Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Teach Deep Thinking
Posted by Liz Strauss · 2 Comments
Benjamin Bloom first developed “Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains” in the mid-1950s. His hierarchy of skills acquisition is key to developing authentic objectives for learning–whether the goal is education or business training.
Blooms taxonomy includes these six levels in ascending order.
- Knowledge–to observe and recall information
- Comprehension–to actually understand–knowledge
- Application–to use that knowledge
- Analysis–to interpret and value the knowledge
- Synthesis–to integrate, own, and combine ideas
- Evaluation–to assess, verify, and make choices based on several sources of information, knowledge, and learning
Bloom’s Taxonomy has been studied over three domains: cognitive (intellect/thinking), affective (attitude/feeling), and psychomotor (physical/doing), or if you will, three key areas of personal and interpersonal skills critical to success in education, business, and life in general.
Bloom’s taxonomy is a powerful tool that is too often left in the tool chest.
Imagine consciously using Bloom’s taxonomy to move a company to think more deeply. Imagine a team that learned strategy via Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Imagine what that team could do.
Liz Strauss
Want an hour of Liz’s personal consulting time? See the About Liz page.
Comments
2 Responses to “Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Teach Deep Thinking”
Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying about this post...[...] In the imagined scenario, that I’ve been sketching out across the articles: Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Teach Deep Thinking, Strategic 1, Strategic 2, and Strategic 3, the team has applied their shared base of knowledge and comprehension–of a product that has been developed, and discussed via team blogging–to the task of presenting what’s been made to the larger group of the enterprise, in a way that has provided deeper understanding for all members of both groups. [...]
[...] Throughout Using Bloom’s Taxonomy, Strategic Thinking 1 and the strategic thinking articles that follow them, the people of the imaginary enterprise were constructing meaning — about the product that was discussed on the team blog AND about what people working together toward a common goal do. [...]