Bloom’s Taxonomy categorises educational objectives and provides a structured framework for teaching and assessing. Anderson and colleagues (2001) Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBT) introduced two dimensions: knowledge domains (factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive); and cognitive domains (remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating and creating). Heer (2015) then introduced RBT in a three-dimensional (3D) model to structure educational objectives, while emphasising that these dimensions are hierarchical and the boundaries between categories must be consistently well defined. Studies also suggest an understanding of RBT (3D model) only within the hierarchical structure (Aytac Gogus, 2012; West, 2023), which often leads to a misconception that lower-order thinking skills (remembering, understanding, applying) must always precede higher-order thinking skills (analysing, evaluating, creating). Heer emphasises that not all procedural knowledge is inherently more abstract than conceptual knowledge and that objectives involving analysis or evaluation may require thinking skills of equivalent complexity to creation.

Case (2013) further elaborates that the hierarchical interpretation of RBT led to the belief that higher-order thinking skills should only be introduced once the lower-order thinking skills were fully mastered. Although, this does not mean it is an easy task because it involves complex brain processes (Zhang, 2019). All levels of thinking are interrelated and non-sequentially equally important in the thinking process. Empirical evidence suggests that the structure of thinking skills is not strictly hierarchical (Stayanchi, 2017). There is a direct relationship between non-sequential categories, such as understanding and analysis (Larsen et al., 2022). RBT does not follow a strict hierarchy but is interconnected. For instance, a chef doesn’t have to master all basic recipes (understanding) before creating new dishes (analysis-creation). A chef with a basic understanding of ingredients and cooking techniques can directly analyse and create new recipes using different ingredients. This context shows that the ability to understand and analyse can sometimes follow sequences, and one can conduct in-depth analysis even without mastering all the basics first.

‘A chef doesn’t have to master all basic recipes (understanding) before creating new dishes (analysis-creation).’

Cognitive science research has built on and refined the original ideas in Bloom’s Taxonomy (Crossland, 2015; Kagan, 2005). A view that high-order thinking skills require low-order thinking skills is also contradicted by clinical evidence. Damage to the hippocampus has shown that while the ability to remember new events is lost, IQ scores remain unchanged (Crossland, 2015). This indicates that higher-order thinking skills can function independently of the ability to remember. It also highlights that knowledge and cognitive process dimensions are two separate yet interconnected aspects of RBT. These advancements to the original theory have provided a more nuanced understanding of how students learn and process information while still emphasising the interconnectedness of cognitive processes and the importance of individual differences in learning.

Heer’s (2015) model of RBT provides a fundamental structure for these dimensions that remains highly relevant today. This model has unique strengths and contributions for educators, as it has a comprehensive framework for structuring learning objectives that integrates various forms of cognitive and knowledge domains. Educational objectives should account for students’ diverse abilities, interests and learning styles that are tailored to individual needs. Combining a hierarchical approach that builds a strong foundation for educational objectives and a non-sequential approach in RBT allows for creativity as an effort to support thinking processes in line with discoveries in brain science.

References

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. David McKay Company.

Aytac Gogus. (2012). Bloom’s taxonomy of learning objectives. In Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6

Case, R. (2013). The unfortunate consequences of Bloom’s taxonomy. Social Education, 77(4), 196–200. https://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/articles/se_7704196.pdf

Crossland, J. (2015). Thinking skills and Bloom’s taxonomy. Primary Science, 140. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285766349_Thinking_Skills_and_Bloom’s_Taxonomy

Heer, R. (2015). A model of learning objectives based on A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. https://www.celt.iastate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RevisedBloomsHandout-1.pdf

Kagan, S. (2005). Rethinking thinking: Does Bloom’s taxonomy align with brain science? Kagan Online Magazine.

Larsen, T. M., Endo, B. H., Yee, A. T., Do, T., & Lo, S. M. (2022). Probing internal assumptions of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. CBE Life Sciences Education, 21(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-08-0170

Stayanchi, J. (2017). Higher order thinking through Bloom’s taxonomy. Humanities Review, 22. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/151651403.pdf

West, J. (2023). Utilizing Bloom’s taxonomy and authentic learning principles to promote preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100620

Zhang, J. (2019). Cognitive functions of the brain: Perception, attention and memory. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.02863