Probing Internal Assumptions of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
Open accessAbstract
Bloom’s taxonomy is a widely used classification of learning objectives and assessments in biology education. It is important to understand the underlying assumptions of the taxonomy. This paper empirically examines the independence of the knowledge-type and cognitive-process dimensions and the use of action verbs as proxies for cognitive processes.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Bloom's taxonomy provides a hierarchical list of cognitive domains that range from lower-order (remembering and understanding) to higher-order cognitive skills (applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating).
“Bloom’s taxonomy provides a hierarchical list of cognitive domains that range from lower-order (remembering and understanding) to higher-order cognitive skills (applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating; Bloom, 1956; Crowe et al., 2008; Larsen et al., 2022).”
From Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom (2023) · cites this paper as Larsen et al., 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 54
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Bissell, A. N. Lemons, P. P. (2006). A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom. BioScience, 56(1), 66– 72. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0066:ANMFAC]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- Coleman, V. M. (2013). National Music Education Standards and Adherence to Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Doctoral dissertation, Minneapolis, MN: Walden University. Retrieved May 31, 2022, from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/1048
- McDonald, J. H. (2009). Fisher’s exact test of independence. Handbook of biological statistics (3rd ed., pp. 77– 85). Baltimore, MD: Sparky House Publishing.
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, context, and cultures. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- NRC. (2012). Education for life and work: Guide for practitioners. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- NRC. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Next Generation science education: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- Starr, C. W. Manaris, B. Stalvey, R. H. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy revisited: Specifying assessable learning objectives in computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 261– 265. doi: 10.1145/1352135.1352227 · DOI
- Wiggins, G. McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design, expanded (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
- Authors
- Larsen, T. M., Endo, B. H., Yee, A. T., Do, T., & Lo, S. M.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lo, Stanley M.
- Venue
- CBE—Life Sciences Education
- Published
- 2022-12
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- ar66-ar66
- ISSN
- 1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9727608
- OpenAlex
- W4296032562
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 19.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-sa
- Locations
- CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Funders
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute (52006934)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
- Keywords
- Bloom's revised taxonomy, learning objectives, knowledge types, cognitive processes, action verbs, assessment items, contingency analysis, correspondence analysis, biology education
- MeSH terms
- Educational Measurement, Humans, Learning, Students, Knowledge
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
