The need for the construction of valid and reliably assessment tools requires an understanding of the learning process. The taxonomies studied provide similar approaches with the acceptance of the need for students to possess knowledge. Anderson's work is a more elaborate expansion of Bloom's taxonomy. Stiggins accepts the need for knowledge but elaborates on the aspect of reasoning. Combined the taxonomies provide a more complete picture of the learning experience.
¶ … Iqbal, Azam, & Abiodullah, 2009) (Berry, 2008) (Stiggins, 2008)
A comparison of Taxonomies
A comparison of three taxonomies
Identifying appropriate ways to measure and determine the learning capacity of students is a critical part of the educational process (Iqbal, Azam, & Abiodullah, 2009). The more precise the measures both at the conceptual and practical level it is assumed that they would contain greater validity and reliability. The three taxonomies discussed in this essay are attempts to describe and categorize measurable learning outcomes. Bloom's Taxonomy describes incremental levels of linear intellectual activity. Anderson's work is an update to Bloom's and restates the noun expression in Bloom's work as verbs. Stiggins focuses on differential paths of reasoning at the higher levels of Bloom's work. Bloom's Taxonomy therefore forms the basis and point of exit for the other two taxonomies. The taxonomies converge on the issue of the need for the student to possess a robust knowledge base before proceeding further.
Bloom's taxonomy forms the basis for the discussion and as a result it will be briefly described first. Taxonomy is essentially a classificatory system that groups behaviors, cognitions and other elements into discrete defined units. Bloom's Taxonomy is a "multi-tiered" model that classifies the thinking of individuals and more precisely students into six cognitive levels. The system is a hierarchal system so that as you proceed up the Taxonomy you encounter greater levels of complexity as it relates to thinking. The three lower levels or steps of the Taxonomy are "knowledge," "comprehension" and "application." The assumption within the taxonomy is that as students proceed up the structure (which is often depicted in the form of a pyramid), they are engaging more complex levels of cognition. The upper tiers consist of "analysis," "synthesis" and "evaluation."
The hierarchical nature of the taxonomy means that subsumed within the higher tiers of cognition are the lower levels. A student who is able to engage in analysis, synthesis and evaluation should already possess knowledge, comprehension and application. The taxonomy gave rise to a conceptual cleavage that assigned the dubious role of lower order thinking to the cognitions on the lower level of the taxonomy.
Bloom's taxonomy while having the value of longevity and widespread acceptance was limited in several areas. One of the key limitations was the view that it was not readily applicable to the twenty first century and needed to be updated. In the 1990's critical work on the taxonomy was done by Anderson along with key stake holders in the discipline. The intent of the work was to improve on the taxonomy by adding components that made it more suitable for the postmodern learning environment.
To accomplish this task Anderson included cognitive psychologists, curriculum specialists and instructional researchers. The changes to the taxonomy were executed in three key areas the descriptive language, the structure and the focus. Anderson's taxonomy replaced the nouns used in Bloom's work with verbs. On the lowest tier "Knowledge" from Bloom's taxonomy was changed to "remembering." The two upper tiers were also adjusted synthesis was changed to evaluating and evaluation to creating. Anderson's work privileges the creative ability. This is a consistent reflection of the contemporary need for creative thinking to be applied to complex and complicated problems.
The structural changes moved the original one dimensional taxonomy to a two dimensional construct. There is an expression of the types of knowledge that can be learnt as well as the processes that can also be learnt. This change advocates that the cognitive experience involves not only the apprehension of knowledge but also an understanding of accompanying processes. It also alludes to the possibility that individuals could have knowledge but be unaware of processes. This is a logical improvement over the original Bloom formulation and provides greater analytical tools for identifying and expressing learning outcomes.
The third area of change is the focus of the new taxonomy. Bloom's formulation admittedly did not actively consider a wider audience in its construction. The Anderson Taxonomy was created with divergent audiences in mind. It is expected that the taxonomy would be employed by diverse groups and used under many different conditions. In this regard it becomes a useful elaboration as the focus is wider and more expansive.
As noted earlier Stiggins work address the question of the patterns that can be identified in the reasoning employed in the higher levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. Stiggins finds congruence with Bloom in that he accepts that knowledge is a requisite base (Berry, 2008). To engage in higher order thinking a platform of knowledge must first be constructed. Once this platform is in place then other complex cognitive processes can begin. Stiggins therefore fragments reasoning into six components.
You’re 84% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.