Blooms Taxonomy of Learning - Case Study Example

Bloom’s Taxonomy and the Senior Level College Research Paper The senior level college research paper should be the embodiment or fulfillment of all the requisites outlined in the multi-layered system of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Domain. Bloom’s taxonomy of learning is like a curriculum for the human mind. It details in easy-to-understand, numerous phases how man’s intelligence should evolve from the initial stages of acquisition of knowledge up to his more complex capacities to analyze and develop critical thinking, thereby enabling him to arrive at conclusions and create new products and alternatives that will eventually add-up to the already existing plethora of facts and data. Bloom’s objectives for learning is that man should be a creator, not just a mere storer of existing knowledge. This creativity will eventually assist him in dealing with future and unperceived problems and conflicts, thereby enabling him to be fully equipped intellectually in addressing issues that he may encounter along the way. First published in 1956 Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives: Handbook 1- Cognitive Domain, is actually a joint effort of collaborative initiatives headed by Benjamin S. Bloom, an academician and educator, with more than thirty of his colleagues, and is the outcome of eight years extensive work which began in 1948. The primary reason for coming up with this handbook is to provide a set of guidelines and develop a system of classification to assist in the over-all design, testing procedures and assessment of the American learning system. Later on, in 2001, Bloom’s former student, Lorin Anderson, together with Krathwhol, revised some of the established features, the two most prominent of which are the interchanging of the last two stages of hierarchy and the language used, from Bloom’s nouns to verbs, and expanded their content, to make it attune with the times. Bloom’s taxonomy, in its completeness, classifies learning into three domains or categories: the COGNITIVE DOMAIN – includes knowledge or intellectual capacity, or the “THINK” aspect, and this is divided into six levels; the AFFECTIVE DOMAIN – includes behavior and emotions, the ‘ATTITUDE’ aspect, has five levels; and the PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAIN – includes the physical, motor and manual capabilities, the SKILLS aspect, and this has 6 levels. Of the three, it is the first domain, the Cognitive Domain, which created a global impact for it became a sort of syllabus, or lore for education, and has been translated in more than twenty languages worldwide. Through the years, Bloom’s taxonomy has been met with countless criticisms, but educators and intellectuals alike cannot ignore the fact that it has set forth a valid, tested, and acceptable sets of objectives to guide them on how learning should progress and evolve. Bloom came out with a publication of his second domain, the AFFECTIVE DOMAIN later on in 1964, (with Krathwhol and Masia) while the third one, the PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAIN, was tackled in detail by other authors, notably RH Dave (1967/70), EJ Simpson (1966/72), and AJ Harrow (1972), which explains the variation in details in the different representations of the Bloom taxonomy (Chapman, Alex). For purposes of brevity, it is the first domain, the COGNITIVE DOMAIN, which shall be tackled here vis-a-vis a senior level college research paper. Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domain consist of six tiers, or steps, like a stairway, in the sense that you have to pass thru the first step before you can proceed to the next, a linear movement, until you reach the pinnacle. The first three tiers are what is known as lower level thinking, and these are: Knowledge, Comprehension, and Application. It is imperative that one has to finish each tier one at a time, and finish all three before he can proceed further to the next three tiers, as these last three are more complicated and will require deeper intellectual approaches. These last three are considered higher level thinking, and these are: Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. Applying Bloom’s taxonomy in the making of a senior level college research paper, the six levels of Bloom’s model are evidently utilized, in the exact sequence or chronology of the taxonomy: 1. Knowledge - here the student collects all existing data, information and concepts, and recognizes what he needs so he may select, list, enumerate, arrange, define or state them thoroughly in his paper. In this tier, it is imperative that data collected should be complete and accurate as it can be. This is where the concentration of the research is the heaviest, as plenty of time and resources are needed for data gathering; 2. Comprehension – after the collection of required and needed data, the student should take time to digest the gist of data compiled, so he may comprehend or understand them completely. By understanding them, the student should be able to interpret, extrapolate, or translate the knowledge into his own words without altering their original essence and meaning; 3. Application - because the student fully understands his concepts, he can then apply or put his knowledge into practice or perform an action or procedure relevant to it. A very simple and concrete example is the how-to-use instructions of a product: you have knowledge of the product (for instance a video recorder); you read the instructions on how to use it (comprehension) and you perform (apply) the instructions to be able to operate it; 4. Analysis - mostly answers the hows and the whys of a given item or situation. By analyzing, the student breaks down, or dissects the parts of a whole; in situations, he deducts, and infers conclusions from incidents, events and other situations; 5. Synthesis - the ability to add to the already existing parts of a whole, to create or produce parallels or a better product or concept; 6. Evaluation –the ability to judge, check, or critique a specific project or concept so as to conform , confirm, alter or eliminate an established fact or concept. This is the point when the student will give his intellectual input, his own personal conclusion or definite stand on his topic or subject. A student’s creative thinking shall be the end-product of all the processes he has undertaken in his research. The abovementioned tier is the original sequential hierarchy as formulated by Bloom et al, and revisions by Anderson and Krathwol later (as mentioned earlier), principally the interchanging of the positions of number 5 and 6, plus the use of verbs instead of nouns , has had little or negligible effects in the total essence and saliency of Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domain. If any, the version by Anderson and Krathwol just facilitated its relevancy in the 21st century. Applied to conventional learning, as a freshman, you collect and collate knowledge or data, and as you climb higher to the senior level,, you should be able to analyze, evaluate and critique a particular research topic. Bloom’s model is realistic enough to coincide harmoniously with man’s natural growth and maturity: as man advances in age, his knowledge increases, and this increase in knowledge should eventually enable him to deduct, compare, analyze, evaluate, and further on, so he may arrive at a logical conclusion or critical thinking of what has been presented. Many other approaches to learning objectives has been devised, to name just two, there is the SOLO (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes) and Webb’s DOK (Depth of Knowledge) and many others, but none has gained such prominence as Bloom’s model. Other models has been mainly patterned after Bloom’s, or consolidated and used in conjunction with this. Bloom’s taxonomy has withstood its ground. With the popularity of the internet and the proliferation of giant search engines like google, yahoo, bing, and many others, collection of data has become easier, but at the same time has raised questions and doubts as to data validity, adequacy and recency (Henrick, 2004). Internet databases are teeming with commercially-driven or sponsored sites and articles and most often, data culled from net sites can confuse students and educators alike principally in areas of sources of content, content reliability, and the proper citing of the works used. One may ask, is Bloom’s taxonomy still relevant in relation to e-learning or long distance learning? And the answer is a big yes. One only has to look at the internet to find the answer. E-learning sites also use Bloom’s taxonomy as their guide in education, and e-learning tools used like the WebCT, Blackboard and others were made alongside Bloom’s established objectives. Works Cited: Guskey, Thomas R. “Benjamin S. Bloom’s Contributions to Curriculum, Instruction, and School Learning” April 2001 Web 18 Aug. 2011 Hess, Karin K.; Jones, Ben S.; Arlock, Dennis; Walk-up, John R. “ Blending the Strengths of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Webb’s Depth of Knowledge to Enhance Classroom-level Proceses” n. p. n. d. Web 18 Aug. 2011 References: STL Library Chan, Charles C.; Tsui, M. S.; Chan, Mandy Y. C.; Hong, Joe, H “ Applying the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) Taxonomy on Student’s Learning Outcomes: an empirical study” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 7, No. 6, 2002 Carfax Publishing n. d. pgs. 511-527 Web. 18 Aug. 2011 http://search.ebscohost.com.rsulibproxy.rsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7584452&site=ehost-live&scope=site Booker, Michael J. “A Roof Without Walls: Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy and the Misdirection of American Education” Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007 30 January 2008 pgs. 347-355 Web. 18 Aug. 2011 http://search.ebscohost.com.rsulibproxy.rsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31160818&site=ehost-live&scope=site Halawi, Leila A; McCarthy, Richard V.; Pires, Sandra “An Evaluation of E-Learning On the Basis of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Exploratory Studies” Journal of Education for Business Hedreft Publications 2009 Web. 18 Aug. 2011 http://search.ebscohost.com.rsulibproxy.rsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=41891185&site=ehost-live&scope=site Williams, James. “Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning” Times Educational Supplement, 28 Nov. 2008, Issue 4816, Special Section http://ehis.ebscohost.com.rsulibproxy.rsu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=6&sid=25692177-77f7-4ad4-a46f-60f54745fb0d%40sessionmgr12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl# Read More