The practical value of instructional transaction theory has yet to be demonstrated, since the overall evidence for the effectiveness of even the most sophisticated computer-mediated instruction is far from overwhelming. The costs involved in bringing complex interactive and adaptive systems to the market are so high that the idea of modifying them in response to feedback from users and/or learning outcomes is rarely entertained.

Anderson and Krathwohl’s revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives

Description and intended use

This revision of Bloom’s framework for categorising educational objectives was undertaken to refocus attention on Bloom’s cognitive domain taxonomy (1956) and to incorporate the many advances in knowledge since the original publication. The revision took account of international feedback and Bloom, together with several of his co-authors, contributed to several chapters in this work.

The original framework comprised the following six categories: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation.

With the exception of knowledge, all categories were labelled as ‘abilities and skills’; and for each of these, knowledge was deemed a prerequisite. The categories were presumed to constitute a cumulative hierarchy; that is, each category was conceived as building on and comprising a more advanced achievement than its predecessor.

The Anderson and Krathwohl revision (2001) retains six cognitive process categories: remember, understand, apply, analyse, evaluate and create. These correspond closely to the Bloom categories, and since the revision draws heavily on Bloom, it is worth identifying the changes incorporated into the revision.

Changes in emphasis

The revision emphasises the use of the taxonomy in course planning, instruction and assessment; and in aligning these three. The authors view this as a major shift from the original handbook, where the focus was on providing extensive examples of test items in each of the six categories. Other significant changes are listed below.

•While the original handbook was developed by college examiners, the revision is designed to be of use by elementary and high-school teachers.

•Sample assessment tasks contained within the revision are designed to illustrate and clarify the meaning of the various sub-categories. They are not included as model test items, as in the original handbook.

•The original handbook made use of test items to clarify the meaning of definitions; in the revision, meanings are clarified through extensive descriptions of sub-categories and case vignette illustrations.

•It is no longer claimed that the process categories form a cumulative hierarchy where the learner cannot move to a higher level without mastering all those below it.

Changes in terminology

•Educational objectives indicate that a student should be able to do something (verb) to or with something (noun). In the original framework, nouns were used to describe the knowledge categories

104 Frameworks for Thinking

(e.g. application). In the revision, the major categories in the cognitive process dimension have been relabelled with verb forms (e.g. apply). Knowledge as a cognitive process is renamed remember. Sub-categories in the cognitive process dimension have also been labelled with verbs, such as checking and critiquing (sub-categories of evaluate).

•The revision has renamed and reorganised the knowledge subcategories as four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive.

•Two of the major categories in the original framework have been renamed: comprehension has become understand and synthesis has become create.

Changes in structure

Anderson and Krathwohl’s taxonomy (2001) involves a twodimensional table, with six cognitive processes and four types of knowledge. Figure 3.3 summarises the structural changes from Bloom’s original framework; the examples of learning objectives, activities and assessment shown in table 3.9 illustrate why it is useful to separate the ‘knowledge’ and ‘cognitive process’ dimensions.

The revised framework orders the six cognitive process categories according to their degree of complexity. In the original framework, it was claimed that mastery of a more complex category required mastery of all the preceding, less complex categories. Anderson and Krathwohl state that empirical evidence only supports a cumulative hierarchy for Bloom’s middle three categories of comprehension, application and analysis. However, they confirm that the revised framework remains hierarchical in overall complexity.

Throughout the book, the authors use four organising questions to show how the taxonomy framework can be used to support teachers in the classroom.

•The learning question: what is important for students to learn in the limited school and classroom time available?

•The instruction question: how does one plan and deliver instruction that will result in high levels of learning for large numbers of students?

Table 3.9. Taxonomy table with illustrative examples

specific details

aspect of a

and elements

famous person’s life