TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES
TAXONOMYOFEDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVESThe Classification of Educational Goals
TAXONOMYOFEDUCATIONALOBJECTIVESThe C.lassiiication of Educational GoalsHANDBOOK 1COGNITIVE DOMAINByA Committee of Collegeand University ExaminersBenjamin S. Bloom. EditorUniversity ExaminerUniversity of ChicagoMax D. EngelhartDirector. Department of ExaminationsChicago City Junior CollegesEdward J. FurstChief, Evaluation and Examination DivisionUniversity of MichiganWalker H. HillExaminer. Board of ExaminersMichigan State UniversityDavid R. KrathwohlCoordinator of ResearchBureau of Research and ServiceMichigan State UniversityLONGMANS
1.o N 1; MA N S, G R E E N A N D CO L T D1K Grosvenor Street, London Wl.-h·,,;,u iaJ., ,J com,Panies, branches ar,.d representativesthroughout the wor/dTAXONOMY OFEDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVESCoPYRIGHT1956BY DAVID McKAY COMPANY, INC.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO REPRODUCETHIS BOOK, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, IN ANY FORMPUBLISHED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN THE DOMINION OF CANADAPrinted in the United States of AmericaEDWARDS BROS ., ANN AR.BOR„ MICHIGAN
To Ralph W. Tyler,whose ideas on evaluation have beena constant source of Stimulation tohis colleagues in examining, and whoseenergy and patience have never failed us .
List of participants who contributedto the development of the taxonomythrough attending one or more of theconferences held from 1949 to 1953Anderson, Gordon V,University of TexasGage, N. L.University of lllinoisBloom, Benjamin S.University of ChicagoHarris, Chester W.University of WisconsinChurchill, RuthAntioch CollegeHastings, J. ThomasUniversity of lllinoisCronbach, L. J.University of IllinoisHeil, Louis M.Brooklyn CollegeDahnke, Harold L,, Jr.Michigan State UniversityHill, Walker H.Michigan State UniversityDetchen, LilyPennsylvania Collegefor WomenHorton, Clark W.Dartmouth CollegeDressel, Paul L.Michigan State UniversityDyer, Henry S.Educational Testing ServiceEbel, Robert L.University of IowaEngelhart, MaxChicago Public SchoolsFindley, Warrenl ducational Testing Servicel 'urst, Edward J.IJniversity of MichiganKrathwohl, David R.Michigan State UniversityLoree, M, RayLouisiana State UniversityMayhew, Louis B.Michigan State UniversityMcGuire, ChristineUniversity of ChicagoMcQuitty, John V.University of FloridaMorris, John B.University of Mississippi
Plumlee, LynnetteEducational Testing ServicePace, C. RobertSyracuse UniversityRemmers, H. H.Purdue UniversityStern, George G,Syracuse UniversitySutton, Robert B.Ohio State UniversityThiede, WilsonUniversity of WisconsinTravers, Robert M.Human Resources Research CenterSan Antonio, TexasTyler, Ralph W.Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral SciencesStanford, CaliforniaWarrington, Willard G.Michigan State University*Watt, RexUniversity of Southern California*Deceased
CONTENTSPART IIntroduction and ExplanationForeword1HistoryProblemsOrganizational principlesThree domains-cognitive, affective, andpsychomotorDevelopment of the cognitive domain78Chapter 1 : The Nature and Development of theTaxonomy10The taxonomy as a c lassification deviceWhat is to be classifiedGuiding principlesDeveloping the taxonomyThe problem of a hierarchy-classificationversus taxonomyIs the taxonomy a useful tool?Chapter 2:Educational Objectives and CurriculumDevelopmentKnowledge as a taxonomy categoryWhat is knowableJustification for the development of knowledgeCurricular decisions to· be made about knowledge objectivesThe nature of abilities and skillsArts or skills knowledge abilitiesJustification for the development of intellectualabilities and skillsChapter 3 : The Problems of Classifying EducationalObjectives and Test ExercisesThree levels of definition in each taxonomycategoryThe classification of objectivesTest yourself on the classification of objectivesThe problems of classifying test exercisesTest yourself on the classification of test exercisesKey to the classification of educational 15459
PART IIThe Taxonomy and Illustrative Materials1. 00 Knowledge1. 10 Knowledge of specifics1. 20 Knowledge of ways and means of dealingwith specifics1. 30 Knowledge of the universals and abstractions in a fieldTesting for Knowledge, and illustrative test items1.10 Knowledge of specifics1. 20 Knowledge of ways and means of dealingwith specifics1. 30 Knowledge of the universals and abstractions in a field2. 00 Comprehension2. 10 Translation2. 20 Interpretation2. 30 ExtrapolationTesting for Comprehension, and illustrative testitems2.10 Translation2. 20 Interpretation2. 30 Extrapolation3. 00 e educational implications of objectives inthe application category122Testing for Application, and illustrative test items1254. 00 Analysis4. 10 Analysis of elements4. 20 Analysis of relationships4. 30 Analysis of organizational principlesTesting4.104. 204. 30for Analysis, and illustrative test itemsAnalysis of elementsAnalysis of relationshipsAnalysis of organizational principles144145146147149151155161
5. 00 Synthesis162Educational significance of Synthesis objectives5.10 Production of a unique communication5. 20 Production of a plan, or proposed set ofOperations5. 30 Derivation of a set of abstract relations166168Testing for Synthesis, and illustrative test items5. 10 Production of a unique communication5. 20 Production of a plan, or proposed set ofoperations5. 30 Derivation of a set of abstract relations1731.776. 00 Evaluation6.10 Judgments in terms of internal evidence6. 20 Judgments in terms of external criteriaTesting for Evaluation, and illustrative test items6.10 Judgments in terms of internal evidence6. 20 Judgments in terms of external criteria170171180183185188190193196197AppendixA condensed version of the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives201
PART IINTRODUCTIONANDEXPLANATION
FOREWORDTaxonomy--"Classüication, esp. of animals andplants according to their natural relationships . 111Most readers will have heard of the biological taxonomies which permit classification into such categories asphyllum, class, order, family, genus, species, variety.Biologists have found their taxonomy markedly helpful as ameans of insuring accuracy of communication about theirscience and as a means of understanding the organizationand interre lation of the various parts of the animal and plantworld.You are reading about an attempt to build a taxonomy of educational objectives. lt is intended to providefor classification of the goals of our educational system.lt is expected to be of general help to all teachers, administrators, professional specialists, and research workerswho deal with curricular and evaluation problems. lt isespecially intended to help them discuss these problemswith greater precision. For example, some teachers believe their students should "really understand," others desire their students to 11 internalize knowledge, 11 still otherswant their students to 11 grasp the core or essence 11 or 11 comprehend. 11 Do they all mean the same thing? Specifica.lly,what does a student do who "really understands" which hedoes not do when he does not understand? Through reference to the taxonomy as a set of standard classifications,teachers should be able to define such nebulous terms asthose given above.This should facilitate the exchange ofinformationabout their curricular developments and evaluation devices. Such interchanges are frequently disappointing now because all too frequently what appears to be com mon ground between schools disappears on closer examination of the descriptive terms being used.But beyond this, the taxonomy should be a source ofconstructive help on these problems. Teachers building a1 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield,Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1953, p. 871.1
2curriculum shouldfind here a range ofpossible educationalgoals or outcomes in the cognitive area ("cognitive" is usedto include activities such as remembering and recallingknowledge, thinking, problem solving, creating). Comparing the goals of their present curriculum with the range ofpossible outcomes may suggest additiona l goals they maywish to include. As a further aid, sample objectives chosen from a range of subject-matter fields (though mostlyfrom the upper educational levels) are used to illustratee t :h of the taxonomy rategories. These may he suggestiveof the kinds of objectives that could be included in theirown curriculum.Use of the taxonomy can also help one gain a perspective on the emphasis given to certain behaviors by a particular set of educational plans. Thus, a teacher, in classifying the goals of a teaching unit, may find that they allfall within the taxonomy category of recalling or remembering knowledge. Looking at the taxonomy categories may suggest to him that, for example, he could include some goalsdealing with the application of this knowledge and with theanalysis of the situations in which the knowledge is used.Curriculum builders should find the · taxonomy helpsthem to specify objectives so that it becomes easier to planlearning experiences and prepare evaluation devices. Toreturn to the illustration of the use of the term "understanding, " a teacher might use the taxonomy to decide which ofseveral meanings he intended. If it meant that the studentwas sufficiently aware of a situation or phenomenon to describe it in terms slightly different from those originallyused in describing it, this would correspond to the taxonomycategory of "Translation." Deeper understanding would bereflected in the next-higher level of the taxonomy, "Interpretation, 11 where the student would be expected to summarize and explain the phenomenon in his description.Andthere are other levels of the taxonomy which the teachercould use to indicate still deeper "understanding." In short,teachers and curriculum makers should find this a rela tively concise model for the analysis of educational outcomes in the cognitive area of remembering, thinking, andprob.lern solving.
3Once they have classified the objectives they wish tomeasure, teachers and testers working on evaluationproblems may refer to the discussions of the problems of measuring such objectives. The Handbook includes constructivesuggestions for measuring each class of objectives and offers a number of examples of the different item types whichhave been used by examiners.Some research workers have found the categories ofas a frarn.ework for vi.ewing the educational process andanalyzing its workings. For instance, the AERA Committee on Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness suggests itsuse in analyzing the teacher's success in classroom teaching. 2 B.loom used them in analyzing the kinds of learningthat take place in class discussions. 3 Equally important,the psycho.logical relationships emp.loyed by the classification scheme are suggestive of psycho.logical investigationswhich could further our understanding of the educationalprocess and provide insight into the means by which thelearner changes in a specified direction.'.!SeBut any of these uses demands a clear understandingof the structure of the taxonomy, its principles of construction, and its organization. We hope this can be easily acquired by a study of the introductory chapters. In addition,it is suggested that the reader refer early and repeatedlyto the condensed version of the taxonomy which has beenplaced at the back of the book in an appendix for easy reference. The condensed version gives an over-all view ofthe classification system, brief definitions of the categories,and a few examples of the objectives belonging in each category. For quick reference and a general grasp of the project, the condensed version of the taxonomy will be foundto be one of the most valuab.le parts of the book. The briefoverview of historical background plus the description ofproblems and of the organization of the taxonomy projectfound in the remainder of this Foreword should further2 Remmers, H. H., et al, "Report of the Committee onthe Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness, 11 Review of Educational Research, 22 (1952), pp. 245,246.3 B.loom, B. S., "The Thought Processes of Studentsin Discussion, " in Sydney J. French, Accent on Teaching,New York: Harper & Bros., 1954.
4orient the reader.Part I of the Handbook is intended todevelop some insight into the principles of development andorganization of the taxonomy, to develop an understandingof the nature and significance of the cognitive domain, andto give some help on the manner in which objectives maybe classified in the taxonomy.Part II is the taxonomy proper. lt consists of the taxonomy categories, sequentially arranged as listed in thecondensed version and in the Table of Contents. Each oneof the categories contains, in order: (1) a definition of thecategory; (2) illustrative objectives; (3) a discussion ofproblems and considerations in testing objectives in thecategory; and (4) examples of items testing objectives inthe category.Each test example is briefly discussed tonote what is required of the student and how this is achieved.HistoryThe idea for this c.lassification system was formed atan informal meeting of college examiners attending the 1948American Psychological Association Convention in Boston.At this meeting, interest was expressed in a theoreticalframework which could be used to facilitate communicationamong examiners. This group felt that such a frameworkcould do much to promote the exchange of test materialsand ideas about testing. In addition, it could be helpful instimulating research on examining and on the relations between examining and education. After considerable discussion, there was agreement that such a theoretical frameworkmight best be obtained through a system of classifying thegoals of the educational process, since educational objectives provide the basis for building curricula and tests andrepresent the starting point for much of our educationalresearch.This meeting became the first of a series of informalannual meetings of college examiners. Gathering at a different university each year and with some changes in membership, this group has considered the problems invo.lvedin organizing a classification of educational objectives. Thegroup has also considered a great many other problems ofexamining and of educational research.This is the firstproduct of these meetings.
5The committee named on the title page was delegatedthe task of organizing and writing the various parts of the"cognitive" portion of the taxonomy, while the group continued in its efforts to develop the "affective" portion of thetaxonomy. As yet, however, the group is still an informalone without dues, regular membership, or the usual offi cers. Under such conditions, the committee,,and the editormust take responsibility for the present product, although"credit" for ideas, suggestions, and sound criticism shouldbe dislcibuted more widely among all those whc have ::i.ttended one or more meetings of the group.ProblemsOne of the first prob.lems raised in our discussionswas whether or not educational objectives could be classified. lt was pointed out that we were attempting to classifyphenomena which could not be observed or manipulated inthe same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields asthe physical and bio.logical sciences, where taxonomies ofa very high order have already been developed. Nevertheless, it was the view of the group that educational objectivesstated in behavioral form have their counterparts in thebehavior of individuals.Such behavior can be observedand described, and these descriptive statements can beclassified.There was some concern expressed in the early meetings that the availability of the taxonomy might tend to abortthe thinking and planning ofteachers with regard to curriculum, particularly if teachers merely selected what theybelieved to be desirab.te objectives from the .list providedin the taxonomy. The process of thinking about educationalobjectives, defining them, and relating them to teaching andtesting procedures was regarded as a very important stepon the part of teachers. lt was suggested that the taxonomycould be most useful to teachers who have already gonethrough some of the steps in thinking ab.out educational objectives and curriculum.Some fear was expressed that the taxonomy might leadto fragmentation and atomization of educational purposes
6such that the parts and pieces finally placed into the classification might be very different from the more completeobjective with which one started. Although this was recognized as a very real danger, one solution for this problemappeared to be setting the taxonomy at a level of generalitywhere the loss by fragmentation would not be too great.The provision of major categories as well as subcategoriesin the taxonomy enables the user of the taxonomy to selectthe level of classification which does least violence to thestatement of the objective. Furt her, the hierarchical character of the taxonomy enables the .user to more clearlyunderstand the place of a particular objective in relation toother objectives.Organizational principlesIn discussing the principles by which a taxonomy mightbe developed, it was agreed that the taxonomy should be aneducational - logical - psychological classification sys tem.The terms in this order express the emphasis placed onthe different principles by which the taxonomy could be de veloped. Thus, first importance should be given to educational considerations. lnsofar as possible, the boundariesbetween categories should be closely related to the distinctions teachers make in planning curricula or in choosinglearning situations. lt is possible that teachers make dis tinctions which psychologists would not make in classifyingor studying human behavior. However, if one of the majorvalues of the taxonomy is in the improvement of communication among educators, then educational dis tinctions shouldbe given major consideration. Second, the taxonomy shouldbe a logical classification in that every effort should bemade to define terms as precisely as possible and to usethem consistently. Finally, the taxonomy should be consistent with relevant and accepted psychological principlesand theories.lt was further agreed that in constructing the taxonomyevery effort should be made to avoid value judgments aboutobjectives and behaviors. Neutrality with respect to educational principles and philosophies was to be achieved byconstructing a system which, insofar as it was possible,
7would permit the inclusion of objectives from all educational orientations. Thus, it should be possible to classifyall objectives which can be stated as descriptions of student behavior.Three domains--cognitive, affective, and psychomotorOur original plans called for a complete taxonomy inthrce m::i.jor parts- -the cognitive, the a.ffective, and thepsychomotor domains. The cognitive domain, which is theconcern of this Handbook, includes those objectives whichdeal with the recall or recognition of knowledge and the development of intellectual abilities and skills. This is thedomain which is most central to the work of much currenttest development. lt is the domain in which most of thework in curriculum deve.lopment has taken place and wherethe clearest definitions of objectives are tobe found phrasedas descriptions of student behavior. For these reasons westarted our work here, and this is the first of our work tobe published.A second part of the taxonomy is the affective domain.lt includes objectives which describe changes in interest,attitudes, and values, and the development of appreciationsand adequate adjustment.Much of our meeting time hasbeen devoted to attempts at classifying objectives underthis domain.lt has been a difficult task which is still farfrom complete. Several problems make it so difficult.Objectives in this domain are not stated very precisely;and, in fact, teachers do not appear to be very clear aboutthe learning
ing. 2 B.loom used them in analyzing the kinds of learning that take place in class discussions. 3 Equally important, the psycho.logical relationships emp.loyed by the classifica tion scheme are suggestive of psycho.logical investigations which could further our understanding of the educational
Taxonomy but has promoted higher-order thinking _ at its expense. Algobory (Algobory & Alajrash, 2008) see that looms Taxonomy is an extensive range of behavioural styles to be achieved by a learner. And looms Taxonomy is the most commonly used classification in selecting the educational objectives of behavioral styles. .
new taxonomy. Table 1.1 – Bloom vs. Anderson/Krathwohl _ (Diagram 1.1, Wilson, Leslie O. 2001) Note: Bloom’s taxonomy revised – the author critically examines his own work – After creating the cognitive taxonomy one o
Bloom’s Taxonomy and the New Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchical way of classifying thinking according to six cognitive levels of complexity. The lowest three levels include th
A mapping between the ORX Reference Taxonomy and the Basel event types is provided in B.1. 1.2. Scope and limitations The ORX Reference Taxonomy is a risk event taxonomy, based on the 'bow tie' method (see Appendix A), which distinguishes causes, events, and impacts:
Marzano's New Taxonomy, Page 1 Marzano's New Taxonomy as a framework for investigating student affect Jeff Irvine Brock University ABSTRACT In 1998 Marzano proposed a taxonomy of learning that integrated three domains or systems: the self system, which involves student motivation; the metacognitive system, involving
taxonomy of expected learning outcomes in terms of the mental activities involved in becoming able to perform something. Because it focused on mental activities, the taxonomy referred to the cognitive domain. Later, David Krathwohl developed a similar taxonomy for the affective domain that focused on the emotional and attitudinal aspects of .
(b) part of a plan to expand Taxonomy-aligned economic activities or to allow Taxonomy-eligible economic activities to become Taxonomy-aligned ('CapEx plan') under the conditions specified in the second subparagraph of this point 1.1.2.2.; (c) related to the purchase of output from Taxonomy-aligned economic activities and
In chapter 3 we assess the Taxonomy alignment of our portfolio and show that even for a sound sustainable portfolio like ours, the Taxonomy alignment is very low. We provide evidence for the reasons underlying these results and state that the main source for low Taxonomy alignment is the current narrow framework of the Taxon-omy Regulation.
