{"id":279,"date":"2025-04-10T08:44:12","date_gmt":"2025-04-10T08:44:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/flashofthestars.com\/?p=279"},"modified":"2025-05-05T00:15:56","modified_gmt":"2025-05-05T00:15:56","slug":"blooms-taxonomy-is-old-but-its-lessons-are-timeless","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/flashofthestars.com\/index.php\/2025\/04\/10\/blooms-taxonomy-is-old-but-its-lessons-are-timeless\/","title":{"rendered":"Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy Is Old \u2014 But Its Lessons Are Timeless"},"content":{"rendered":"

Some ideas in education age well. Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy is one of them.<\/p>\n

Originally developed in 1956 by Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues, Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy was introduced as a framework to classify educational learning objectives. It outlined six levels of cognitive skills: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Blooms<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

This model was intended to guide teachers in designing lessons and assessments that go beyond rote memorization, moving students toward higher-order thinking. Now, I know what some might say: That was the pre-internet era. The pre-AI era. Things have changed.<\/em><\/p>\n

Of course, things have changed. But I would argue that the way humans learn hasn\u2019t changed as much as people think.<\/p>\n

Many of the learning theories that emerged long before the digital age remain as relevant as ever. They were not created to fit a specific technological moment. They were created to capture something much deeper \u2014 the cognitive processes that underpin learning itself.<\/p>\n

These are not theories with an expiration date.<\/p>\n

And those who dismiss them just because they come from a pre-digital world, in my view, are missing the whole point.<\/p>\n

Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy Was Never Static<\/h3>\n

Interestingly, Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy itself has evolved. In 2001, it was revised by Anderson and Krathwohl to reflect a more dynamic view of learning. The categories were changed from nouns to verbs, and the hierarchy was reordered: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create.<\/p>\n

Later, educators started talking about Digital Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy<\/a><\/em>, mapping digital activities to these cognitive levels. Tasks like blogging, podcasting, video creation, or coding found their place within Bloom\u2019s framework.<\/p>\n

\n
\"s<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

And now we\u2019re facing yet another shift.<\/p>\n

With AI transforming the way we access information, complete tasks, and even generate content, I believe there is a need to revisit Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy once again, not to discard it, but to rethink it in light of this new reality.<\/p>\n

This is a project I am currently working on: developing what I call Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy for AI<\/em>. My aim is to explore how AI tools interact with different levels of thinking, where they support learning, and where they risk short-circuiting it.<\/p>\n

Critique of Bloom’s Taxonomy<\/h2>\n

Like any other learning theory, Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy has not been without its critics. Over the years, researchers have pointed out several limitations. Some argued that its hierarchical structure oversimplifies the complexity of thinking processes, suggesting that learning does not always move in a linear, step-by-step fashion. <\/p>\n

Others questioned its rigid separation between lower-order and higher-order thinking, noting that remembering and understanding are often deeply intertwined with creativity and problem-solving. There were also concerns about its lack of attention to social, emotional, and contextual factors in learning , aspects that modern educational theories place much more emphasis on. <\/p>\n

Still, despite these criticisms, Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy has managed to endure, precisely because it offers a practical, flexible framework rather than a fixed law of how learning must<\/em> happen.<\/p>\n

One Surprising Thing I Noticed<\/h3>\n

While researching Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy, I stumbled upon something that honestly surprised me. Despite its enormous influence in education, there aren\u2019t that many books devoted to Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy<\/a> itself.<\/p>\n

There are lots of articles. Plenty of blog posts. Tons of classroom resources. But when it comes to book-length, in-depth explorations of Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy, especially tracing its evolution or exploring its role in the age of AI, the literature is not as abundant as I thought it would be.<\/p>\n

Maybe this tells us something about the nature of Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy. Perhaps it has become so embedded in the everyday practice of teaching that we no longer stop to examine it deeply. We take it for granted.<\/p>\n

But I believe this is exactly the right time to look again. AI is changing education in profound ways. But learning, real learning, still moves through stages that Bloom and his colleagues captured decades ago. And that, as far as I am concerned, will never go out of date.<\/p>\n

Bloom’s Taxonomy Verbs<\/a>Download<\/a><\/div>\n

References<\/h2>\n