Have had a few thought provoking debates recently about the validity of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Yes, that’s right, a challenge to the orthodoxy! I’ve read through a selection of articles which all point to the fact that there is no real evidence base to support Bloom’s theories and worse, thinking in this rigid, hierarchical way can even be damaging! Can it be true?
One criticism is that it can lead to teachers not really thinking through the different categories of thinking skills each time they’re used which lead students to think superficially. Any classification of skills along the lines of Bloom’s can aid critical thinking but only if it is used critically. I guess my concern is that use of Bloom’s Taxonomy has become wholly uncritical in many cases.
Read for yourself:
http://www.onteachingonline.com/the-problem-with-blooms-taxonomy/
http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2006/09/bloom-goes-boom.html
http://www.performancexpress.org/0212/mainframe0212.html#title3
http://www.corwin.com/upm-data/13602_Chapter_1_Marzano_Final_Pdf_2.pdf
When is a bad idea a bad idea?
The SOLO (Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes) taxonomy is just as bad. I’ve written about my struggles with it here.
15 Comments
Constructive feedback is always appreciated
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
[…] includes questioning and some well planned, properly differentiated questions (try the SOLO taxonomy rather than Bloom’s) can be really effective in ensuring all are suitably challenged. […]
[…] few months ago I wrote about some of the concerns people have had with ubiquity of Bloom’s Taxonomy and that there […]
[…] Challenging Bloom’s Taxonomy Post a Comment (1) Comment Read More […]
[…] https://learningspy.co.uk/2011/08/24/challenging-blooms-taxonomy/ […]
[…] as complicated as Bloom’s Taxonomy to think about the questions I want to ask (that and I think it’s a bit rubbish.) Instead I rely on asking questions that clarify, probe or […]
[…] also rely heavily on Bloom’s Taxonomy and lessons pose a hypothesis which pupils are expected to apply, analyse or evaluate.In a French […]
[…] August 24, 2011 learning, SOLO 6 Comments […]
[…] as is clear from Bloom’s Taxonomy (objections to it aside), this is the first step, and will only get you so far. We are much more interested in what […]
[…] One criticism is that it can lead to teachers not really thinking through the different categories of thinking skills each time they’re used which lead students to think superficially. Any classification of skills along the lines of Bloom’s can aid critical thinking but only if it is used critically. I guess my concern is that use of Bloom’s Taxonomy has become wholly uncritical in many cases. Source: https://www.learningspy.co.uk/learning/challenging-blooms-taxonomy/ […]
I have a few theories that support flaws in blooms taxonomy.
[…] See http://thecenter.spps.org/uploads/new_and_old_bloom_s.pdf for a short history on this. Surprizingly, there’s been universal buy-in to the update, which I’d expected to engender at least some backlash, akin to a religious war. The critiques are few and far between. Most are benevolent (http://www.steve-wheeler.co.uk/2012/06/bloom-and-bust.html) or constructive (https://www.learningspy.co.uk/myths/challenging-blooms-taxonomy). […]
[…] its hierarchy of six levels exposes how ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’. As The Learning Spy observes, the […]
[…] lot of this is no longer relevant (and some aspects even heavily critiqued) but the idea of visualising increasing complexity of answers is one I think students can really […]
[…] have preferences for visual, auditory or kinesthetic. Similarly, there is no evidence for Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning nor the idea that we learn 10% of what we see or 70% of what we do; let’s also throw Myers […]
Have you a view on Dee Finks (2003) Taxonomy of Significant Learning? The main difference to the other models is that it puts forward a non-hierarchical structure of learning. Curious is it not?