Western Sydney.


Proceedings from the 1996 national conference of The Australian Association for the education of the gifted and talented, Adelaide.


The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom, 1956) was devised to assist educators in classifying the goals of the educational system and to plan and evaluate learning experiences. However over time the structure developed has been modified and used in a hierachical order and often the six major classes are within a represented triangle


Evaluation
Synthesis
Analysis
Application
Comprehension
Knowledge

Figure 1: Bloom's Cognitive Taxonomy

Each process or behaviour required by the students makes use of and builds upon the behaviours found in the preceding classes in the taxonomy. Therefore the application of Bloom's Taxonomy with gifted students has not attained the heirachical nature of the student behaviours rather invented the triangle to vary the amount of focus placed upon each process.


Thus:

KnowledgeApplication
Application
Analysis
Synthesis
Evaluation

Figure 2: Inverted Bloom's Taxonomy

Represents the current way in which Bloom's Taxonomy I used in planning for gifted children. Numerous publication give guidelines on how to plan units of work using this structure. Each behaviour is seen as a single entity even though originally planned with sub components.

The following is summarised from Bloom's original work and illustrates that any of the variations published presently looses some of the original integrity of the work.


Taxonomy of educational objectives

Knowledge

* Knowledge of Specifics

* Knowledge of ways and means of dealing with specifics

* Knowledge of the universals and abstractions in a field.

Comprehension

Application:

Analysis

UnitBasic thinkingAbstract thinking
Simple Content
1

Simple Content Basic thinking processes
2

Simple Content Abstract thinking process
Complex Content
3

Complex Content Basic thinking processes
4

Complex Content Abstract thinking processes

Table 1: The four quadrants of the matrix

Table 2 gives more details of the development of the Thinking skills and content.

UnitBasic thinkingAbstract thinking
Simple Content Knowledge Understanding
Uses
Details Rules
Facts
Analytical, creative
critical, problem solving
Facts
details, rules
Complex Content
Issues, Problems
Themes Knowledge
Understandings, Uses
Issues, problems
Themes
Analytical
Creative, Critical
Problem Solving

Table 2: Details of the four quadrants of the matrix.

These four quadrants need to be related to Bloom's (1956) Cognitive Taxonomy as the thinking processes. Table 3 shows the full matrix that is used when planning units of work.

UNITBASIC
Knowledge

Comprehension

Application

Analysis

Synthesis*
ABSTRACT
Evaluation*
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Table 3: The complete planning matrix

* In some of the work using Bloom's taxonomy the synthesis and evaluation components are called creative thinking and critical thinking respectively

Bloom's (1956) definitions of terms will be accepted as detailed in Table 4, for all planning.

Knowledge: involves the recall of specifics and universals, the recall of methods, and processes, or the recall of a pattern, structure or setting (p201).

Comprehension is a type of understanding when the individual knows what is being communicated and can make use of the materials or idea being communicated without necessarily relating it to other material or seeing its fullest implications (p204).

Application: is the use of abstractions in particular and concrete situations and may include general ideas, rules of procedures, generalised methods, technical principles, ideas, and theories which must be remembered and applied (p205)

Analysis: emphasises the breakdown of the material into its constituent parts and the detection of the relationships of the parts and of the way they are organised (p144).

Synthesis: is the putting together of elements and parts so as to form a whole (p162).

Evaluation: is the making of judgments about the value, for some purpose, of ideas, works, solutions, methods and materials. It involves the use of criteria as well s standards for appraising the extent of which particulars are accurate, effective, economical, or satisfying (p185)

Table 4 Definitions of Bloom's terms.

These six thinking processes are frequently translated into verbs relating to the processes the students will be involved with. Table 5 gives some of the terms used in planning classroom activities.

KnowledgeComprehensionApplicationAnalysisSynthesisEvaluation
brainstorm categorise collect describe define gather generate identify label list match memorise name observe recall recognise reproduce select state tabulate tell verbalisecatalogue compile conclude distinguish estimate explain generalise give examples infer paraphrase rank regroup restate rewrite summariseadvise anticipate arrange campaign change collect compare compute conjugate contrast convert decipher decode demonstrate discover manipulate measure modify operate order organise persuade predict rearrange relate usebreakdown deduce diagram differentiate discriminate distinguish illustrate interpret key outline point out relate role play schedule sequence solve specify speculate subdivideagree assemble build choose combine compose conclude create criticise debate decide design devise hypothesise modify organise plan predict reconstruct relate reorganise revise substitute translate varyappraise conclude criticise decide disagree dispute evaluate execute infer interpret imagine judge justify produce reason solve support verify
Table 5: Verbs, related to Bloom's Cognitive Taxonomy

The second area considered by Samara and Curry is the products by the students. Teachers must ensure that all pupils have the opportunity to communicate their ideas and information through a variety of means. Thus products may be classified as:

and would relate to the students' learning styles and preferences, be the most suitable form for presenting the productive thinking and also be matched to the content taught and audience of which the product is planned.

Table six does not differentiate the products into the four categories as many combine more than one form rather it indicates the vast number of alternatives available.

Table 6
An Alphabet of Products

Aadvertisements, agendas, annotated bibliography, announcements, arguments, articles, associations, author study, autobiographies.
Bbibliography, biographies, board game, book jackets, book review, brochure
Ccaptions, cartoons, character sketches, charts, codes, collage, collection, competition, compositions, computations, conference presentation, conversations, court trials, critique, cross section, cross word
Ddata sheets, debates, definitions, demonstrations, descriptions, diagrams, diary, diorama, discussions, display, documentary, dramatisations, drawings, drill and practice
Eeditorials, evaluations, experiments, explanations
Ffilmstrip, film, flow chart
Ggame, glossary, graph, guide
Hheadlines
Iinterview, invitation
Jjournal article, journal entry, judgment
Kkit
Llecture, letters, letter to the editor, list, log entry
Mmachine, map, memorandum, menu, mime, minutes, mobile, model, mural, myth
Nnewspaper, notice board,
Oobservation, odes, opinions, outlines, overheads
Ppainting, panel, pantomime, paraphrasing, peer evaluation, peer presentation, peer teaching, photographs, plans, play writing, poems, poster, product development, program, project, puppet, puns, puzzle
Qquestionnaires, questions
Rrebus story, recipes, recitations, recommendation, reports, research project, rhymes, riddle, rules
Sscrap book, sculpture, serial, sketch, skits, slides, slogans, songs, speech, story writing, summaries, survey
Ttales, tape, telegrams, test, testimonials, time line, tongue twisters,
U
Vvideo recording, Venn diagram
Wweather reports, web, work sheets
X
Y
Z

The third area considered in planning units of work is the grouping of students. Once again a variety of forms of groups is essential and they must be selected in relation to the content being studied, the product being created and the type of class being taught . Thus relate to the goals of the instruction Curry's (1991) pictorial representation clearly (see figure 1) identifies the options for teacher and students.

Samara and Curry indicate that whilst there are so many product options often many of them are unfamiliar to students and if product descriptions are developed giving details of the parts and attributes of the product, students will be able to plan and develop their skills. Table 7 shows a sample product desriptor.

TIMELINE - Visual

PARTSATTRIBUTES
titleprominent, concise, summarises
lineruled, may represent topic, arrowed
time incrementsuniform in size, clearly visible, equal intervals
labelsprinted legibly, uniform size represent key events
illustrationslimited, clear, highlight key events
backgroundnon-obtrusive
creditsdiscrete, alphabetised, clear

These product descriptors need to be developed by a group of teachers in a particular curriculum discipline so that students have a clear knowledge of requirements.

Thus with careful attention to the processes products, and content combined to develop units that challenge gifted students, teacher will find they are meeting the needs of individual learner while all students are addressing the same content. The four quadrants are seen as the total unit of work which the gifted will participate in whilst other students may be challenged by the content and thinking process required of them on quadrants one, two and three.

This process of developing units of work may be used with curriculum content that is mandated, inspired by student interests or by a particular local/state event and will ensure that a variety of thinking process, grouping strategies and products will be utilised.


References

Bloom, B.S. (Ed). (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman, Green & Co.

Maker, C.J. (1982). Curriculum Development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen Publication.

Samara, J, and Curry, J. (1992). Middle school curriculum institute. Austin, TX: The Curriculum Project.

Samara, J, Pedraza, C., & Curry, J. (Ed). (1992). Designing Effective middle school units. Glenview, IL: Illinois Association for Gifted Children.

Samara, J., & Curry, J (Ed). (1990). Writing Units that challenge: A guidebook for and by educators. Portland, ME; Maine Educators of the Gifted and Talented.

GROUPING FOR INSTRUCTION

[Papers] . [Topic search] . [Stop press]


top

© Copyright 1996 by Dr Diana Whitton
Last revised April 17 1996.