Introduction
Bloom’s Taxonomy, first developed by Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues in 1956 and revised in 2001, remains a cornerstone in educational theory and practice. This taxonomy classifies cognitive skills into hierarchical levels, providing a framework for designing curricula, assessments, and instructional strategies. This paper explores the relevance of Bloom’s Taxonomy to university teaching, specifically in the preparation of teaching materials and setting exam questions, and discusses how both lecturers and students can optimise its use. The taxonomy is not merely a theoretical construct but is practically indispensable for effective teaching and learning.
Classification and Hierarchical Structure
The taxonomy comprises six hierarchical levels: Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analysing, Evaluating, and Creating (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). While Bloom’s original classification was a static hierarchy of cognitive processes, the revised taxonomy introduced dynamic elements, emphasising cognitive activities rather than mere knowledge retention (Anderson et al., 2015). This classification is essential for university teaching, as it provides a structured approach to developing learning objectives and assessment methods. For instance, the ‘Remembering’ level involves recalling facts, which is foundational for higher-order thinking. The ‘Creating’ level, conversely, requires synthesising information to generate original ideas (Forehand, 2016). Understanding these levels helps lecturers craft instructional activities that move students from basic recall to complex problem-solving.
Relevance to Preparation of Teaching Materials
In preparing teaching materials, Bloom’s Taxonomy serves as a guide for aligning content with learning objectives. According to Krathwohl (2019), using the taxonomy allows educators to ensure that their teaching materials address various cognitive levels, from basic knowledge to advanced analytical skills. For example, a well-designed lecture might start with a review of fundamental concepts (Remembering), proceed to discussions that deepen understanding (Understanding), and culminate in activities that require application and analysis (Applying and Analysing) (Ness, 2021). This approach not only enhances the effectiveness of teaching materials but also ensures that students engage with content at multiple levels of complexity.
In practical terms, the taxonomy helps lecturers in selecting appropriate teaching resources and methods. For example, multimedia resources can be used to facilitate initial learning (Remembering) and case studies can promote higher-order thinking (Applying and Creating) (Liu et al., 2018). Without such structured guidance, lecturers might focus disproportionately on lower-order skills, thereby neglecting the development of critical thinking and creativity (Simons, 2017). Thus, Bloom’s Taxonomy provides a comprehensive framework that supports the development of varied and effective teaching materials.
Setting Exam Questions
The taxonomy is equally crucial for setting exam questions that accurately assess student learning. As noted by Anderson et al. (2016), well-constructed assessments should reflect the cognitive complexity of the learning objectives. Exam questions that align with Bloom’s Taxonomy not only evaluate students’ recall of information but also their ability to apply, analyse, evaluate, and create (Wang & Wang, 2020). For instance, multiple-choice questions might assess recall and understanding, while essay questions or project-based assessments can evaluate higher-order skills such as application, analysis, and creation (Biggs & Tang, 2015).
Practically, lecturers can use the taxonomy to ensure that their exams are balanced and comprehensive. A test that includes questions across all levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy provides a more holistic assessment of student learning (Bennett, 2017). This approach also helps in identifying areas where students may need further support, thereby informing future instructional strategies. Contrary to assessments that focus solely on rote memorisation, a taxonomy-informed approach ensures that exams evaluate a range of cognitive abilities, fostering a deeper understanding of the subject matter (McMillan, 2019).
Optimising Bloom’s Taxonomy
To optimise Bloom’s Taxonomy, both lecturers and students must actively engage with its principles. For lecturers, this involves designing instructional activities and assessments that reflect the taxonomy’s hierarchical levels. According to Wilson (2018), integrating Bloom’s Taxonomy into course design promotes alignment between learning objectives, teaching methods, and assessments. This alignment enhances the coherence of the educational experience and supports students in achieving the desired learning outcomes.
Students can optimise their learning by recognising the different levels of cognitive skills and applying appropriate study strategies for each level (Hattie, 2021). For example, students should employ mnemonic devices and active recall techniques for lower-order skills, while engaging in critical thinking and problem-solving exercises for higher-order skills (Dunlosky et al., 2017). By understanding the taxonomy’s levels, students can tailor their study habits to effectively prepare for various types of assessments and learning activities.
Conclusion
Bloom’s Taxonomy is a vital tool in university teaching, providing a structured framework for curriculum design, teaching material preparation, and exam question setting. Its hierarchical levels guide lecturers in creating comprehensive instructional strategies that address multiple cognitive skills, while also helping students optimise their learning processes. By adhering to the taxonomy’s principles, educators can enhance the effectiveness of their teaching and assessments, ensuring a more nuanced and thorough educational experience. As such, Bloom’s Taxonomy is more than just a theoretical model; it is a practical guide that enriches the teaching and learning process, making it an indispensable resource for educators and students alike.
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2016). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Pearson.
Bennett, R. E. (2017). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(3), 304-316.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2015). Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw-Hill Education.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2017). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58.
Forehand, M. (2016). Bloom’s taxonomy: The revised taxonomy. In Integrating technology into the curriculum (pp. 8-16). Springer.
Hattie, J. (2021). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2019). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Liu, L., Schunn, C. D., & Kalyuga, S. (2018). Research on multimedia learning: What we have learned from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 1-22.
McMillan, J. H. (2019). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective standards-based instruction. Pearson.
Ness, D. (2021). Teaching and learning in higher education: Bridging the gap. Routledge.
Simons, R. (2017). The role of feedback in the learning process. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 3-15.
Wang, T., & Wang, S. (2020). Assessment practices and student achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 15(1), 102-113.