Bloom’s Taxonomy is widely used for developing learning objectives and learning outcomes. However, Bloom’s most used assumptions are based on a particular view on knowledge and learning, cognitivism, that is increasingly challenged. Discuss Bertucio’s main identified objections to Bloom’s Taxonomy.

My spider senses seem to feel there is no love lost between Bertucio and Bloom concerning Bloom’s work on the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives from 1956 with revisions in 2001 (knowledge/remembering, comprehension/understanding, application/applying, analysis/analyzing, synthesis/evaluating, evaluation/creating).

What started to be an effort to assist in creating testing materials to assess curriculum, the result seems to be a dogmatic acceptance for teachers world-wide to frame their lessons using cognitive domain verbs to develop learning objectives, assessments, and activities. Although Blooms Taxonomy is a set of three learning domains (cognitive, affective, and sensory), the cognitive domain has been the primary focus of most traditional education.  

For Bertucia to suggest, Bloom’s work deserves a bow or curtsy in respect, it seems a bit sarcastic. But when Bloom himself makes the statement, “the Taxonomy filled a void; it met a previously unmet need for basic, fundamental planning in education. For the first time, educators were able to evaluate the learning of students systematically” (Bloom, 1994, p.1). Just a hint of arrogance. Bloom’s Taxonomy intended to form a universal language among educators, which would allow for clarity in collaborative discussion. I think Bertucio merely wants to revisit the idea of using innovative ideas in education and not yield to the commonly entrenched ideologies identified by Bloom. For example, Bloom’s dogmatic prescription for observing changes in learners as the aim of education.

Bertucio seems to find fault with Bloom’s Taxonomy similar to other scholars for similar reasons; 1) words and thoughts are considered tools and instruments for prediction, problem-solving, and action, but the idea that the function of thought to describe, represent, or mirror reality is rejected. In other words, Bloom’s Taxonomy does not accurately portray the way that learning happens. Everyone does not always start by remembering things, understanding them, applying them, and moving up the hierarchy in steps as our learning capacity grows. Much of the time, we build understanding by applying knowledge and by creating things. Booker (2007, p. 248) believes “Bloom’s Taxonomy has been used to devalue basic skills in education and has promoted “higher-order thinking” at its expense.” 2) the division into two mutually exclusive groups of cognitive and affective faculties presents a false vision of learning. Learning is not a hierarchy or linear process. There is a mistaken impression that some skills are more difficult or more important than others. There is an integrated process in learner’s minds as they learn; 3) the most powerful effects of knowledge or education emerge on the level of daily experience. Unfortunately, Bloom’s Taxonomy, because of its universal assessment method, removes any substantive value in the tasks themselves, and 4) Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchal logical framework and developed with a precept of absolute certainty. Therefore, it does not take a philosophical position or take a side in any one ideological philosophy. It has an encompassing perspective on reality (Bertucio, 2017. P. 489). The distinction between categories should be seen as artificial since any cognitive task may entail many processes.  

Bertucio (2017, p. 495)) states his position on Bloom’s Taxonomy clearly, “The consequences of teaching under a hierarchy of behavioural objectives are clear. Emotions and affections are removed from instruction. Contemplation, wonder, appreciation, or merely sitting with an object of study are dismissed as a waste of precious instructional time. Cognitive work is divorced from content and meaning. Most importantly, school is reduced to mere work, and students leave the classroom exhausted and uninspired.”

The counterargument to Bertucia is that educators have actively used Bloom’s Taxonomy for 65 years, and it appears just as important today as it was in the 1950s. It is clear to many educators that Bloom’s Taxonomy is essential because it helps identify achievable learning goals, develops plans to meet them, assesses learning on an ongoing basis, and encourages learners to reflect on their progress.

Resources

Bertucio, B. (2017). The cartesian heritage of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Study of Philosophy in Education, 36(4), 477–497. https://search-ebscohost-com.libraryservices.yorkvilleu.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=url,cookie,ip,uid&db=a9h&AN=123586586

Bloom, B. (1994). Reflections on the development and use of the taxonomy. In L. Lorin Anderson & L. Sosnaik (Eds.), Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective. University of Chicago

Booker, M. (2007). A roof without walls: Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy and the misdirection of American education. Academic Questions, 20(1), 347-355. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225315807_A_Roof_without_Walls_Benjamin_Bloom’s_Taxonomy_and_the_Misdirection_of_American_Education