Keywords

Introduction

Benjamin S. Bloom, revered educational psychologist, may best be known for designing what was initially termed the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, but this was only a portion of his contributions to the theory and practice of mastery learning. Thomas Guskey (2001), a student of Bloom, referred to Bloom as a genius whose work has “guided the development of innumerable educational programs and provided powerful new insights into the untapped potential of educators to have all students learn well” (1). The work that Bloom conducted with a variety of colleagues continues to be a reference for educators in academic institutions, business, and industry.

Born on February 21, 1913, in Lansford, PA, Bloom demonstrated a passion for reading and research. After completing his master’s degree in 1935 at Pennsylvania State University, he earned a PhD in Education from the University of Chicago in 1942. From 1943–1959, Bloom held the position of UC examiner where he worked with Ralph W. Tyler (Eisner, 2000). Guskey (2001) shared that much of Bloom’s work at this time focused on the relationship among methods of instruction, educational outcomes, and measurement of those outcomes found in Bloom’s work from 1944–1947, and in his articles with Jane Allison in 1949 and 1950.

During these years, Bloom began developing a system, or taxonomy, of specifications to facilitate educational training and formulate learning objectives that when planned and measured properly would improve the effectiveness of developing “mastery” instead of simply transferring facts for mindless recall (Chapman, 2017). The taxonomy was first published in 1956 in Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain authored by Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl. This was the first attempt to classify learning behaviors into six levels: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. By associating specific learning behaviors with descriptive verbs, the authors believed the actions could facilitate the writing of instructional objectives.

In 1959, Bloom began a year at Stanford University in the Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences. This experience adjusted Bloom’s concentration away from problems in testing, measurement, and evaluation to problems in learning (Guskey, 2001; Lease, 2016). Research of learning led Bloom to examine human development, curriculum, instruction, and educational research (Eisner, 2000; Guskey, 2001). The emphasis of these areas found their beginnings in Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Handbook II: Affective Domain authored by Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia in 1964.

After returning to Chicago, Bloom continued developing the learning taxonomy model. In 1970, he was appointed Charles H. Swift Distinguished Service Professor. His work took him internationally as an educational adviser working with Israel, India, and other nations. Throughout his career, Bloom never stopped searching for better methods of influencing teaching professionals to hone their instruction in such a way that all students would attain academic knowledge and skills for life. Bloom died on September 13, 1999, at the age of 86.

In a paper presented in 2000 to UNECF, Elliot Eisner explained, “It was clear that he was in love with the process of finding out, and finding out is what I think he did best. One of Bloom’s great talents was having a nose for what is significant” (2); what Bloom stood for and what he accomplished as a teacher, a scholar, and a researcher in the field of education was an effort designed to make potential possible, i.e., to believe and develop ways that all students can be successful at attaining stipulated goals and objectives.

Influences and Motivations

Bloom had a passion for reading and applying knowledge from an early age. As a teacher, he practiced his belief in the importance of application which honed his teaching skills and student understanding. This philosophy can be witnessed in his contribution to the 1948 publication Teaching by Discussion in the College Program: Report of a Study Made by Five Members of the Faculty of the College of the University of Chicago (Axelrod et al., 1948). When engaging students in activities, he went beyond theory to understanding through experimentation. Some described this as hard-nose progressivism that tied teaching to assessments, then to real-life application (Eisner, 2000).

After engaging students in a lesson on probability using a coin toss and collecting data, Bloom challenged the students as they “read” their data. “He taught me in that demonstration the importance of supporting students in difficult times and of putting statistics in context. How one interprets a set of numbers depends not only on matters of measurement but also on the characteristics of the situation from which those numbers were derived,” stated Eisner (2000, p. 1).

The desire to identify the significance of an educational objective stemmed from his work with Ralph W. Tyler in the examiner’s office at the University of Chicago. During this work, the duo along with colleagues examined how educational objectives could be organized according to their cognitive complexity. What resulted was the handbook on the cognitive domain (Bloom et al., 1956). This handbook emphasized that in order for students to perform the higher-level tasks of evaluation or synthesis, they must first know and understand the information. Once understanding is attained, they must be able to apply that information in the real world before analyzing the significance and parts. After an analysis, students must be able to synthesize the components before evaluation can be accomplished (Eisner, 2000).

Bloom continually sought answers to three questions: How does true cognition function so that higher-level forms of thinking can be accomplished? How does environment influence the performance of individuals? Is it possible to systematically arrange instruction to promote learning? Refocusing his emphasis on improving teaching and learning led Bloom to the work of John B. Carroll, which laid the groundwork for his emphasis on mastery learning (Eisner, 2000; Guskey, 2001).

Key Contributions

When the name Benjamin Bloom is presented, the term Bloom’s Taxonomy often comes to mind. As work began on the taxonomy, Bloom intended a design that included three domains – cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Bloom believed that to attain the highest levels of learning all three domains must be considered when developing objectives, learning activities, and assessments. It should be stressed that though the cognitive domain’s taxonomy was published in 1956, the affective taxonomy was not published until 1964 and a favored psychomotor taxonomy not until 1970. Though the cognitive domain is often attributed to Bloom, all three involved the work of Bloom and his colleagues. In addition to the desire to articulate these domains in terms of levels of difficulty, the intent pointed toward developing teaching units with objectives and activities that would ensure mastery by all students.

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s work on a taxonomy began when working with Ralph W. Tyler in the examiner’s office at the University of Chicago (Block, 1971; Forehand, 2010). Many of his early efforts focused on the relationship among methods of instruction, educational outcomes, and measurement of those outcomes (Guskey, 2001; Ruhl, 2021). The intent of the development of the “system (or ‘taxonomy’) of specifications was to enable educational training and learning objectives that were planned and measured properly to improve the effectiveness of developing ‘mastery’ instead of simply transferring facts for mindless recall” (Chapman, 2017: para. 1). Thus, the work of Bloom and his colleagues on a taxonomy that included the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains continued into the 1970s (See Table 1).

Table 1 The stages of each domain at a glance
Full size table

Initially, Bloom and his colleagues focused on the cognitive domain that was published in 1956 as Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1, The Cognitive Domain (Bloom et al., 1956). As summarized by Armstrong (2010, p. 1), the original taxonomy in 1956 began with knowledge, the ability to “recall specifics and universals, the recall of methods and processes, or the recall of a pattern, structure or setting.” Knowledge moved into comprehension or “a type of understanding or apprehension such that the individual knows what is being communicated and can make use of the material or idea being communicated without necessarily relating it to other material or seeing its fullest implications.” Once understanding is reached, application comes into play or the “use of abstractions in particular and concrete situations.” After the knowledge is applied, the learner can move to analysis or the “breakdown of a communication into its constituent elements or parts such that the relative hierarchy of ideas is made clear and/or the relations between ideas expressed are made explicit.” The learner can then progress to synthesis that involves the “putting together of elements and parts so as to form a whole.” Bloom’s final level was evaluation that engenders “judgments about the value of material and methods for given purposes.” The stages of cognition were often depicted in a triangle to be addressed from the bottom up so that mastering basic information lays a strong foundation on which to build higher levels of thought (See Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Bloom’s original cognitive domain taxonomy in Hoque (2016). (Note: Used with permission of author)

Full size image

The cognitive taxonomy brought Bloom and his colleagues to the limelight as they designed a means for improving the articulation of objectives, selecting activities, and designing evaluations; however, the affective and psychomotor domains still had to be addressed. In 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain (The Classification of Educational Goals), brought Bloom, Krathwohl, and Masia closer to completing the three systematic schemes – cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The trio believed that categorizing all three domains would better facilitate selecting, organizing, and evaluating almost any set of instructional activities (Morshead, 1965). The task required clarifying the language of education to better identify, understand, and address how people learn, so the learner can internalize the information. In other words, utilize the “process whereby your affect [attitude] toward something goes from a general awareness level to a point where the effect is internalized and consistently guides or controls your behavior. Therefore, with movement to more complexity, you become more involved, committed, and internally motivated” (Hoque, 2016, p. 50).

Utilizing the levels of the affective domain would better support student learning by helping teachers select the best teaching strategies to engage students (See Fig. 2). Beginning with receiving to develop respectful listening for and remembering details helps the learner focus on basic skills. Moving to responding encourages students to share ideas, ask questions, and make presentations that display understanding. By responding in different ways, learners come to valuing situations familiar to them so the learner can begin internalizing the knowledge for future use. Developing and determining values can assist the learner to better organize using compare and contrast or conflict resolution then to articulate a primary focus of relevance and integrated value. Valuing leads to the organization of knowledge that is valued. Characterization by value allows the learner to begin controlling learning behaviors and utilizing the proper behaviors for independent and collaborative situations in problem-solving, ethics, and valuing others (Krathwohl et al., 1964; Hoque, 2016). Combining the affective and cognitive domains was found to increase the level of both teaching and learning.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The affective domain taxonomy by Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia in Hoque (2016). (Note: Used with permission of author)

Full size image

The third domain, though described in earlier publications, was not articulated completely until 1970 when Dave identified five stages (See Fig. 3). The psychomotor domain includes physical movement, coordination, and the use of motor skill areas. Development of these skills requires practice and is measured in terms of speed, precision, distance, procedures, or techniques during execution. Psychomotor objectives are those specific to discrete physical functions, reflex actions, and interpretive movements (Atkinson, 2014; Hoque, 2016).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Dave’s psychomotor domain in Hoque (2016). (Note: Used with permission of author)

Full size image

Traditionally, psychomotor types of objectives are concerned with the physical encoding of information, with movement and/or with activities where the gross and fine muscles are used for expressing or interpreting information or concepts. This area also refers to natural, automatic responses or reflexes. The psychomotor domain consists of utilizing and coordinating motor skills (Chapman, 2017; Hoque, 2016). R. H. Dave’s domain (1970) may be the simplest as it moves from imitation to manipulation to precision to articulation, then to naturalization (Atkinson, 2014; Chapmen, 2017). But E. J. Simpson (1972) included more specifics as the psychomotor behaviors are achieved. Simpson begins with perception (awareness) before moving to set, guided response, mechanism, complex overt response, adaptation, and finally origination. Simply stated, Simpson believed that a person must become aware of a movement in the environment before it can be set (imitated), and in the highest levels the action moves into adaption (naturalization) before it can move to origination (creating something unique) (Begam & Tholappan, 2018; Chapman, 2017; Ruhl, 2021).

Bloom and other collaborators did not envision each taxonomy to be used independently. By considering each domain when developing units of lessons, objectives, activities, varied teaching techniques, and assessments, they believed teachers would enhance learning for all students. The final results would lead to mastery learning.

Mastery Learning

Though the concept of mastery learning had been presented by Carleton Washburne’s Winnetka Plan in 1922 and by Henry C. Morrison in 1926, the components lacked easy implementation. In the 1950s, elements of Morrison’s theory began to surface in programmed instruction when by breaking down a complex behavior into a chain of less complex parts students could succeed at each link (Block, 1971). Assessment questions could easily determine the success and learning level of each student (Block, 1971; Bloom, 1971). The strategies worked so well that a variety of publishers attempted to develop complete programmed instructional curricula. In the end, the methods were helping some but not all students.

In 1963, John B. Carroll published A Model of School Learning that relied on his teaching of languages to outline the major factors for student success and how the factors interacted. Carroll’s work indicated that the degree of learning could be determined using a ratio of the time actually spent learning over the time needed to learn. Along with time allowed, the degree of learning depended on a student’s willingness to engage and persevere, aptitude for understanding, the quality of instruction, and the ability to understand the instruction (Block, 1971). Bloom wanted to move teaching and learning away from the traditional bell curve where the same number of students failed as demonstrated success, so he arranged Carroll’s conceptual model into a model for mastery learning.

Bloom (1971) described the curriculum in terms of explicit, what students are expected to learn, and is included in reading, mathematics, science, literature, social studies, and so on, then in terms of implicit, which teaches the relationships between pieces of knowledge. The implicit curriculum is learned more slowly but is internalized and more difficult to forget. Therefore, learning time is extremely important. Bloom believed that learning is not isolated, and if each student received quality instruction and if the time required for that student to learn a task is varied, then the majority of students would attain the expected level of mastery (Block, 1971; Bloom, 1971; Guskey, 2007).

When research data was examined carefully, two defining elements for reaching mastery were identified. The first determined that the feedback instruments, or teacher response with clear suggestions, must be improved, and the second involved the need for higher quality and variety of instructional strategies, or varying instructional strategies when reteaching. Successful strategies were found to include clear and appropriate instructional cues, active participation during instruction and practice, and the amount and types of reinforcement given to each student (Block, 1971; Bloom, 1971).

[In other words,] to reduce variation in the achievement of diverse groups of students and have all students learn well, Bloom argued that educators and teachers must increase variation in instructional approaches and learning time. Bloom labeled the strategy to accomplish this instructional variation and differentiation mastery learning (Guskey, 2007, p. 9).

Block (1971) summarized that Bloom believed the sole purpose of the correctives was to provide each student with appropriate instructional cues and/or the active participation and practice and/or the amount and type of reinforcements that the individual required to successfully complete a unit of study.

Through ongoing research, Bloom demonstrated the positive effects of mastery learning in not only the cognitive realm or achievement outcomes but also in affective measures such as student confidence in learning, school attendance, and engagement in class.

Bloom did not stop with his studies in the 1960s. Though he did acknowledge that student learning was influenced by many factors beyond the school walls, he strongly believed that teachers could have a strong influence on student success. This led to in-depth studies on how teachers varied their instructional practices to match student learning styles and needs (Bixler, 2018).

To determine practical ways for all students to learn well in a group-based classroom, Bloom examined two sources of evidence (Guskey, 2007). The first was examining the ideal teaching/learning situation with an excellent tutor paired with each student in the individualized instruction work of Washburne’s Winnetka Plan (1922) and Morrison’s University of Chicago’s Laboratory School (1926). Bloom then discerned which one-on-one instructional strategies could be transferred to group-based classrooms.

The second source of research focused on Dollard and Miller (1950) who identified the techniques of high-achieving students and less-successful students in group-based classrooms. Through this examination, Bloom acknowledged the importance of organizing concepts and skills into instructional units that would include clear objectives and end-of-unit assessments. The problem that arose was that most classroom assessments only verified initial instruction and little more (Guskey, 2007). In short, the teaching methods and assessments were appropriate for only students who fit limited learning styles and time needed for learning (Guskey, 2001, 2007). What about the other students?

Bloom’s reasoning led to teachers varying their teaching techniques to better meet the learning needs of all students. The approach Bloom suggested was for teachers to use assessments as learning tools (a.k.a. formative assessments). This would require providing better feedback on what was learned, then guidance to correct errors. Thus, assessment would become part of the instructional process “to diagnose learning difficulties and prescribe remediation procedures” (Guskey, 2007, p. 12). In this way, classroom teachers would use the successful practices of one-on-one tutors in order to move all students to higher levels of achievement while building their self-confidence.

In 1968, Bloom’s feedback and corrective procedures were termed “learning for mastery” (Bloom, 1968) but by 1971, the concept became simply “mastery learning” (Bloom, 1971). The process required that teachers organize concepts and skills into 1–2 week units of instruction time followed by a brief formative assessment. Students were given information regarding their learning and what to improve. The formative assessment was followed by corrective activities focusing on individualized correctives. The correctives were paired with a variety of instructional activities from textbooks, DVDs, videos, or computerized lessons (Guskey, 2007) followed by another formative assessment. While some students required corrective activities, those successful on the initial assessment would be given enrichment activities or special projects (See Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Bloom’s mastery learning instructional process in Guskey (2007). (Note: Used with permission of the author)

Full size image

Bloom did acknowledge that even using mastery learning strategies some students would learn more and/or faster than others, especially if they are engaged in enrichment activities (Bloom, 1971). But overall, by utilizing the instructional alignment, i.e., identifying learning goals and using a variety of teaching strategies and assessments then following the process of “feedback, correctives, and enrichment,” all students would attain the knowledge and skills required for meeting prescribed curriculum goals. This would bring to fruition Bloom’s belief that by using mastery learning, the gap between students would be reduced. The cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains came into play as objectives were stated and organized, learning tasks were designed, and assessments were utilized to promote learning and not to compare students (Bloom, 1971).

Guskey (2006) acknowledged, “[Teachers generally find that] implementing mastery learning requires relatively modest changes in their instructional procedures. Most excellent teachers use many aspects of mastery learning in their classes already, and others discover that the process blends well with their current teaching strategies” (9).

Therefore, with some simple alterations on the part of the instructor, research indicated that mastery learning positively impacts student learning and student attitudes toward school and learning (Bloom, 1971).

New Insights

Over the years, Bloom has probably received more variations to his original work than other educational psychologists. He and his colleagues never stopped researching and examining their data and the data of others to better understand the elements of learning. Adaptations of the original taxonomies were designed by the original authors. Other researchers and practitioners in the varying fields of education and industry have studied the original progressions of learning and articulated them in new ways (Anderson et al., 2001; Krathwohl, 2002).

To better understand and use the taxonomy for teaching, learning, and assessment, Armstrong (2010) explained, “A group of cognitive psychologists, curriculum theorists and instructional researchers, and testing and assessment specialists published in 2001 a revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy with the title A Taxonomy for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. This title draws attention away from the somewhat static notion of ‘educational objectives’ (in Bloom’s original title) and points to a more dynamic conception of classification” (para. 9).

Anderson et al. (2001), who had worked with Bloom, revised the cognitive taxonomy to fit the more outcome-focused modern education objectives, including switching the names of the levels from nouns to active verbs, and reversing the order of the highest two levels. The duo felt that the first four levels still aligned with recent research (Forehand, 2010; Huitt, 2011). Level names changed from Knowledge to Remembering, Comprehension to Understanding, Application to Applying, and Analysis became Analyzing. The more complex upper levels of Synthesis and Evaluation were reversed and renamed Evaluating and Creating (Anderson et al., 2001). In some charts, Synthesis and Evaluation are arranged on the same plane of complexity. Both are considered valuable while neither is superior. In fact, when either is omitted during the problem-solving process, effectiveness declines (Huitt, 2011).

More recently, Lynn Lease (2016) replaced the pyramid with a flow chart that enabled her students and readers to consider the movement of knowledge into higher levels of use (See Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain designed by Lynn Lease (2016). (Note: Used with permission of author)

Full size image

In addition by revising the taxonomy verbiage, Anderson et al. (2001) created a new structure to include a conceptualization of knowledge dimensions within which these processing levels are used (Forehand, 2010; Huitt, 2011). Because knowledge can have many layers, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) identified types of knowledge used in cognition (See Table 2). Factual knowledge includes terminology and specific details or elements. Conceptual knowledge relies on classifications and categories, principles and generalizations, and theories, models, and structures. Procedural knowledge concentrates on subject-specific skills and algorithms. Metacognitive knowledge rests on strategic knowledge, knowledge about cognitive tasks, and self-knowledge. Each level of cognition can be examined through these knowledge lenses (Krathwohl, 2002).

Table 2 The knowledge dimension aligned with the cognitive process dimension (Krathwohl, 2002)
Full size table

The importance of the models for educators is that by using verbs and questions associated with each level, teachers and curriculum developers have a reference for developing units that actively engage students in developing a knowledge base that can be applied to a variety of teaching/learning situations. Teachers and curriculum designers can use the chart when writing objectives and aligning curricular standards (Bixler, 2018; Forehand, 2010).

In addition, not all units of study will go from the simplest to most difficult level of cognition. A traditional lesson may begin with introducing facts then moving up the chart, but a problem-based lesson may begin with presenting the concept then discovering the facts. Plotting the instructional goals and activity verbs becomes extremely important in identifying gaps in learning activities and assessment (Krathwohl, 2002). Dettmer (2006) explained the organization of the domains even further by organizing them in terms of basic learning, applied learning, and ideational learning.

When rethinking the cognitive taxonomy, researchers were able to better define the affective taxonomy. Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia referred to the affective domain in 1956, but the development was not published until 1964. The hierarchical structure, based on the principle of internalization of knowledge, examines the process as a person progresses from a general awareness level to a point where the knowledge is internalized and consistently guides or controls behavior. As the movement becomes more complex, the learner becomes more involved, committed, and internally motivated (Hoque, 2016; Krathwohl, 2002).

To assist students and readers in understanding and applying the affective domain, Lease (2016) created a flow chart to examine units of study by asking questions and identifying verbs to discern how planning and instruction would lead to students internalizing what is being taught. Lease reminds the reader that learning is related to more than obtaining knowledge (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Krathwohl and Bloom’s affective taxonomy arranged by Lease (2018). (Note: Used with permission of author)

Full size image

Along with updates in the cognitive and affective domains to improve teaching and learning, the psychomotor domain has also been examined over time. Though Bloom and his colleagues referred to the psychomotor domain in their original handbook, the first taxonomy was authored by R. H. Dave and published in 1970, another was authored by E. J. Simpson in 1972, and a third by A. J. Harrow in 1972 (Bixler, 2018). The psychomotor domain is often thought to refer to actions required to complete a task, such as fine motor skills for writing or cutting with scissors, or eye movement for fluid reading, or hand/eye, hand/foot coordination in sports. Simon Atkinson (2014) discusses his preference for Dave’s hierarchy and explains that psychomotor skills are as relevant to core subjects like science and social studies as to sports but requires extra thought for application.

Atkinson (2014) renamed Dave’s five stages using action verbs – imitate for copy, manipulate for repeat, perfect for performing with expertise, articulate for adaptation of skills in new ways, and embody to perform skills automatically for a context. The psychomotor domain could more easily be adapted to manual education tasks like brick laying or carpentry, but academic cores require psychomotor skills to utilize subject-related tools (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Taxonomy of educational outcomes psychomotor domain arranged by Atkinson (2014). (Note: Used with permission of the author)

Full size image

In the classroom, there are numerous tasks where students must master psychomotor skills to utilize tools effectively. Languages use books, recorders, or other tools. Social studies requires the use of maps and archival retrieval equipment, music requires operating recording devices and other specialized equipment. Atkinson (2014) reinterpreted the five basic stages as three concentric circles with the five domains in the center. The next circle contains verbs that define learning outcomes or activity design, and the outer ring incorporates assessment actions or ways to demonstrate achieving outcomes. By paying attention to the psychomotor domain, students can develop appropriate manual psychometric skills for using whatever tools are appropriate to each discipline.

Not only have the domains received attention and variations since Bloom’s and his colleagues’ original handbooks, but mastery learning has taken new forms. To assist educators in expanding their toolbox of teaching and learning strategies so they can better assist all students, curriculum designers have created programs and textbooks that incorporate Bloom’s suggestions and others’ recommendations to improve the process for developing units, teaching objectives and activities, and assessments. Each attempt at improvement should allow instructors to better meet the needs of all students.

Legacy and Unfinished Business

“Clearly, Bloom’s Taxonomy has stood the test of time. Due to its long history and popularity, it has been condensed, expanded, and reinterpreted in a variety of ways,” stated Forehand (2010, p. 2). The book Bloom’s Taxonomy: A Forty-Year Retrospective, a National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, was edited by Anderson and Sosniak (1994) and examines the effect of Bloom’s Taxonomy on education from 1956–1994. The fact that Bloom’s Taxonomy has been translated into at least 40 languages is one example of Bloom’s impact worldwide. The use of the taxonomy for designing curricular objectives, activities, and assessments would be virtually impossible to determine, but the volume of research papers, articles, blogs, and other online offerings suggests that professionals in all sectors of education and training look to Bloom and his associates for techniques to improve instruction and assessment. Where Bloom and his colleagues may have the most influence would be with textbook publishers, curriculum designers, teachers, and staff of special needs populations who support the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Dettmer, 2006).

Research and professional articles abound from not only corners of academia but business and industry. Instructors across the board strive to improve student/employee learning to meet current needs. Having a road map by which to construct a solid path on which to build gives curriculum developers, instructors, and assessment designers a process that aligns elements of teaching with learning.

Though the domains cover cognitive, affective, and psychomotor elements, there are professionals who feel those domains do not adequately support creative individuals. Dettmer (2006) reported that Davis and Rimm (1994) addressed omissions and cited Einstein’s reflection that fantasy (creativity) meant more to him than his ability to absorb knowledge.

Upon closer examination, Dettmer (2006) cited that the five categories of the affective domain do not adequately support the sixth category of synthesis. By adding the phases of imagine and create, additional thought processes would be utilized. Dettmer believes omitting these two categories weakens the parallelism of the designing and assessment process. In addition, the psychomotor domain, no matter which author is reviewed, fails to support the significance of engaging the senses: sight, taste, feeling, hearing, and smell, along with balance and perhaps more. Moreover, a new taxonomy for the social domain to address the interaction of the learner with the social environment would strengthen the entire process. Once all is said and done, Dettmer believes that educators should be able to use the four domains to create instructional objectives, specify a wider variety of learning activities, and develop assessment tools.

Furst (1981), who coauthored with Bloom, examined the taxonomy designs through the lenses of neutrality, comprehensiveness, cumulative hierarchical structure, and usefulness. Though there were areas in which Bloom and his collaborators fall short, Furst acknowledges that there is a need for classifications, and “a strong case can be made for a logical mapping of objectives in the several basic domains of knowledge” (451). In short, “no single scheme would emerge as an all-inclusive, all-purpose tool” (451). Thus, educational leaders will continue looking for the best of the best to reach higher levels of teaching and learning.

Educational leaders will continue to conduct investigations utilizing techniques from action research to longitudinal studies to improve the decades-old educational taxonomies in ways that develop and/or realign processes to address the gaps discovered. The amount of knowledge at society’s fingertips has expanded exponentially. Thus, the basic processes designed by Bloom and his collaborators may still form a strong foundation on which the next taxonomies can be designed, but improvements will continue to be made to meet the needs of learners in the current society.

Conclusion

Benjamin Bloom, educational psychologist, spent 60 years of his life examining the behaviors of teachers and learners in order to identify the skills and strategies that promote higher levels of learning. The world is constantly changing. Volumes of information shared through a wide variety of media continues to expand. No matter the place or time, educators and learners require a solid foundation of knowledge and skills on which to build future endeavors. The process of moving from learner to creative thinker can still begin with Bloom’s taxonomies. Valuable steps along the way involve application and evaluation in order to create new tools. Many of these tools related to technology will drive teaching and learning.

Bloom’s greater goal was to assist educators in developing learners who can utilize their cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains to master not only basic information but apply that information in new ways to succeed in school, in work, and in life.

Hoque (2016) stated, “Development of learning skills should never be taken for granted in teaching or learning new content” (48). Those who have been in the fields of education realize that basic skills and knowledge must be methodically approached in order to prepare learners for jobs that have yet to be identified or created.

Developing the cognitive skills remains constant, but attending to the affective and psychomotor domains is as important. How learners feel about themselves, their learning, and their abilities to put concepts into action may be the keys to finding a love for their career and the ability to adapt to new ideas and modes of operation.

In 1956, Bloom could not imagine the future of technology or the speed in which information is currently shared. He grew with the changes and continued monitoring and adjusting investigations to improve teaching and learning. Much of his focus was on how research is conducted, but with that there was the application of what he discovered.

In 1984, Bloom still searched for the best methods of group instruction. In 1985, Developing Talent in Young People elevated thoughts on assisting students in discerning their talents then developing them. In 1986, he delved into the most recent research of teaching and learning, then responded to the work of Slavin regarding reconsidering mastery learning. One of his final articles, at the age of 75, shared his thoughts on assisting students learning in elementary school to prepare them for what was to come.

Developing lifelong learners will continue to be a goal for educators in schools and the workforce. Mastering the knowledge and skills of today can be accomplished through the application of Bloom’s and his colleagues’ work in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. What may be even more important to educators at all levels is Bloom’s determination to continue to seek knowledge, then rethink and adjust beliefs and processes in order to bring to fruition the belief that all students can learn and become higher-level thinkers.