Foo Foo About: Bloom’s Taxonomy

Here are some online resources about this Foo Foo/ Myth…

*** *** ***

Problems with Bloom’s Taxonomy – Brenda Sugrue, PhD – October, 2002

Sugrue_Bloom_Critique_PerfXprs

*** *** ***

Challenging Bloom’s Taxonomy

*** *** ***

The Need for a Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy – PDF

PROBLEMS WITH BLOOM’S TAXONOMY

As influential as Bloom’s Taxonomy has been on educational practice, it has experienced some severe criticisms (for a review, see Kreitzer & Madaus, 1994). One of the most common criticisms was that the taxonomy oversimplified the nature of thought and its relationship to learning (Furst, 1994).

The taxonomy certainly expanded the conception of learning from a simple, unidimensional, behaviorist model to one that was multidimensional and more constructivist in nature. However, it assumed a rather simple construct of difficulty as the characteristic separating one level from another: Superordinate levels involved more difficult cognitive processes than did subordinate levels. The research conducted on Bloom’s Taxonomy simply did not support this structure. For example, educators who were trained in the structure of Bloom’s Taxonomy were consistently unable to recognize questions at higher levels as more difficult than questions at lower levels of the taxonomy (see Fairbrother, 1975; Poole, 1972; Stanley & Bolton, 1957).

The problems with Bloom’s Taxonomy were indirectly acknowledged by its authors.

This is evidenced in their discussion of analysis: “It is probably more defensible educationally to consider analysis as an aid to fuller comprehension (a lower class level) or as a prelude to an evaluation of the 8 The New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives 01-Marzano-45105.qxd 11/23/2006 12:17 PM Page 8

*** *** ***

Bloom’s Taxonomy Problems – Will Thalheimer

The Bloom is Off the Vine

I just came across this nifty little piece on Bloom’s Taxonomy, written by Brenda Sugrue for ISPI’s Performance Express.

It’s a nice critique on the validity and usefulness of Bloom’s Taxonomy for Instructional Design.

Read it here.

I tend to agree with Brenda’s Critique. For a long time I’ve been suspicious of Blooms.

*** *** ***

Better than Bloom? – Harold Jarche

Bloom goes boom!

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 – DONALD CLARK PLAN B

*** *** ***

Do students need to learn lower-level factual and procedural knowledge before they can do higher-order thinking?

FEBRUARY 18, 2012 BY SCOTT MCLEOD

*** *** ***

More commentary about this topic:

*** *** *** ***

Fight the Foo Foo

My book on HPT for managers without using that jargon!
Click on graphic to enlarge.
For more info about this book, please go – here.

*** *** ***

*** *** ***

If you know of more studies (with “evidence” and not just “opinions”) – either way – please mention them in the comments section below.

# # #

Advertisements

5 comments on “Foo Foo About: Bloom’s Taxonomy

  1. Pingback: This Week’s L&D Buzz… Evidence Based Practices in Learning | EPPIC - Pursuing Performance

  2. Pingback: There Is Too Much Foo Foo in ID and PI Practices | EPPIC - Pursuing Performance

  3. Pingback: Foo Foo – in Instructional Design and Performance Improvement | EPPIC - Pursuing Performance

  4. Pingback: Persistent Learning & Performance Improvement Myths | EPPIC - Pursuing Performance

  5. Pingback: Avoid the Foo Foo in ISD and PI and (Your Profession Here) | EPPIC – Pursuing Performance

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s