Cognitive Domain Of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
A further training event for new teachers will focus on learning taxonomies. Produce a discussion paper for a meeting which examines the cognitive domain of revised Bloom’s taxonomy
Examination Of The Cognitive Domain Of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
The cognitive domain was examined in detail with more than 3 (4 notes)notes that explain the content and makes the meaning explicit
Examination of the Cognitive Domain of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
The taxonomy of Bloom is a framework that aims at giving educators an opportunity of setting correct goals that support the learning process. It uses three hierarchical models to classify learning objectives. The three models are cognitive (mental skills), affective (attitude) as well as psychomotor (physical skills). The cognitive model has been the main model used in most traditional teaching and is always used in structuring curriculum learning objectives (Hyder & Bhamani, 2016). Bloom’s Taxonomy has been widely used as an important tool for learning, and it was established in 1956 and modified in 2001.
The Cognitive Domain in Bloom’s revised Taxonomy
The cognitive model is used in measuring the learning of the students and has six levels where the lower thinking skills are found at the bottom, whereas the higher thinking skills are found at the top of the pyramid. And these skills are Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation, and they are achieved sequentially (Darwazeh & Branch, 2018). After the revision of the taxonomy in 2001, the psychologists and researchers rearranged the levels and changed the terms of the original version from the nouns to the verbs. And the new skills, as per Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, changed to Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating. Bloom’s revised taxonomy has always been utilized for planning of lessons and for choosing suitable student assessment assignments for every stage of learning (Hoque, 2016).
Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy divides the cognitive domain of learning into six levels and changed names to verbs; for instance, the application stage became “applying” and slightly rearranged them. The new version of Bloom’s taxonomy reflects an active type of thinking for learners, and it is more accurate.
The revisions made on Bloom’s taxonomy by psychologists and researchers appear literally minor; however, they greatly impact the usage of the taxonomy. The modification on the taxonomy can be classified into three groups: structure, emphasis, and terminology. For instance, the following table shows the changes:
| Bloom’s Taxonomy | Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy |
| Evaluation | Creating |
| Synthesis | Evaluating |
| Analysis | Analyzing |
| Application | Applying |
| comprehension | Understanding |
| Knowledge | Remembering |
Changes to Terminology
The psychologists and researchers rearranged the levels and changed the terms of the original version from the nouns to the verbs. The terms of the main cognitive process levels were renamed to show action since thinking involves active engagement. For instance, the original taxonomy of Bloom had the lower thinking skill at the bottom as “knowledge” while the revised version had the lowest thinking skill as “remembering” (Poluakan et al., 2019).
Changes to structure
The structure of the Original Bloom’s Taxonomy was changed in the new taxonomy version by swapping the top two levels of the skills. The new version moves down the “evaluation” level, and therefore the highest level becomes “creating.” The change was done because the classification was seen as a hierarchy that reflects the increasing thinking complexity.
Changes in Emphasis
The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy underlines the usage of the taxonomy as a framework or a tool for aligning curriculum planning, assessment, and instructional delivery by educators. In addition, the new version considers a wider audience, while the original version is seen as a framework for younger learners. The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy is universal, and it can easily be used for adult training, secondary as well as elementary training. It also offers a valuable tool or framework for educators to use in emphasizing higher-order thinking (Wilson, 2016).
References
Darwazeh, A. N., & Branch, R. M. (2018). A revision to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Annual 220.
Hoque, M. E. (2016). Three domains of learning: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The Journal of EFL Education and Research, 2(2), 45-52.
Hyder, I., & Bhamani, S. (2016). Bloom’s taxonomy (cognitive domain) in higher education settings: Reflection brief. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 3(2), 288 300.
Poluakan, C., Tilaar, A. F., Tuerah, P., & Mondolang, A. (2019). Implementation of the Revised Bloom Taxonomy in Assessment of Physics Learning. In the 1st International Conference on Education, Science, and Technology (ICESTech).
Wilson, L. O. (2016). Anderson and Krathwohl–Bloom’s taxonomy revised. Understanding the New Version of Bloom’s Taxonomy.