Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain

Robert Hutchins's General Education Plan for the undergraduate division of the University of Chicago, which he introduced shortly after assuming the presidency of the university in 1931, included an innovative curriculum. The curriculum consisted of 14 yearlong comprehensive courses, each integrating an academic discipline the physical, biological, and social sciences, and the humanities. Students demonstrated mastery of each course within the curriculum by passing a comprehensive examination that could be administered at any time. By stating the requirements for graduation in terms of examinations to be successfully completed, it was believed that students could be helped to see that they had responsibility for decisions about the rate at which they would complete the college program, as well as decisions about class attendance and the proper amount and method of study.

The responsibility for developing basic principles for constructing examinations that were aligned with course objectives as well as administering and scoring the examinations fell to a board of examiners, the head of which was known as the university examiner. In 1943, Benjamin S. Bloom assumed the role of university examiner at the University of Chicago, replacing Ralph W. Tyler, his mentor. Five years later, Bloom organized an informal meeting of university examiners at the American Psychological Association convention. After considerable discussion, there was agreement that the development of a common framework that could be used to classify curricular goals and course objectives would be useful in promoting the exchange of test items aligned with various types of objectives. At Bloom's urging, this framework would be known as a taxonomy and was published under the title Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain.

Because of its focus and purpose, David Krathwohl has noted that the taxonomy was originally known as the “examiners' taxonomy.” After reviewing the differences between the pre-publication copy of the taxonomy with the final copy, Lauren Sosniak pointed out that although the opening paragraph of the final copy indicates a desire to be of help to persons engaged in curriculum studies and design, there is ample evidence that the volume was not intended to serve curriculum work. As time passed, however, an increasing number of curriculum specialists, particularly those associated with state departments of education in the United States and those associated with ministries of education in countries outside the United States began to use Bloom's Taxonomy in their work.

Based on objectives provided by faculty teaching a variety of college and university courses, the designers of the taxonomy were able to identify six major types of objectives that cut across all academic disciplines. They labeled these types, or categories, knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. As designed, the categories formed a cumulative hierarchy. That is, the categories were arranged from simple to complex, with each more complex category building on and incorporating each lower category.

Criticisms of the taxonomy began to appear almost immediately after its publication. Three of the most frequent criticisms were the following:

• 1.
  The categories are overly behavioristic, with an emphasis on student behavior rather than on student learning. Consequently, there is the risk of confusing an objective (desired learning) with its indicator (student behavior).
[Page 842]
• 2.
  The validity of the assumption of a cumulative hierarchy is questionable. Certain demands for knowledge are more complex than certain demands for analysis or evaluation. Thus, the lockstep sequence underlying the taxonomy is simplistic and naïve.
• 3.
  Not all important learning outcomes can be made explicit or operational. Furthermore, the ease of stating objectives differs greatly across the curriculum, from one subject matter to another.

Despite these criticisms (and more), the taxonomy has stood the test of time. It has been translated into at least 21 languages. A search of Internet sites indicates that it is still being used to guide curriculum specialists, test developers, and teachers in the practice of their crafts. In a field marked by wide pendulum swings, why has Bloom's Taxonomy not only survived, but prospered? Three primary reasons can be given.

...