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.
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
*** *** ***
*** *** ***
If you know of more studies (with “evidence” and not just “opinions”) – either way – please mention them in the comments section below.
# # #
Pingback: My Top 5 Problems/Opportunities* with the Learning Profession’s Practices | EPPIC - Pursuing Performance
Pingback: L&D: Have You Done an Internal Myth Audit? | EPPIC - Pursuing Performance
Pingback: This Week’s L&D Buzz… Evidence Based Practices in Learning | EPPIC - Pursuing Performance
Pingback: There Is Too Much Foo Foo in ID and PI Practices | EPPIC - Pursuing Performance
Pingback: Foo Foo – in Instructional Design and Performance Improvement | EPPIC - Pursuing Performance
Pingback: Persistent Learning & Performance Improvement Myths | EPPIC - Pursuing Performance
Pingback: Avoid the Foo Foo in ISD and PI and (Your Profession Here) | EPPIC – Pursuing Performance