Benjamin Bloom

Profile

Benjamin Bloom was an American academic who specialised in researching learning behaviours. He led a group which looked at ways of identifying a classification of learning objectives which would cover all areas of learning and in 1956 produced what has come to be known as ‘Bloom’s Taxonomy’, which continues to be influential today.

Key dates

1913 – Born in Lansford, Pennsylvania

1942 – Received a Ph.D. in Education from the University of Chicago

1944 – Appointment as an instructor in the Department of Education at the University of Chicago

1956 – First volume of Handbook of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The cognitive domain published

1964 – Second volume Handbook of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The affective domain published

1999 – Died

Links

• How Children Learn 1

Burrhus Skinner and behaviourism

• How Children Learn 3

Carl Rogers

• How Children Learn 4

Abraham Maslow

Albert Bandura

His life

Benjamin Bloom pursued an academic career, taking an interest in the assessment of students and the psychology of learning. He worked in the mid-twentieth century within an educational context which supported the idea that assessment was a way of weeding out less able students, so that the ‘cream’ would rise to the top. However, Bloom’s attitude was different. According to Eisner, a former student of Bloom:

What Bloom had to offer his students was a model of an inquiring scholar, someone who embraced the idea that education as a process was an effort to realize human potential, indeed, even more, it was an effort designed to make potential possible. Education was an exercise in optimism. (1)

At the 1948 Convention of the American Psychological Association, a group of educationalists led by Bloom was set up to develop a framework to classify educational goals and objectives. The intention was to formulate a hierarchical index of thinking behaviours that contributed to the processes of learning. In 1956 the result of this work came to be known as ‘Bloom’s Taxonomy’ of educational objectives.

Continuing with his interest in the nature of learning, Bloom published in 1964 Stability and Change in Human Characteristics, based on a number of longitudinal studies, in which he tried to throw light on the educational controversy over the importance of nature versus nurture. This work highlighted the importance of early experiences and the influences of early learning as significant factors that contribute to children’s, and adults’, intellectual growth. (2)

Bloom showed in his studies that it is possible to estimate 50% of the variations in intelligence at the age of 17 by looking at the child’s progress at the age of four. He also concluded that early experiences at home have a significant impact on later learning. Furthermore he believed that by using appropriate teaching practices and learning environments, virtually all children can learn at a high level.

In his later years he pursued his interest in the nature of giftedness in young people and the work of his research team, Developing Talent in Young People, was published in 1985.

His writing

Bloom has contributed to and edited many publications relating to the nature of learning, educational assessment and giftedness, including Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I, The cognitive domain (1956) and Taxonomy of educational objectives: Volume II, The affective domain (1964) which explain the two domains that were developed in detail. He also wrote or co-authored, amongst others, Human characteristics and School learning (1976), All our children learning: a primer for parents, teachers, and other educators (1980), Developing talent in young people (1985) and The home environment and social learning (1993).

His theory

Bloom and his research group identified three ‘domains’, or categories of learning:

1. The ‘cognitive domain’ (relating to intellectual skills and capacity). These were structured according to functionality from lowest to highest, see table 1 below.
2. The ‘affective domain’ (relating to attitudes, emotions and motivation). These were structured according to functionality from lowest to highest, see table 2 below.
3. The ‘psychomotor domain’ (relating to physical skills and co-ordination). Bloom never developed a taxonomy for this group, this task was taken on by Dave (1970), Harrow (1972), and Simpson (1972).

Putting the theory into practice

Bloom’s taxonomy has provided a common framework for educators to use in constructing the curriculum. Many primary schools have taken on an ‘enquiry based’ curriculum. An example of this is the International Primary Curriculum (IPC). The taxonomy can be used to identify a hierarchy of questions which relate to the levels of learning.

The taxonomy has highlighted the need to have clear educational objectives for teaching and to measure pupils’ progress against those objectives. Not only does this provide a means to evaluate the effectiveness of the teaching, it also provides the learner with clear goals. In England, the application of Assessment for Learning (AfL) requires that at the start of a lesson, the Learning Objective (or goal) is shared with the children and then success criteria are identified which enable the learning objective to be met. (5) This gives the children a measure of control over their own learning and enables them to self-assess their work. The strategy is based on practice in successful schools, which indicates that pupils will improve most if they understand the aim of their learning, where they are in relation to this aim, and how they can achieve the aim.

Bloom’s ideas have demonstrated that a holistic approach should be taken towards children’s learning. The physical and emotional development of children needs to be considered and planned for alongside their cognitive development. The Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) is used in many schools across England. (6) The School Sports Co-ordinator Scheme (SSCo) has operated in England since 2003. (7) This is usually a secondary school teacher who works with children and staff from a cluster of local primary schools to develop the physical education curriculum.

In the early years, all three areas are included in the curriculum and can be particularly relevant to children with special needs, depending on the specific nature of the need. For example, children with Dyspraxia are likely to have a personalised programme of physical activities to encourage their physical co-ordination. Children who have behaviour difficulties are likely to have a personalised programme with clear objectives which are reviewed frequently. These programmes will be based on a hierarchical system, which is matched to appropriate expectations for the children.

Table 1: A summary of Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain (based on the original Handbook (3))

Table 2: A summary of Bloom’s taxonomy of the affective domain (based on the original Handbook (4))

His influence

In 1981 Bloom’s handbook was voted tied fourth in a survey on the significant writings that influenced curriculum in the first three quarters of the 20th century. (8) From the 1950s, Bloom served as an adviser on education to several overseas governments including Israel and India. (9) Bloom’s testimony to the Congress of the United States about the importance of promoting cognitive development in the first four years of the child’s life in 1965 was influential in the establishing of the Head Start Program. Currently, about a million economically deprived children in the US receive its support at an annual cost of about $7 billion. (10) Head Start was very influential in the set up of the Sure Start programme in the UK.

Comment

Subsequent scholars, such as Anderson L. et al (2001) (11), have argued that the hierarchy of learning established within Bloom’s taxonomy is not fixed. For example, in the Cognitive Domain comprehension comes before application. There is a school of thought which feels that learning through problem solving is just as valid as comprehension and, in this scenario, application may come before comprehension. Bloom himself advocated that his taxonomy should develop over time.

The Taxonomy is still evolving. There are the different versions of the Psychomotor Domain and, in 2001, Anderson and Krathwohl (a contributor to the original Handbooks) edited a revised version of the taxonomy (11), arguing that Bloom’s original intention was that it should be relevant and fit-for-purpose and that the needs of the twenty-first century had changed since the original taxonomy was conceived. The revised version of the Cognitive Domain changed the places of ‘synthesis’ (creating) and ‘evaluation’ in the hierarchy of learning and re-defined the levels as verbs instead of nouns. This reflects Bloom’s shift in emphasis from cognitive concepts to learning behaviours, such as remembering, understanding and applying.

Bloom was not interested just in number-crunching. He advocated that an understanding of context (including the learning environment, prior attainment and the quality of teaching) was needed in order to interpret test scores and that without this, the scores on their own made little sense. However, this has not stopped the government in the UK from publishing league tables where institutions are compared to each other based on test scores.

References

1. Eisner, Elliot, W. (2000) [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/ThinkersPdf/bloome.pdf>.
2. Sprinthall, N., Sprinthall, R. (2002) [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.animukerji.com/newfaculty201/bloom_bio.htm>.
3. Bloom, B. ed. (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I, The cognitive domain. David McKay & Co.
4. Bloom, B. ed. (1964) Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II, The affective domain. David McKay & Co.
5. DCSF (2008) [Internet]. Available from: <https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DCSF-00341-2008.pdf>.
6. DfES (2005) [Internet]. Available from: <http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110202093118/http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/87009>.
7. Youth Sport Trust (2011) [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.youthsporttrust.org/page/specialist-sport/index.html>.
8. Shane, H (1981). In: Anderson et al eds. (2001) A Taxonomy of Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman.
9. INDG (2011) Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains [Internet] Available from: <http://www.indg.in/primary-education/teacherscorner/blooms-taxonomy-of-learning-domains>
10. (2010) The Pros and Cons of Early Years Programs — Where to Start? [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.preventionaction.org/comment/pros-and-cons-early-years-programs-where-start>.
11. Anderson, L. et al. eds (2001) A Taxonomy of Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman.

Where to find out more

Simpson, E. (1972) The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain. Gryphon House.

Harrow, A. (1972) A Taxonomy of the Psychomotor Domain. David McKay & Co.

Dave, R. (1970) Psychomotor levels. In: Armstrong, R. ed. Developing and Writing Educational Objectives. Educational Innovators Press.

www.odu.edu/educ/roverbau/Bloom/blooms_taxonomy.htm

www.internationalprimarycurriculum.com

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-rous.htm