I was asked via twitter recently what I thought about Blooms Taxonomy?
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains. What a title! The first thing that struck me when I decided to write an overview post on the Blooms model was that I needed to keep it simple. This model uses very academic language that is perhaps not the most accessible for us to quickly grasp as busy professionals.
What follows is my simple interpretation of the Blooms Taxonomy of Learning DomainsThis model was first published in 1956 by Dr Benjamin S Bloom. However, it has been altered and added to by others over the years. .
What is all this ‘Domain’ talk?
In simple terms, the Blooms model suggests that learning can be divided into 3 different types:
1) Learning that is transferring knowledge
2) Learning that is developing attitudes
3) Learning that is generating a skill
In the language of Blooms these 3 areas are called ‘domains’ (meaning an area under one rule). The model uses more complicated language to capture each of these areas:
1) The Cognitive Domain (meaning knowing and perceiving). In a simple learning context – knowledge.
2) The Affective Domain (meaning affections and emotions). In a simple learning context – attitude.
3) The Psycomotor Domain (meaning movement). In a simple learning context – skills.
Ok, that helps with Domains, what about the ‘taxonomy’ bit?
This bit is not too complicated either. Taxonomy simply means the classification or something. Or in other words, in this context, the list of things that make up each of the 3 learning types that we have described above.
To explain further….the Blooms model suggests that for each learning type (knowledge, attitude, skills) there are a series of levels that should be considered when designing, delivering and evaluating learning. When considered collectively, the full list of those levels (and the information provided with each level) create the ‘taxonomy’ for that particular learning type (or domain).
Can you explain more about the levels?
In the knowledge domain there are 6 levels and 5 levels in both the attitude and skills domain. The Blooms model offers a descriptive word to summarise each level and provides an indication of the behaviour that should be demonstrated and ways that learning could be measured at each of those levels as the learning progresses.
Key to the model is the principle that there is a hierarchy to the levels. Therefore, when designing learning you should construct the programme so that the relevant knowledge (for example) for your particular situation is developed, tested and achieved at level 1, before you progress to achieving the more complex aims of learning at level 2 and 3 and so on. For some learning, you my be able to progress through the levels very rapidly, for others it may take some time. Either way, the design of the learning should consciously address each of the levels.
I will cover what is involved in each of these levels in future bite sized posts – there is quite a bit of detail to each.
So is the Blooms model still useful today?
Well to answer the question that was originally asked of me via twitter – in my view, like the Kirkpatrick model, the Blooms Taxonomy of Learning Domains still has practical use today, despite been initially introduced over 50 years ago.
What I like about the model is that it offers a framework that you can use as a start point when designing your learning. Crucially, it can help you determine how you will assess that the learning has occurred, to the level that you need, for it to have a positive impact on the business.
Whilst I have tried to simply the Blooms model – these things always require intelligent application. Consideration will need to be given to the particular circumstances that you are prevented with. Be alive to the fact that your particular aims may span different domains, requiring attainment to different levels dependent on the domain in question.
The model doesn’t provide the answers. However, what it can do is help frame your thought process – which domains are applicable to me? In each of those domains, after reading the detail of each of the levels, which levels are applicable to my learning design? Which examples of behaviour that each of the levels suggest should be demonstrated are relevant to what I am trying to achieve?
The model can be a very useful tool to help set you off in the right direction. I’m not suggesting that you should be a slave to it – but it should offer some food for thought in enabling you to determine how you might design learning and subsequently demonstrate that it is meeting its intended objectives.
Neither am I suggesting that this model should only be used in isolation. Developing an understanding of what we can take from this model, along with for example the Kirkpatrick levels of evaluation will help us design learning and evaluation strategies tailored to our own particular business needs. In my opinion, there is a connection between Blooms Taxonomy and Kirkpatrick levels 2 and 3. It is possible that the Blooms model might offer some suggestions of how you can gather evidence to demonstrate that learning (level 2) has occurred in the training environment and how this might be judged to have been transferred (or otherwise) into behaviour (level 3) in the workplace.
Conclusion and Questions
In short, don’t be put off by the complicated sounding name of this model – understand it and use it where you decide it is relevant, with other models if you like, to help shape your approach to learning and evaluation. Whatever approach you adopt, document it into a coherent evaluation strategy.
Have you used Blooms Taxonomy of Learning Domains? Does this simple explanation make any sense? Any views would be very welcome in the comments section below.