A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview

Journal of Education and Development, 2021

This paper compares and contrasts some of the most popular taxonomies used in education, including: original Bloom’s taxonomy, revised Bloom’s taxonomy, Webb’s depth of knowledge, SOLO taxonomy, Fink’s taxonomy of significant learning, Shulman’s table of learning, and Marzano’s taxonomy. After a brief outline of each taxonomy, the paper discusses the literature corresponding to their use in education and the taxonomies are compared with regard to their treatment of knowledge, cognition, metacognition, higher-order thinking skills, affect, and explicit or implied theories of learning underlying each taxonomy. This is followed by a discussion of future directions for taxonomies in education. To date, while a few binary comparisons of taxonomies have been published, there has been no broad comparison of what may be regarded as the major taxonomies in use in education today. This paper represents the first broad examination of taxonomies that have had significant impacts on higher educa...

Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 2024

This study reviews existing taxonomies and proposes a new educational taxonomy that fulfills the educational needs of the current era, the information and Artificial Intelligence (AI) era. The review of previous educational taxonomies revealed that although they provide insights into establishing educational objectives and learning outcomes, they still need to address recent changes and challenges in learning processes. To (1) integrate the new realities into the landscape of learning (i.e., Education for sustainable development (ESD), soft skills development, and AI), (2) maintain the classroom as the formal venue for learning, and (3) strengthen the position and role of instructors as facilitators, a new six-category twofold hierarchy-based taxonomy is proposed (AlAfnan Taxonomy): (1) Knowledge and Comprehension, (2) Synthesis and Evaluation, (3) Ethical and Moral Reasoning, (4) Application and Strategic Thinking, (5) Creativity and Innovation, and (6) Lifelong Learning and Adaptability. The taxonomy begins with foundational levels of 'Knowledge and Comprehension' stressing the importance of understanding fundamental realities and concepts within specific fields. Then, it addresses the importance of 'Synthesis and Evaluation' as essential and crucial skills for navigating an information-rich world. 'Ethical and Moral Reasoning' highlights the significance of ethical decision-making, moral frameworks, and culture-based diversity. Further, the taxonomy introduces 'Application and Strategic Thinking', emphasizing the practical use of knowledge in real-world scenarios and the ability to devise long-term plans. 'Creativity and Innovation' are essential drivers of progress in an era characterized by rapid technological advancements encouraging learners to explore novel solutions and approaches. Lastly, 'Lifelong Learning and Adaptability' underscores the necessity of continuous learning and flexibility in response to evolving circumstances, ensuring students and graduates remain competitive and relevant throughout their lives. By nurturing a multifaceted skill set encompassing critical thinking, ethical awareness, practical application, creativity, and adaptability, this taxonomy aims to equip learners with the necessary tools to excel in a dynamic and complex world, making it indispensable for modern education.

Research in Higher Education Journal, 2017

The seminal Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals—Handbook I, Cognitive Domain (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956) represented years of collaboration by the Committee of College and University Examiners, and was the first of three volumes that together would become known as Bloom’s taxonomy of learning (so named after Benjamin Bloom, the original committee chair). The work instigated a paradigm shift in education, though subsequent volumes addressing affective (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964) and psychomotor (Harrow, 1972) domains of learning “had much less impact” (McLeod, 1992, p. 576) on curriculum and evaluation. McLeod (1992) postulates that the lessened impact was a consequence of the affective domain’s focus on internal constructs, which clashed with the behaviorist focus on observable behaviors. Since the publication of Bloom et al.’s taxonomy in 1956, there has been a proliferation of taxonomies of learning (e.g., Fink, ...