Talk:Bloom's taxonomy

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education High‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expansion request

What is the opinion of scientists in areas like psychology and education on this theory? Is it used in modern education practice? -- Beland 21:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are entire systems of teaching based on the taxonomy. I'm just an undergrad education student, but it's pretty clear that the taxonomy is almost ubiquitous in the field, taken as a given by many professionals. For example, we are often required to write lesson plans addressing Bloom's three domains. I'll try to find some documentation beyond my own experience. Fishal 20:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I work in educational technology and bloom's taxonomy drives item development and alignment to state standards. It is a critical method of thinking in the organization and classification of content used to assess student knowledge and growth. Gehling 17:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I was expecting the content on Bloom's to connect to new work related to Information Communication Literacy (ICT) and the 'Digital Bloom's'. Blooms is mentioned on the ICT page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_literacy but not linked back here. Bloom's Digital Taxonomy effort is at http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom's+Digital+Taxonomy --Gusleonard (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this web page does a good job on the topic. Could help on expansion [1]

Is it generally recognized that there are two version of the Taxonomy? '1.0' in 1956, and the '2.0' version from 2001 (from Bloom's colleague)

The article doesn't make this clear, and should have two diagrams. (I expect this evolution to continue, the same way the subject of cognitive science has expanded from 6 domains (from the original Sloan report) to the 7 domains currently listed on the page: 6 domain hexagram and 7 domain heptagram rhyre (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom's Taxonomy

What is the opinion of scientists in areas like psychology and education on this theory? Is it used in modern education practice? -- Beland 21:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
There are entire systems of teaching based on the taxonomy. I'm just an undergrad education student, but it's pretty clear that the taxonomy is almost ubiquitous in the field, taken as a given by many professionals. For example, we are often required to write lesson plans addressing Bloom's three domains. I'll try to find some documentation beyond my own experience. Fishal 20:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not scientist, psycologist, or even an education theorist, just a teacher at the elementary level, but I can answer that it is ubiquitous not just at university and secondary-level but at the elementary level. The state of California has based most of their testing questions for students on the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation level.

I'm curious about whether these levels were based on scientific study, and how the study was structured, or if it was merely based on observation, etc.

Bloom's Verbs

As a teacher in California, I use Bloom's all the time. Some of the most useful Bloom's resources are lists of verbs that go with the various cognitive domains. Adding some of those or external links to sites that list those would be nice.

Jmunger 22:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)jmunger education=primary=elemantary discipline=rule=regulation cooperate=work together=collaborate=group pupil=student=staff practical=useful=helpful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.37.124.198 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag

I think that a Needs Expansion tag would be more appropriate. Fishal 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It does need some cleanup too though. Look at how the way things are laid out differently in the Affective and Cognitive sections. These at least need to have some sort of similar way of describing the different levels of the taxonomy. I suggest some sort of numbering rather than bullets since the do have a specific order. Bdean42 21:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiation

A differentiation should be made of Bloom's Taxonomy versus other Educational Taxonomies. If I want to know what Bloom's theory was I want to see that, if I want to see other theories, these should be distinctly labeled as something else. Taking Bloom's ideas and modifying them and passing them off as Bloom's isn't good encyclopedic practice. KarenEdda (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for explanation

I came to this page wanting to learn about the subject. I'm not figuring out the diagram accompanying the page from the text of the page. The diagram needs a better explanation or tie in with the text. Anniepoo (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I think this diagram would work better lower in the article, where the cognitive domain is discussed. It might prompt additional amplification in that part. The other issue I have with this diagram is that we are talking about the "taxonomy", yet this is not a taxonomic representation. I will see if I can find a better primary (open source) image. June1969 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives → Bloom's Taxonomy — The main article name for this page should really be "Bloom's Taxonomy", not "Taxonomy of Educational Objectives". The former is the common name for the idea set started by Handbook I that Bloom edited. The latter is a partial title of Handbook I. June1969 (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This makes me think of Gene Wilder, by the way. —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Diagram

The diagram in the "cognitive" section is both confusing and misleading. It uses the terminology of the revised taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) but is located beside a description of the original taxonomy. To make matters worse, it shows the top three categories as parallel, which has been suggested by some (according to the article, though it doesn't even say who), but NOT by Anderson & Krathwohl. Anderson & Krathwohl consider all 6 categories hierarchical. I suggest that, until the article can be cleaned up, this diagram be removed. Nasulikid (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom's Taxonomy → Bloom's taxonomy – Please put your reason for moving here. Tony (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, the second word should not be capped. WP doesn't generally cap the names of theories, laws, hypotheses. There is dissonance within the article on capping "Bloom's verbs", etc, which also need to be harmonised. Tony (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is this article about?

I have tried to make sense of the article, and cannot. It starts Bloom's taxonomy is a way of distinguishing the fundamental questions within the education system.

What education system? does this mean the system of schools and colleges in some unspecified country? If yes, then what country? If no, then what does it mean?
"Fundamental questions" – what are these questions? Can we have some examples of them?
"Distinguishing" - if the questions are fundamental, it seems odd that anyone should find it hard to tell them apart.

Maproom (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the opening sentence has been rewritten, and now gives a good explanation of what Bloom's taxonomy is. Maproom (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding needs new lead sentence

The Understanding sections begins: "Comprehension involves demonstrating understanding of facts and ideas…" but should instead start with Understanding involves. Not quite sure where to go after that, though I'll note that "comprehension" and "understanding" are pretty much synonyms, so maybe another term is needed in there; saying "Understanding involves comprehension" seems tautological. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eponymous-Archon: A random IP user changed the section heading from Comprehending to Understanding, and I just changed it back. This seems to resolve the issue you noted. Biogeographist (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]