0

NAME MAKAYA CALVIN MUNASHE TARIRO

REG NUMBER C20143087D

PROGRAM BSCAC

LEVEL 1.1

COURSE CODE CUACE101

 1

Introduction
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives is a model system by an educational psychologist,
Benjamin Bloom who created it in 1956.The intention was to make learners knowledgeable of what
they were learning, therefore attempting to accomplish additional intricate levels of learning with six
cognitive- learning sections. It concentrates on formulating thinking capacity which pertains to simple
information obtainment to more complex processes(Bloom,1956). Adams (2015) summarises the six
levels of cognitive learning objectives. Firstly, knowledge, which encompasses foundational cognitive
skill that compel students to maintain specific, discrete chunks of information, secondly
comprehension, which expects learners to paraphrase the quantity of knowledge in their own words,
classify items in groups, compare and contrast items with distinct identical elements, or clarify a
principle to others. Thirdly application, entailing students to use knowledge skills. or strategies in
modern circumstances, more so analysis which requires learners to differentiate between validity and
belief and observe the assertions upon which an argument is erected. In an addition to the above
application, which entails the desire to establish a unique product in a particular circumstance, and
finally evaluation which requires students to critically assess the validity of a review and judge the
pertinence of its outcomes of applications to the university level.

Knowledge
Retrieve, recall, or recognise applicable information from long –term memory for an example the
knowledge of dates of important events in Zimbabwe history, information on the components of
bacteria, Appropriate learning results verbs for this level include define, describe etc. However, the
level does not differentiate between “know what”, the content of thinking, and “knowing how”, the
procedures used in solving problems at university level according to Dr Lorin Anderson,2001.

Comprehension
Demonstrate comprehension through one or more aspects of justification for instance classifying a
mental illness and comparing ritual practises in two different religions. More so it also allows a
student to interpret the word sentence into a mathematical sentence which implies
‘4×3=?’(Bukowski,2018). Nonetheless not only is comprehension level compelling conditional and
cautious reasoning, etc.- it is level not reached by almost half of the student in reading. (Grant
Wiggins,2004)
Application
Use of data or a skill in a recent predicament as illustrated with the use of Newton’s second law to
solve a problem for which it is appropriate, carry out a multivariate statistical analysis using a data set
not formerly experienced. Nevertheless, this is not true, a misreading of the word ‘apply’, as the text
makes clear and it demands the skills and abilities which are lower in classification order. In
application problems must be new that is students must judge with prior learning applies without
prompting or hint is from scaffolder worksheets. (Wiggins,2004)
Analysis
Breaking material into its constituent part and determine how the parts relate to one another and or to
an overall structure or purpose like a case where you analyse the relationship between different flora
and fauna in an ecological setting (Anderson, Lorin W. and David R Krathwihl,2001). Regardless of
 2

the above the distinctions in the analysis make no practical difference in diagnosing and treating
learning and performance gaps. It also fails to acknowledge that learners may perform at varying
levels of proficiency within each type of high order thinking skill. (Bereiter C. and Scardamalia,
M,1998)
Evaluation
It is judgement based on criteria and standards such as to detect inconsistences or fallacies within a
process or product, determine whether a scientist’s conclusions follow from observed data, judge
which of two methods is the way to solve a given problem, determine the quality of a product based
on disciplinary criteria (Anderson, Lorin W. and David R Krathwihl,2001). However, the evaluation
is not supported by any research on learning and it does not allow assessment to be established for
reasoned judgement which are available in options in light of relevant factors or criteria. (Bereiter C.
and Scardamalia .M,1998)

Conclusion
One of the key objectives is to develop students’ intellectual ability or thinking capacity. Learners
would be taught creative and critical thinking in certain subjects, including the Blooms taxonomy six
levels. However, if we really want to teach creative and critical thinking. There are other criteria
which need to be considered and the whole frame of Blooms taxonomy may not be applicable to
university level. (Marzano’s)

References;
Adams, N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the Medical
Library Association: JMLA, 103(3), 152-153. http://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.010
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational
goals. Handbook I. Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman
Marzano, Robert J. Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Experts in Assessment.
Corwin Press, Inc., A Sage Publications Company, 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. E. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A
Revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives [Abridge Edition]. New York: Addison
Wesley Longman, Inc. Retrieved 11 March, 2012 from www.natefacs.org\JFCSE\v25no1\
v25no1Pickard.
McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2004). Understanding by design: professional development
workbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Beyond Bloom’s taxonomy: Rethinking knowledge for the
knowledge age. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullen, & D. Hopkins, (Eds.), International
handbook of educational change. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic
Andrzej Bukowski (2018), Institute of Sociology, Jagiellonian University, ul. Grodzka 52, 31-033 Kraków,
3