BLOOM AND ANDERSON & KRATHWOHL

Bloom (1956) has provided us with his taxonomy to assist us to compose questions on
different levels of thinking. This taxonomy ranges from lower to higher levels of cognitive
thinking and have been defined as (1) knowledge, (2) comprehension, (3) application, (4)
analysis, (5) synthesis and (5) evaluation as being the highest level.

In 2000, Anderson and Krathwohl[1] redefined Bloom’s taxonomy by making certain

changes for example rewording Bloom’s nouns to words, rewording certain categories
and the repositioning of the last two categories (Wilson, 2005). In addition, Anderson and
Krathwohl indicate “how the taxonomy intersects and acts upon different types and
levels of knowledge - factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive” (Wilson,
2005:IS-2). A detailed description of how Bloom and Anderson and Krathwohl correlate
and differentiate can be seen in Table 1 (Wilson, 2005).

Bloom’s Taxonomy 1956 Anderson & Krathwohl’s

Taxonomy 2000
1. Knowledge: Remembering or retrieving 1.
previously learned material. Examples of verbs that Remembering: Retrieving,
relate to this function are: recalling, or recognizing
know define record knowledge from memory.
identify recall name Remembering is when
relate memorize recognize memory is used to produce
list repeat acquire definitions, facts, or lists, or
recite or retrieve material.
2. Comprehension: The ability to grasp or 2.
construct meaning from material. Examples of Understanding: Constructing
verbs that relate to this function are: meaning from different types
restate identify illustrate of functions be they written or
locate discuss interpret graphic messages activities
report describe draw like interpreting,
recognize discuss represent exemplifying, classifying,
explain review differentiate summarizing, inferring,
express infer conclude comparing, and explaining.

3. Application: The ability to use learned material, 3. Applying: Carrying out or

or to implement material in new and concrete using a procedure
situations. Examples of verbs that relate to this through executing, or
function are: implementing. Applying
related and refers to situations
apply organize practice where learned material is
relate employ calculate used through products like
develop restructure show models, presentations,
translate interpret exhibit interviews or simulations.
 use demonstrate dramatize
operate illustrate

4. Analysis: The ability to break down or 4. Analyzing: Breaking

distinguish the parts of material into its components material or concepts into
so that its organizational structure may be better parts, determining how the
understood. Examples of verbs that relate to this parts relate or interrelate to
function are: one another or to an overall
structure or purpose. Mental
analyze differentiate experiment actions included in this
compare contrast scrutinize function are differentiating,
probe investigate discover organizing, and attributing,
inquire detect inspect as well as being able to
examine survey dissect distinguish between the
contrast classify discriminate components or parts. When
categorize deduce separate one is analyzing he/she can
illustrate this mental function
by creating spreadsheets,
surveys, charts, or diagrams,
or graphic representations.
5. Synthesis: The ability to put parts together to 5. Evaluating: Making
form a coherent or unique new whole. Examples of judgments based on criteria
verbs that relate to this function are: and standards
through checking and
compose plan propose critiquing. Critiques,
produce invent develop recommendations, and
design formulate arrange reports are some of the
assemble collect construct products that can be created
create set up organize to demonstrate the processes
prepare generalize originate of evaluation. In the newer
predict document derive taxonomy evaluation comes
modify combine write before creating as it is often a
tell relate propose necessary part of the
precursory behavior before
creating something.
 Remember this one
has now changed
places with the last one
on the other side.
6. Evaluation: The ability to judge, check, and even 6. Creating: Putting elements
critique the value of material for a given purpose. together to form a coherent or
Examples of verbs that relate to this function are: functional
whole; reorganizing elements
judge argue validate into a new pattern or structure
assess decide consider through generating,
compare choose appraise planning, or
evaluate rate value producing. Creating requires
conclude select criticize users to put parts together in
measure estimate infer a new way or synthesize parts
deduce into something new and
different a new form or
product. This process is the
most difficult mental function
 in the new taxonomy.
 This one used to be
#5 in Bloom's known as
synthesis.
TABLE 1: Taxonomies of the Cognitive Domain, Bloom vs. Anderson & Krathwohl
(Wilson, 2005).

What is thus proposed, is that cyberhunt designers (teachers OR learners), especially

if they are new to the web and/or computers, start with horizontal hunts and with the first
level of Bloom or Anderson and Krathwohl’s levels for setting questions for their
cyberhunts. As they feel more comfortable, they can start to design on a higher level by
including various websites and composing questions on higher levels in the taxonomy.
However, more experienced web and computer users may start designing on a higher
level, keeping in mind their learners’ level of computer skills and cognitive capabilities.
Table 1 provides a detailed summary of the different levels of cyberhunts, ranging from
level 1 being the lowest and level 6 being our ultimate goal: learners who design their
own cyberhunts for their peers in their own class or for peers in other classes, by making
use of the different levels of questioning when they compose questions.

It is important too keep both levels in mind as uncertainty and inexperience could lead to
negative feelings towards ICT and the development of barriers to higher cognitive levels
of thinking leading to lower self-efficacy – negative beliefs in their capabilities of
performing at a designated level (See Bandura, 1977, 1997 and Schunk, 2004 for more
on self-efficacy). Raising self-efficacy should be our aim.

According to Bandura (1997) and Schunk (2004), self-efficacy can be provided at four
levels, namely (1) successful performance accomplishments or personal mastery
(experiencing success in completing a task), (2) vicarious experience (observing people
or people/social modeling in practice), (3) verbal or social persuasion (I/we know you can
do this!) and (4) emotional arousal (helping people to believe that things causing anxiety
or fear do not affect them internally). Therefore it is important to assist teachers towards
personal mastery and through social persuasion to experience success as positive
experiences could lead to greater adoption of cyberhunts in the future. Therefore, start
on a level where you as designer feel comfortable and don’t be afraid to ask for
assistance, even if it means that you have to observe those who have experience, in
action. The same of the above will apply when learners start to design cyberhunts on a
topic.
REFERENCES

Bandura, A., (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.

Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of

educational goals: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans, Green.

Schunk, D.H. (2004). Learning Theories: An educational perspective (4th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Wilson, L. (2005). Beyond Bloom - A new Version of the Cognitive Taxonomy.

Available:
http://www.uwsp.edu/education/lwilson/curric/newtaxonomy.htm [Accessed: 15 June
2007].

Anderson is one of Bloom’s former students and Kratwohl is one of Bloom’s original
[1]

partners who worked with him on the cognition project (Wilson, 2005).