BLOOM’S TYPES OF LEARNING

Benjamin Bloom (1956) developed three different levels of classifying learning outcomes or objectives. These are also known as Bloom’s Types of Learning and include cognitive, affective and psycho-motor domains: these classifications are referred to as Bloom’s taxonomy and the stages are divided from the simple to the complex.

Bloom’s Taxonomy, (in full: ‘Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains’, or strictly speaking: Bloom’s ‘Taxonomy of Educational Objectives’) was initially (the first part) published in 1956 under the leadership of American academic and educational expert Dr Benjamin S Bloom. ‘Bloom’s Taxonomy’ was originally created in and for an academic context, (the development commencing in 1948), when Benjamin Bloom chaired a committee of educational psychologists, based in American education, whose aim was to develop a system of categories of learning behaviour to assist in the design and assessment of educational learning.

Bloom’s Taxonomy has since been expanded over many years by Bloom and other contributors (notably Anderson and Krathwhol as recently as 2001, whose theories extend Bloom’s work to far more complex levels than are explained here, and which are more relevant to the field of academic education than to corporate training and development).

Where indicated Bloom’s Taxonomy tables are adapted and reproduced with permission from Allyn & Bacon, Boston USA, being the publishers and copyright owners of ‘Taxonomy of Educational Objectives’.

These stages assist the teacher in writing the objectives, designing the learning tasks or activities and also to prepare the assessments. These domains are:

COGNITIVE DOMAIN OF LEARNING OUTCOME

The cognitive domain of learning objectives deals with knowledge acquisition. It emphasises the development of mental or intellectual skills. There are six categories of this and they range from the simplest to the most complex one.

1. Knowledge: Is the simplest learning outcome. It is expected that at the end of this learning task, a learner should be able to define, identify, mention, describe, list, state, name and label a previously learnt fact or information. Example of this is that at the end of this lesson, a learner should be able to mention categories of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning.

2. Comprehension: This is the second level in cognitive domain. It is a level where the learners learn to understand, translate, summarize, interpret, rewrite, predict or explain the facts, principles, concepts, tasks or information. At the end of this lesson, a student should be able to summarize all the three types of domain.

3. Application: At this level, the learners should be able to apply the previously gained experiences into new task, principles, information, rules and facts. Application may involve changing, operating manipulating, relating etc. For instance, at the end of this lesson, a student should be able to apply the knowledge gained in the study of Bloom’s taxonomy into the classroom situation.

4. Analysis: This is the fourth stage in cognitive domain. It is the ability of the learners to distinguish, compare, contrast, relate, select or differentiate between the facts or making inferences.

5. Synthesis: Building or creating new tasks, facts, principles, logic, methods from constituent elements or diverse points. It is about putting parts together to form a whole, with emphasis on creating a new meaning or structure. Synthesis involves Examples are composition, compilation, explanation, modification, reconstruction, relating, rearranging, revision etc.

6. Evaluation: This is the ability of the learners to make judgment or pass comments about an event, information. It takes the form of assessment, defence, criticism, justification, relating, describing etc.

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN OF LEARNING OUTCOME

The Affective domain gives judgment about our emotion. It describes how we deal with our feelings, values, appreciation, attitudes or motivation. This domain is divided into five categories. These are:

1. Receiving Information or fact: This deals with how we receive information being passed onto us. It emphasizes our willingness to hear or listen to others.

2. Responding to Information: The level of responsiveness of the learners to learning tasks are judged in this area. It describes the willingness of the learners to respond to a given task satisfactorily. It is about how well the learners participate in the teaching-learning activities.

3. Valuing:This is the value a person attaches to a behaviour or phenomenon. Value is based on the internalization of a set of specified values, while the clues to these values are expressed in the learner’s overt behaviour and are often identifiable.

4. Organisation:This is the process of organizing values into priorities in order to compare them and decide on the most appropriate ones.

5. Internalising Values: This means that individuals have values that are consistent, stable and are controlling them. These values which form the characteristics of people can therefore predict their behaviour.

PSYCHO-MOTOR DOMAIN

The Psychomotor Domain encompasses skills development relating to the physical dimensions of accomplishing a task. Because, ‘motor’ skills extend beyond the originally traditionally imagined manual and physical skills, always consider using this domain, even if you think your environment is covered adequately by the Cognitive and Affective Domains. Whatever the situation, it is likely that the Psychomotor Domain is significant.

This level of domain is about physical skills. It deals with physical movement and coordination of an individual. These skills involve manipulation of fingers, legs and other parts of the body. Examples are cycling, dancing, running etc. Psycho-motor is divided into perception, set, guided response, mechanism, complex over response, adaptation and origination.

The table below summarises Elizabeth Simpson’s interpretation of the Psychomotor domain which is the more comprehensive version and is probably preferable model for the development of young children.

Table 1: Simpson’s Psychomotor Domain is represented in an altered and condensed manner in “The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain,” published in 1972. Actually, it appears that Elizabeth Simpson initially discussed her understanding of the Psychomotor Domain in 1966 in the Illinois Journal of Home Economics. As a result, the theory may be dated to either 1966 or 1972.