See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/366231507

Importance and Implications of Theory of Bloom's Taxonomy in Different

Fields of Education

Chapter · December 2022

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-20429-6_47

CITATIONS READS

9 5,436

3 authors, including:

Mansoureh Ebrahimi Ahmad Muhyuddin Hassan

Lakehead University Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
80 PUBLICATIONS 301 CITATIONS 108 PUBLICATIONS 798 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mansoureh Ebrahimi on 06 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Importance and Implications of Theory
of Bloom’s Taxonomy in Different Fields
of Education

Abdul Momen, Mansoureh Ebrahimi(B) , and Ahmad Muhyuddin Hassan

Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Academy of Islamic Civilization, Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Malaysia
[email protected]

Abstract. The theory of Bloom’s taxonomy has offered a set of three hierarchi-
cal models for cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains that are used for
the classification of educational learning objectives into levels of complexity and
specificity. Its cognitive domain as a classification system has been developed
to categorize intellectual skills and behavior important to learning. Through its
six stages, namely; remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating,
and creating, this theory emerges different applications from a lower degree to
a higher degree. Scholars have examined the taxonomy’s main premise, which
is that teachers want their students to better understand what they want them to
know in an order from simple to sophisticated. The stages are supposed to be hier-
archical, with mastery of one level necessitating progression to the next. Many
researchers have identified learning objectives that involve higher levels of cogni-
tive capabilities employing Bloom’s taxonomy, which focuses on the application
of knowledge and abilities to a greater variety of activities and contexts. The data
collection technique employed is qualitative method to investigate, and to draw
conclusions based on analyzing and synthesizing sources of books and articles
on Bloom’s Taxonomy. This study examines contribution of Bloom’s Taxonomy
to evaluation, the teaching-learning process, classroom management, curriculum
development, and its various applications in various fields of education. Improving
the teaching-learning process and the assessment system at the level of secondary
and higher education will give an idea of the application of this taxonomy in
different educational aspects.

Keywords: Bloom’s taxonomy · Importance · Applications · Education

1 Introduction

Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues released The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
in 1956 as a tool for analyzing learning goals. Bloom’s Taxonomy is very well super-
vised learning model used by elementary and secondary school instructors, university
and college learners, and scholars for many years. It provides a unified framework as
well as a standard lexicon that educators and researchers can employ. Although some

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

M. A. Al-Sharafi et al. (Eds.): ICETIS 2022, LNNS 573, pp. 515–525, 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20429-6_47
516 A. Momen et al.

have incorporated other categories, these taxonomies mainly concentrate on analytical

thinking that belongs within the cognitive domain. It can be used in a variety of ways [1].
It’s used to determine whether stages of thinking skills are covered by existing instruc-
tional content such as learning objectives, curriculum plans, lessons, and evaluations.
It can also be used as a guideline for creating educational materials to guarantee that
the appropriate cognitive skills are met. It can also be used as a sort of evaluation. This
taxonomy can be used in a wide range of educational settings, with the taxonomy being
tailored to the particular subject of inquiry. Faculty members should have little issue
creating instructional outcomes, customizing technology, and planning classrooms for
each course provided they have a basic understanding of Bloom’s taxonomy and how
to implement it to higher education. It can also be used by educators to break through
the clutter of attention by assisting students in setting goals for themselves. This study
examines its importance and application in different fields of learning.

2 The Learning Domains of the Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy divides academic learning into three categories: cognitive, affective,
and psychomotor. The cognitive domain contains mental abilities for knowledge pro-
duction; the affective domain involves continuous emotional development of mindset;
and the psychomotor domain involves physical skills. In 2001, a subsequent edition of
the taxonomy adjusts the original version’s vocabulary and order of cognitive processes
in light of domain findings. According to this reorganization, the ability to synthesize,
rather than evaluate, has climbed to the forefront of the hierarchy [2]. Additionally, this
alteration imparts a new perspective on all six cognitive abilities. In the diagram [3], the
higher levels, the more sophisticated mental processes are allegedly necessary. Higher
levels are not always preferable to lower levels, because higher levels cannot be attained
without the capacity to use lower levels.

3 Importance and Applications in Different Fields of Education

of This Theory

No theory is absolute. There are some limitations in Bloom’s theory of taxonomy but the
taxonomy of cognitive domain is applied in various segments of learning throughout the
decades. One of the most valuable tools accessible to instructors is Bloom’s taxonomy.
It provides learners with the understanding needed to construct effective evaluation
procedures by delivering the answer key to how students learn. It came to a multi-layered
answer to the question, which the writers added some explanations to as a teaching tool.

• In a pedagogical exchange, it is important to set learning goals so that both teachers

and students know what the exchange is all about.
• The use of templates to define objectives can be beneficial to teachers.
• Planning objectives assist in the clarification of goals for both teachers and pupils.
 Importance and Implications of Theory 517

• Teachers can: “plan and provide suitable lessons”; “create legitimate assessment tasks
and techniques”; and “confirm that lesson and evaluation are linked to the objectives”
with the assistance of a well-organized set of objectives [4].

Bloom’s taxonomy of learning objectives is used to determine the extent to which

an ability or performance has been learnt or mastered. The domain applications linked
with each level are mentioned below.

• A learner can define things at their knowledge level of learning.

• A learner can work on specific issues and show off what they’ve learned at the level
where they can understand things.
• At the application level of learning, a learner identifies which approaches to employ
and then applies those techniques to issues.
• A learner can describe why the solving method works at the analysis level of learning.
• At the synthesis level of learning, a learner can integrate parts of a procedure in new
and valuable ways.
• At the evaluation level of learning, a learner can come up with a lot of different ways
to deal with the problem.

Then, based on established criteria, the learner can choose the best way to deal with
the problem. Bloom’s taxonomy is most typically used to define cognitive learning skills
rather than psychomotor or affective capabilities, two categories that are crucial for the
achievement of health professionals. It can be used by research scholars who teach or
guide others to set learning objectives that define the talents and capabilities they expect
their pupils to develop and demonstrate. Bloom’s taxonomy encourages the formulation
of learning objectives that concentrate on the abilities that a student must acquire, which
has implications for teaching and learning. According to Adams, this system allows
for the integration of learning goals that require higher levels of cognitive skills into
the system [5]. According to Yildirim and Baur, enhanced class structure, the use of a
variety of techniques to lead all learners, increased awareness of learning philosophies,
and better supervision of the outputs of instructional strategies are all part of a framework
for constructing learning objectives. Problem-based coursework, team projects, and case
study are examples of assessment methods that will enhance the learning process [6].
Moreover, according to Dubey, the domains in the original Bloom’s taxonomy can be
used for educational reasons, such as developing quality question papers to confirm
that students’ cognitive levels are categorized, quality control of a question paper to
check up on an evaluation, and question designation for the advancement of automatic
question-answering systems [7]. Using the six stages of Bloom’s original taxonomy, the
learning procedures can be structured to meet the instructional objectives. Nkhoma et al.
discovered that using the amended Bloom’s taxonomy in combination with case-based
educational process boosted higher-order thinking. A higher practical assessment could
result in more understanding, which could stimulate and motivate study [8]. Bloom’s
taxonomy has acquired broad recognition within the assessment community due to its
use at United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) sessions early after
518 A. Momen et al.

its publication. It’s also been used as a basis for curriculum review, exam development,
and data analysis.
Teachers and students must understand the cognitive domain’s hierarchy of processes
and capabilities in order to identify learning skills and how these skills must be adjusted
to understand more complex portions of the discipline-specific concept inventory. The
enhancement of effective learning should never be assumed when teaching or studying
new knowledge. Foundation courses should introduce learners to lower-level process
skills, which should then be further improved in intermediate-level courses. Skills asso-
ciated with higher-level techniques should be effectively implemented and retained in
upper-division courses. Another technique to add depth to course exercises while also
improving lifetime learning skills is to utilize effective learning skills from different
process domains and clusters throughout the cognitive domain. Like the social domain,
this aspect serves to remind individuals that their cognitive domain has advanced.
Faculty can be much more particular and concentrate on the cognitive talents students
must display in a certain course activity and on an evaluation using Bloom’s taxonomy.
It also helps teachers figure out how other parts of their course, like subjects, lectures,
assignments, and classroom activities, can be better to help students move from lower to
higher levels of learning [9]. Bloom’s taxonomy supports not only the creation of highly
explicit learning objectives and teaching materials in terms of language and definition,
but also the assessment of such objectives. In the approach to programming, the process
of organizing, educating, learning, and evaluating, there are various inquiries that look
into the application of Bloom’s taxonomy to teaching and learning. This taxonomy is
extremely useful for teachers in correctly implementing the curriculum and assessing
students. For example:

• Assessing a unit’s or syllabus’ objectives gives a clear, simple, visual depiction of the
unit or syllabus that may be used to analyze the relative importance assigned to each
goal. The Taxonomy’s incorporation of labeled, authentic instructional scenarios is
one of its strongest features. It gathered accounts of ordinary teaching from teachers
to help understand the Taxonomy’s divisions and categories, as well as how it may be
used to examine objectives.
• Assisting teachers in distinguishing between activities and objectives. The Taxonomy
can be used to categorize the learning and teaching activities that were utilized to
attain the objectives, as well as the evaluations that were used to indicate how effec-
tively the students learned the objectives [10]. A noteworthy finding emerged from
a review of the identified authentic teaching scenarios. Teachers listed actions rather
than objectives when citing their unit’s outcomes.
• Supporting instructors in understanding the link between evaluation and teaching
activities. Airasian and Miranda present an excellent illustration of how teaching
affects evaluation [11].
 Importance and Implications of Theory 519

• Examining Curriculum orientation is the procedure of structuring three important parts

in a classroom so that they are closely aligned or linked. These are the three aspects:
(a) teaching and materials, (b) goals or objectives, and (c) assessments. The idea is
that when classroom time and materials are aligned with objectives or guidelines,
and these are aligned with examinations, students will learn more efficiently and
effectively [12]. Curriculum arrangement is a procedure that enhances the coherence
between the written, taught, and assessed curriculum. According to Anderson, the
Taxonomy table can be a helpful method for determining curriculum concordance in
all subject areas at almost any class or school level. The Taxonomy table can be used
with any particular subject by combining themes with categories of knowledge [13].
• Implications for educators and the taxonomy serves to give a framework within which
aspiring teachers and instructors can reflect not only how they teach but also how they
evaluate and critique their own teaching. They should understand that the only way to
assess the effectiveness of their lesson is to look at what students actually understand.
As a result, the taxonomy steers aspiring instructors away from "best practice" teaching
methods [14].

Within a competence-based curriculum, the Taxonomy functions well as a share-

able content in syllabus discussions to reflect various sorts of cognitive capacity. Such
arguments address both the curriculum and the students’ comprehension of it [15]. In
these kinds of classrooms, teachers can use traditional methods to measure how well stu-
dents have learned, or they can use student self-assessments, or even both [16]. Bloom’s
taxonomy is especially fascinating in the context of student self-assessment because it
relates to double-loop learning, [17] student self-responsibility and self-management,
and the student-centered classroom [18]. Bloom’s taxonomy has also been used to look
at things like effective learning, appropriate faculty interaction, and the long-term design
and implementation of global experience-based learning in college teaching. McKeachie
based his claim that students learn more when they talk than when they listen to lectures
on his own studies [19]. This assertion inspired them to investigate how Bloom’s notions
may be applied to establish a student-centered educational environment. Self-assessment
and increased student participation, which courses are meant to encourage, are important
for understanding (Table 1).
Bloom’s Taxonomy can be used to determine a student’s level of performance in
a class. A need to foster further improvement of critical thinking abilities, to ensure
understanding with students about their levels of success in classes, and to increase
student accountability in courses led us to the taxonomy, moving toward student self-
management. The taxonomy is useful for assisting students in taking greater responsibil-
ity for their learning and better understanding their critical thinking habits. Scaffolding
is teaching that offers support to help the student learn for themselves, and it is used
in this way to support metacognition. According to Hogan and Pressley, scaffolding is
an instructional component that enables individual pupils with intellectual assistance so
that they can operate at the forefront of their cognitive growth. In order to use Bloom’s
taxonomy as a scaffolding tool, the student must first define the level of his or her effort.
520 A. Momen et al.

Table 1. Practical tool to use of Bloom’s taxonomy for successful teaching.

Levels Taxonomy Outcomes Words (Action Questions

Verbs)
Level 1 Remembering Students recalling Arrange, Define, (What, Who, Which)
key information Describe, List, What can you
Match, Name, Order, remember about the
Recall, Reproduce event?
Level 2 Understanding Students demonstrate Classify, Discuss, (Are you able to
knowledge of the Explain, Identify, write in your own
issues acquired while Report, Summarize words…? Can you
doing so make a quick
overview…? What
are your thoughts on
this….?)
Summarize the event
in your own words
Level 3 Applying Focused with pupils’ Apply, Calculate, (Do you have any
ability to implement Demonstrate, further examples
their skills and Interpret, Show, of…?
information to a Solve, Suggest Is it possible that this
variety of happened in…?
circumstances Can you adopt the
approach to a
personal
experience…?)
Suggest how the
main lessons in this
event could help
other young people
Level 4 Analysing Pupils’ ability to Analyse, Appraise, (What could have
make links between Compare, Contrast, happened if…? How
ideas and to analyze Distinguish, Explore, did this compare
critically Infer, Investigate to…? What other
results do you
perceive as being
possible?)
Why did the different
characters in the
event behave the way
that they did?
(continued)

Students can then utilize the taxonomy to promote their own higher-level thinking as a
result of this self-analysis. Many comprehensive courses, particularly those with critical
thinking as a purpose, would seem to benefit from such a method [20].
 Importance and Implications of Theory 521

Table 1. (continued)

Levels Taxonomy Outcomes Words (Action Questions

Verbs)
Level 5 Evaluating Students can use their Argue, Assess, (Is there a smarter
experience and Critique, Defend, method to…? Assess
wisdom to draw Evaluate, Judge, the worth of… ? Are
inferences, identify Justify you able to defend
creative solutions to your viewpoint on…?
issues, and defend How efficient are…?)
findings Evaluate the strength
of the main
character’s decision
to leave
Level 6 Creating Students show what Compose, Construct, (Do you think you
they’ve learned by Create, Devise, can come up with a
making something Generate, Organise, solution to…? How
new, whether it’s Plan, Produce would you manage
physical or abstract with… if you had
unlimited resources?
Can you think of
unique and
unexpected ways to
use…?)
Rewrite the ending of
this event, to show a
different outcome

Bloom’s Taxonomy, when used in higher education, provides a consistent approach

to teaching methods while also boosting students’ acquisition of subject-specific knowl-
edge. In this exercise, Bloom’s Taxonomy is combined with adult education techniques,
which enhances students’ learning and involvement in the classroom. This tool has been
used in a number of college curricula. Positive outcomes have been achieved in each case.
The assignment appears to guide students’ studying, organizing, and comprehension of
course contents, based on their qualitative responses [21].
The use of Bloom’s taxonomy in the area of business information systems is well-
known around the world [22]. Students’ critical thinking abilities develop, and their
understanding and application of theory to work improve as a result of the discussion
sessions. Likewise, Ching and da Silva found that applying Bloom’s taxonomy to a
business undergraduate program in a higher education institution was beneficial to both
students and teachers [23]. Moreover, Britto and Usman demonstrated the utility of
Bloom’s taxonomy through an investigation of several studies relevant to software engi-
neering [24]. Bloom’s taxonomy was used in the course development and assessment,
with four papers publicly acknowledging Bloom’s taxonomy’s value in software engi-
neering education. Studies on the application of Bloom’s taxonomy in the subject of
Electrical Engineering at a University of Technology in South Africa, comparable to the
522 A. Momen et al.

one in this assessment, were conducted during the preparation of curriculum and learner
aids in the domain of Electrical Engineering. Academics should attend seminars analyz-
ing learning goals on a regular basis, according to Meda and Swart, ‘to verify that the
verbs employed in Bloom’s taxonomy are used effectively, resulting in increased student
learning’ [25]. Swart and Daneti looked at the learning results of an electrical funda-
mentals curriculum that was presented in Romania and South Africa [26]. The usage of
Bloom’s taxonomy model revealed that the learning results were dominated by the two
bottom levels of the taxonomy. The remaining levels were found in the majority of the
research, with the authors recommending that other colleges alter learner outcomes to
align with Bloom’s taxonomy to encourage greater cognitive development.
Bloom’s taxonomy is applied to a variety of courses in computer science education.
When Michael V. Doran and David D. Langan talk about how to teach Computing I and
II, they talk about a method that is based on how people think. This method includes
clearly defining and planning course micro-objectives, assigning each micro-objective
to a Bloom knowledge level, and helping students achieve and measure their goals [27].
According to Philip Machanick, Bloom’s taxonomy is used to build three separate com-
puter science courses: Data and Data Structures, Algorithms and Artificial Intelligence,
and Computer Architecture [28]. The Bloom taxonomy was tested by Johnson and Fuller
to see if it was suited for computing [29]. Essi Lahtinen provides the findings of research
on 254 undergraduate students in a basic programming course whose achievement was
assessed on various levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, as well as the outcomes of numeri-
cal cluster analysis, which recommends that the groups of students acquired align with
Bloom’s taxonomy: underperforming students at lower levels may still perform well at
higher levels of taxonomy. As a result, Lahtinen proposes that while structuring basic
programming courses, the instructor should distinguish six kinds of pupils: capable
students, practical students, poorly prepared students, theoretical students, memorizing
students, and indifferent students. Theoretical students, for example, did well at the
highest level (evaluation), but had a hard time with application and synthesis [30].
In terms of Bloom’s Taxonomy, Gardner and colleagues discovered the following
Merge and Quick Sorts Learning Goals: (1) The learner will understand how to perform
a fusion process. (2) The student will understand how to use the operations in order.
(3) The student will understand the fusion process and quick sort Big O analysis. (4)
The student will assess each of Kruse’s five sorting strategies [31]. Andrew Churches
proposed a "digital" taxonomy for 21st-century schools and students. He rewrote the
main verbs that indicate cognitive aims, combining creative and classic words. Because
digital technology has become a vital component of education and other aspects of life,
A. Churches’ modification allows Bloom’s pedagogical taxonomy to be extended by
bringing it nearer to the present realities of human life [32]. Diana Cukierman and Donna
McGee Thompson present the results of their research into the impact of integrating
learning strategies teaching into standard laboratory time courses to aid student learning.
Learning techniques and students were exposed to Bloom’s learning stages taxonomy
and taught how this approach applies to course content in the first session.
 Importance and Implications of Theory 523

4 Conclusion
Finally, Bloom’s taxonomy for educational objectives can be regarded as having made a
significant contribution to teaching and learning. Bloom’s Taxonomy is a useful frame-
work for instructors to employ in order to concentrate on higher-order thinking and gives
a hierarchy of levels. This taxonomy can help teachers create performance assignments,
prepare questions for student consultations, and provide assessment. Educational psy-
chologist Benjamin Bloom classified what and how humans learn into three distinct
domains of learning in the mid-twentieth century. Content knowledge and the enhance-
ment of human talents are included in the Cognitive Domain. Using the taxonomy at
all levels of education, from kindergarten to college, and across different fields shows
that it can be used in a wide range of different fields [33]. When critical thinking is
used in higher levels of learning, the process of learning is both sequential and fluid. In
other words, rather than being purely hierarchical, the cognitive action of assessing new
knowledge, synthesizing valuable learning with other information, and then assessing
the pieces of that and acquiring new knowledge is continual and interconnected. Bloom’s
taxonomy is widely used in the field of education. In order to better comprehend this
learning, each field must use and apply it. Bloom’s taxonomy has been used in a variety
of fields, including biology, [34] management, [35] and music [36]. Bloom’s taxonomy
is widely regarded as a well-defined strategy for instructors to use since it improves stu-
dents’ understanding of and capacity to analyze, perform, and understand. It’s a way to
organize educational goals in a way that makes it easier to improve educational instruc-
tion and come up with ways to measure educational progress. It has been used to learn in
the fields of science, engineering, business, humanities, and social science. Many schol-
ars use the technique to explicitly establish learning objectives, while others use it to
evaluate students’ understanding and create learning materials and evaluations. Bloom’s
taxonomy is fundamental knowledge for all educational and cognitive psychology pro-
grams. Though it was originally created as a simple evaluation tool, it has evolved into a
symbol for curriculum planning, being used to define learning objectives and plan activ-
ities in the classroom. It has been developed for use in primary and secondary school
classes, as well as in every academic area.

References
1. Marzano, R.J.: Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, p. 95. Corwin Press,
Inc, California, USA (2001)
2. Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R.: A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longmans, New York, NY (2001)
3. Santos, M.J., et al.: Compartmental learning versus joint learning in engineering education.
Mathematics 9, 662 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/math9060662
4. Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R.: A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A
Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman (2001)
5. Adams, N.E., MLIS,: Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. J. Med. Lib. Assoc.
103(3), 152 (2015)
6. Yildirim, S.G., Baur, S.W.: Development of learning taxonomy for an undergraduate course
in architectural engineering program. Am. Soc. Eng. Educ. 1, 1–10 (2016)
524 A. Momen et al.

7. Dubey, M.: Classifying stack overflow questions based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Thesis.
Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology Delhi (2016). https://repository.iiitd.edu.
in/jspui/handle/123456789/431
8. Nkhoma, M., Lam, T., Richardson, J., Kam, K., Lau, K.H.: Developing case-based learning
activities based on the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. In: Proceedings of Informing Science &
IT Education Conference (InSITE), vol. 86 (2016)
9. Preville, P.: The professor’s guide to using Bloom’s taxonomy how to put America’s most
influential pedagogical model to work in your college classroom, tophat.com, pp. 14–
15. file:///F:/Article%20Doc.%20File/Article%20on%20Bloom’s%20Taxonomy/sources/
Bloom’s/20.pdf
10. Krathwohl, D.: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Into Practice 41(4),
217 (2002)
11. Airasian, W., Miranda, H.: The role of assessment in the Revised Taxonomy. Theory Into
Practice 41(4) 250 (2002)
12. Gorin, J., Blanchard, J.: The Effect of Curriculum Alignment on Elementary Mathematics and
Reading. Paper presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association in San Diego, CA, p. 2. (2004)
13. Anderson, L.: Curricular realignment: A re-examination. Theory Into Practice 41(4), 258
(2002)
14. Byrd, P.: The revised taxonomy and prospective teachers. Theory Into Practice 41(4), 248
(2002)
15. Brownell, J., Chung, B.: The management development program: a competency based model
for preparing hospitality leaders. J. Manag. Educ. 25(2), 124–145 (2001)
16. Spee, J., Tompkins, T.: Designing a competency-based master of arts in management program
for mid-career adults. J. Manag. Educ. 25(2), 191–208 (2001)
17. Brookhart, S.: Successful students’ formative and summative uses of assessment information.
Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 8(2), 153–169 (2001)
18. Harvey, C.: Putting self-management into the classroom: one person’s journey. J. Manag.
Educ. 22(4), 408–415 (1998)
19. McKeachie, W.: Teaching Tips: A Guidebook for the Beginning College Teacher, 8th edn. D.
C. Heath, Lexington, MA (1984)
20. Hogan, K., Pressley, M.: Scaffolding Student Learning: Instructional Approaches & Issues
(Advances in Teaching and Learning Series). Brookline Books, Cambridge, MA (1997)
21. Williams, A.E.: Promoting meaningfulness by coupling Bloom’s taxonomy with adult educa-
tion theory: introducing an applied and interdisciplinary student writing exercise. Transform.
Dialogues Teach. Learn. J. 10(3), 8 (2017)
22. Nkhoma, M., Lam, T., Richardson, J., Kam, K., Lau, K.H.: Developing case-based learning
activities based on the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. In: Proceedings of Informing Science &
IT Education Conference (InSITE), vol. 2016, pp. 86–87 (2016)
23. Ching, H.Y., da Silva, E.C.: The use of Bloom’s taxonomy to develop competences in students
of a business undergraduate course. J. Int. Bus. Educ. 12, 107–126 (2017)
24. Britto, R., Usman, M.: Bloom’s taxonomy in software engineering education: a systematic
mapping study. In: IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) El Paso, TX, vol. 2015,
pp. 1–8 (2015)
25. Meda, L., Swart, A.J.: Analysing learning outcomes in an Electrical Engineering curriculum
using illustrative verbs derived from Bloom’s Taxonomy. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 1–14 (2017)
26. Swart, A.J., Daneti, M.: Analyzing learning outcomes for electronic fundamentals using
Bloom’s taxonomy. In: IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 9–11
April, vol. 2019, pp. 39–44 (2019)
 Importance and Implications of Theory 525

27. Doran, M.V., Langan, D.D.: A cognitive-based approach to introductory computer science
courses: lesson learned, presented at SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science
Education (1995)
28. Machanick, P.: Experience of applying bloom’s taxonomy in three courses, presented at
Southern African Computer Lecturers’ Association Conference (2000)
29. Johnson, C., Fuller, U.: Is Bloom’s taxonomy appropriate for computer science? presented at
Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research: Koli Calling (2006)
30. Lahtinen, E.: A categorization of novice programmers: A cluster analysis study, presented at
Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group (2007)
31. Howard, et al., R.: Felder’s learning styles, Bloom’s taxonomy, and the Kolb learning cycle:
tying it all together in the CS2 course, presented at SIGCSE Technical Symposium on
Computer Science Education (1996)
32. Churches, A.: Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy (2008). Accessed 15 May 2020. https://www.res
earchgate.net/publication/228381038_Bloom’s_Digital_Taxonomy
33. Bissell, A.N., Lemons, P.P.: A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom.
Bioscience 56, 66–72 (2006). (Buxkemper, A., Hartfiel, D.J.: Understanding. Int. J. Math.
Educ. Sci. Technol. 34, 801–812, 2003)
34. Crowe, A., Dirks, C., Wenderoth, M.: Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy
to enhance student learning in biology. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 7(4), 368–381 (2008)
35. Athanassiou, N., Mcnett, J., Harvey, C.: Critical thinking in the management classroom:
Bloom’s taxonomy as a learning tool. J. Manag. Educ. 27(5), 555–575 (2003)
36. Hanna, W.: The new Bloom’s taxonomy: implications for music education. Arts Educ. Policy
Rev. 108(4), 7–16 (2007)

View publication stats