# data[].attributes.body
Uchebni dejnosti po taksonomiqta na Bloom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bloom's taxonomy is a set of three hierarchical models used for classification of educational learning objectives into levels of complexity and specificity. The three lists cover the learning objectives in cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. The cognitive domain list has been the primary focus of most traditional education and is frequently used to structure curriculum learning objectives, assessments and activities.

The models were named after Benjamin Bloom, who chaired the committee of educators that devised the taxonomy. He also edited the first volume of the standard text, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals.[1][2]

The publication of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives followed a series of conferences from 1949 to 1953, which were designed to improve communication between educators on the design of curricula and examinations.

The first volume of the taxonomy, Handbook I: Cognitive[1] was published in 1956, and in 1964 the second volume Handbook II: Affective was published.[4][5][6][7][8] A revised version of the taxonomy for the cognitive domain was created in 2001.[9]

Cognitive domain (knowledge-based)

Bloom's Taxonomy

In the 1956 original version of the taxonomy, the cognitive domain is broken into the six levels of objectives listed below.[10] In the 2001 revised edition of Bloom's taxonomy, the levels have slightly different names and their order is revised: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create (rather than Synthesize).[9][11]

Level

Description

Example

Knowledge

Knowledge involves recognizing or remembering facts, terms, basic concepts, or answers without necessarily understanding what they mean. Some characteristics may include:

Knowledge of specifics-terminology, specific facts

Knowledge of ways and means of dealing with specifics-conventions, trends and sequences, classifications and categories

Knowledge of the universals and abstractions in a field-principles and generalizations, theories and structures

Name three common varieties of apple.

Comprehension

Comprehension involves demonstrating an understanding of facts and ideas by organizing, summarizing, translating, generalizing, giving descriptions, and stating the main ideas.

Summarize the identifying characteristics of a Golden Delicious apple and a Granny Smith apple.

Application

Application involves using acquired knowledge to solve problems in new situations. This involves applying acquired knowledge, facts, techniques and rules. Learners should be able to use prior knowledge to solve problems, identify connections and relationships and how they apply in new situations.

Would apples prevent scurvy, a disease caused by a deficiency in vitamin C?

Analysis

Analysis involves examining and breaking information into component parts, determining how the parts relate to one another, identifying motives or causes, making inferences, and finding evidence to support generalizations. Its characteristics include:

Analysis of elements

Analysis of relationships

Analysis of organization

Compare and contrast four ways of serving foods made with apples and examine which ones have the highest health benefits.

Synthesis

Synthesis involves building a structure or pattern from diverse elements; it also refers to the act of putting parts together to form a whole or bringing pieces of information together to form a new meaning. Its characteristics include:

Production of a unique communication

Production of a plan, or proposed set of operations

Derivation of a set of abstract relations

Convert an "unhealthy" recipe for apple pie to a "healthy" recipe by replacing your choice of ingredients. Argue for the health benefits of using the ingredients you chose versus the original ones.

Evaluation

Evaluation involves presenting and defending opinions by making judgments about information, the validity of ideas, or quality of work based on a set of criteria. Its characteristics include:

Judgments in terms of internal evidence

Judgments in terms of external criteria

Which kinds of apples are suitable for baking a pie, and why?

Affective domain (emotion-based)

A scaffolding hierarchy of the affective domain related to learning

Skills in the affective domain describe the way people react emotionally and their ability to feel other living things' pain or joy. Affective objectives typically target the awareness and growth in attitudes, emotion, and feelings.

There are five levels in the affective domain moving through the lowest-order processes to the highest.

Level

Description

Receiving

The lowest level; the student passively pays attention. Without this level, no learning can occur. Receiving is about the student's memory and recognition as well.

Responding

The student actively participates in the learning process, not only attends to a stimulus; the student also reacts in some way.

Valuing

The student attaches a value to an object, phenomenon, or piece of information. The student associates a value or some values to the knowledge they acquired.

Organizing

The student can put together different values, information, and ideas, and can accommodate them within their own schema; the student is comparing, relating and elaborating on what has been learned.

Characterizing

The student at this level tries to build abstract knowledge.

Psychomotor domain (action-based)

A scaffolding hierarchy of the psychomotor domain related to learning

Skills in the psychomotor domain describe the ability to physically manipulate a tool or instrument like a hand or a hammer. Psychomotor objectives usually focus on change or development in behavior or skills.

Bloom and his colleagues never created subcategories for skills in the psychomotor domain, but since then other educators have created their own psychomotor taxonomies.[7] Simpson (1972) proposed a taxonomy of seven levels.[12]

Level

Description

Examples

Keywords

Perception

The ability to use sensory cues to guide motor activity: This ranges from sensory stimulation, through cue selection, to translation.

Detects non-verbal communication cues.

Estimates where a ball will land after it is thrown and then moves to the correct location to catch the ball.

Adjusts the heat of the stove to the correct temperature by smell and taste of food.

Adjusts the height of the forks on a forklift by comparing where the forks are in relation to the pallet.

chooses

describes

detects

differentiates

distinguishes

identifies

isolates

relates

selects

Complex overt response

The skillful performance of motor acts that involve complex movement patterns: Proficiency is indicated by a quick, accurate, and highly coordinated performance, requiring a minimum amount of energy.This category includes performing without hesitation and automatic performance. For example, players will often utter sounds of satisfaction or expletives as soon as they hit a tennis ball or throw a football because they can tell by the feel of the act what the result will produce.

assembles

calibrates

constructs

dismantles

displays

fastens

fixes

grinds

heats

manipulates

measures

mends

mixes

organizes

sketches

(Note: The key words are the same as in mechanism, but will have adverbs or adjectives that indicate that the performance is quicker, better, more accurate, etc.)

In the appendix to Handbook I, there is a definition of knowledge which serves as the apex for an alternative, summary classification of the educational goals. This is significant as the taxonomy has been called upon significantly in other fields such as knowledge management, potentially out of context. "Knowledge, as defined here, involves the recall of specifics and universals, the recall of methods and processes, or the recall of a pattern, structure, or setting."

The taxonomy is set out as follows:

1.00 Knowledge

1.10 Knowledge of specifics

1.11 Knowledge of terminology

1.12 Knowledge of specific facts

1.20 Knowledge of ways and means of dealing with specifics

1.21 Knowledge of conventions

1.22 Knowledge of trends and sequences

1.23 Knowledge of classifications and categories

1.24 Knowledge of criteria

1.25 Knowledge of methodology

1.30 Knowledge of the universals and abstractions in a field

1.31 Knowledge of principles and generalizations

1.32 Knowledge of theories and structures

As Morshead (1965) pointed out on the publication of the second volume, the classification was not a properly constructed taxonomy, as it lacked a systematic rationale of construction.

This was subsequently acknowledged in the discussion of the original taxonomy in its 2001 revision,[9] and the taxonomy was reestablished on more systematic lines.

Some critiques of the taxonomy's cognitive domain admit the existence of these six categories but question the existence of a sequential, hierarchical link.[14] Often, educators view the taxonomy as a hierarchy and may mistakenly dismiss the lowest levels as unworthy of teaching.[15][16] The learning of the lower levels enables the building of skills in the higher levels of the taxonomy, and in some fields, the most important skills are in the lower levels (such as identification of species of plants and animals in the field of natural history).[15][16] Instructional scaffolding of higher-level skills from lower-level skills is an application of Vygotskian constructivism.[17][18]

Some consider the three lowest levels as hierarchically ordered, but the three higher levels as parallel.[9] Others say that it is sometimes better to move to application before introducing concepts,[citation needed ] the goal being to create a problem-based learning environment where the real world context comes first and the theory second, to promote the student's grasp of the phenomenon, concept, or event.

The distinction between the categories can be seen as artificial since any given cognitive task may entail a number of processes. It could even be argued that any attempt to nicely categorize cognitive processes into clean, cut-and-dried classifications undermines the holistic, highly connective and interrelated nature of cognition.[19] This is a criticism that can be directed at taxonomies of mental processes in general.

The taxonomy is widely implemented as a hierarchy of verbs, designed to be used when writing learning outcomes, but a 2020 analysis showed that these verb lists showed no consistency between educational institutions, and thus learning outcomes that were mapped to one level of the hierarchy at one educational institution could be mapped to different levels at another institution.[20]

Bloom's taxonomy serves as the backbone of many teaching philosophies, in particular, those that lean more towards skills rather than content.[8][9] These educators view content as a vessel for teaching skills. The emphasis on higher-order thinking inherent in such philosophies is based on the top levels of the taxonomy including application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.[citation needed ] Bloom's taxonomy can be used as a teaching tool to help balance evaluative and assessment-based questions in assignments, texts, and class engagements to ensure that all orders of thinking are exercised in students' learning, including aspects of information searching.[21]

Bloom's taxonomy (and the revised taxonomy) continues to be a source of inspiration for educational philosophy and for developing new teaching strategies. The skill development that takes place at higher orders of thinking interacts well with a developing global focus on multiple literacies and modalities in learning and the emerging field of integrated disciplines.[22] The ability to interface with and create media would draw upon skills from both higher order thinking skills (analysis, creation, and evaluation) and lower order thinking skills (knowledge, comprehension, and application).[23][24]

Bloom's original taxonomy may not have included verbs or visual representations, but subsequent contributions to the idea have portrayed the ideas visually for researchers, teachers and students.

1. Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Vol. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.

2. ^ Shane, Harold G. (1981). "Significant writings that have influenced the curriculum: 1906-1981". Phi Delta Kappan. 62 (5): 311-314.

3. ^ Simpson, Elizabeth J. (1966). "The classification of educational objectives: Psychomotor domain". Illinois Journal of Home Economics. 10 (4): 110-144.

4. Clark, Donald R. (1999). "Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning Domains".

5. Krathwohl, David R. (2002). "A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview". Theory into Practice. Routledge. 41 (4): 212-218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2. ISSN 0040-5841. S2CID 13116159.

6. ^ Anderson, Lorin W.; Krathwohl, David R., eds. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. ISBN 978-0-8013-1903-7.

7. Hoy, Anita Woolfolk (2007). Educational psychology (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. pp. 530-531, 545. ISBN 978-0205459469. OCLC 68694368.

8. ^ Armstrong, Patricia (2010-06-10). "Bloom's Taxonomy". Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Vanderbilt University.

9. Simpson, Elizabeth (1972), Educational objectives in the psychomotor domain (PDF), vol. 3, Washington, D.C.: Gryphon House, pp. 25-30, ERIC ED010368

10. Flannery, Maura C. (November 2007). "Observations on biology" (PDF). The American Biology Teacher. 69 (9): 561-564. doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2007)69[561:OOB]2.0.CO;2. S2CID 85828325. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-03-06. Biology is often referred to as an observational science almost as a slur, with the implication that biologists simply look at the living world without the strong theoretical and mathematic underpinnings of a science like physics. There is the suggestion that observation is easy. Thus biology is viewed as a lightweight science-anyone can do it: just go out and start looking, at birds, at grass, at cells under the microscope. Benjamin Bloom's taxonomy of learning tasks puts observation at the lowest level, with recall of information. This denigration of observation has long bothered me because I see it as often difficult and complex, a skill that needs to be learned and a talent that is much more developed in some.

11. Lawler, Susan (26 February 2016). "Identification of animals and plants is an essential skill set". The Conversation. Archived from the original on 17 November 2016. Ironically, the dogma that has been so detrimental to field taxonomy is known as Bloom's taxonomy. University lecturers are told to apply an educational theory developed by Benjamin Bloom, which categorises assessment tasks and learning activities into cognitive domains. In Bloom's taxonomy, identifying and naming are at the lowest level of cognitive skills and have been systematically excluded from University degrees because they are considered simplistic.

12. ^ Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). "Chapter 6: Interaction between learning and development". Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 79-91.

13. ^ Keene, Judith; Colvin, John; Sissons, Justine (June 2010) [2010]. "Mapping student information literacy activity against Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive skills". Journal of Information Literacy. 4 (1): 6-21. doi:10.11645/4.1.189. Archived from the original on 2017-06-06. When supporting students outside the classroom situation, a subject aware advisor should be capable of spotting mistakes in a student's solution and of analysing these mistakes to identify the difficulty that the student is encountering. Such support can be seen as offering scaffolding in a student's 'zone of proximal development' (Vygotsky, 1978) and exemplified by teaching students to analyse a problem through the identification of the key elements and the relationships between these elements.

14. ^ Fadul, J. A. (2009). "Collective Learning: Applying distributed cognition for collective intelligence". The International Journal of Learning. 16 (4): 211-220. doi:10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v16i04/46223. ISSN 1447-9494.

15. ^ Newton, Philip M.; Da Silva, Ana; Peters, Lee George (10 July 2020). "A pragmatic master list of action verbs for Bloom's taxonomy". Frontiers in Education. 5. doi:10.3389/feduc.2020.00107.

16. BJ Jansen, D Booth, B Smith (2009) ^ Using the taxonomy of cognitive learning to model online searching, Information Processing & Management 45 (6), 643-663

17. ^ Kress, G.; Selander, S. (2012). "Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition". Internet and Higher Education. 15 (1): 265-268. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.003.

Bloom, B. S. (1994). "Reflections on the development and use of the taxonomy". In Rehage, Kenneth J.; Anderson, Lorin W.; Sosniak, Lauren A. (eds.). Bloom's taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Vol. 93. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. ISSN 1744-7984.

Clark, Donald R. (1999). "Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning Domains".

Krathwohl, D. R.; Bloom, B. S.; Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Vol. Handbook II: the affective domain. New York: David McKay Company.

Morshead, Richard W. (1965). "On Taxonomy of educational objectives Handbook II: Affective domain" (PDF). Studies in Philosophy and Education. 4 (1): 164-170. doi:10.1007/bf00373956. hdl:2027.42/43808. S2CID 143935506.

Orlich, Donald; Harder, Robert; Callahan, Richard; Trevisan, Michael; Brown, Abbie (2004). Teaching strategies: a guide to effective instruction (7th ed.). Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0-6182-9999-7.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Bloom's taxonomy is a set of three hierarchical models used for classification of educational learning objectives into levels of complexity and specificity. The three lists cover the learning objectives in cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains.