There are three main domains of learning and all teachers should know about them and use them to construct lessons. These domains of learning are the cognitive (thinking), the affective (social/emotional/feeling), and the psychomotor (physical/kinesthetic) domain, and each one of these has a taxonomy associated with it. Taxonomy is simply a word for a classification. All of the taxonomies below are arranged so that they proceed from the simplest to more complex levels.
The domains of learning were first developed and described between 1956-1972. The cognitive domain had a major revision in 2000-01. The ones discussed here are usually attributed to their primary author, even though the actual development may have had more authors in its formal, complete citation (see full citations below). Some web references attribute all of the domains to Benjamin Bloom which is simply not true. While Bloom was involved in describing both the cognitive and the affective domains, he appeared as first author on the cognitive domain. As a result this bore his name for years and was commonly known among educators as Bloom’s Taxonomy even though his colleague David Krathwohl also a partner on the 1956 publication. When publishing the description of the affective domain in 1964 Krathwohl was named as first author, but Bloom also worked on developing this work. Krathwohl’s involvement in the development of the cognitive domain will be become important when you look at the authors of the 2001 revisions to this taxonomy.
Many veteran teachers are totally unaware that the cognitive/thinking domain had major revisions in 2000-01. If you are searching the internet for more information on domains of learning, please be sure the sources you find are offering readers information that includes the most recent revisions. Here I have included both the original cognitive domain, and I have also attached it to the newer, revised version so that users can see the differences. The newer version of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning has a number of added features that can be very useful to educators as they try to construct optimal learning experiences. I hope readers will explore the differences and additions through the links provided on this page.
Also, when possible, I believe teachers should attempt to construct more holistic lessons by using all 3 domains of learning in constructing educational tasks. This diversity helps create more well-rounded learning experiences and meets a number of learning styles and learning modalities. Mixing domains of learning and using more diversity in delivering lessons also helps students create more neural networks and pathways thus aiding their retention and recall.
Based on the 1956 work, The Handbook I-Cognitive Domain, behavioral objectives that dealt with cognition could be divided into subsets. These subsets were arranged into a taxonomy and listed according to the cognitive difficulty — simpler to more complex forms. In 2000-01 revisions to the cognitive taxonomy were spearheaded by one of Bloom’s former students, Lorin Anderson, and Bloom’s original partner in defining and publishing the cognitive domain, David Krathwohl. Please see my page entitled Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised for further details.
Remember while it is good to understand the history of the older version of this domain, the newer version has a number of strong advantages that make it a better choice for planning instruction today. One of the major changes that occurred between the old and the newer updated version is that the two highest forms of cognition have been reversed. In the older version the listing from simple to most complex functions was ordered as knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. In the newer version the steps change to verbs and are arranged as knowing, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and the last and highest function, creating.
Bloom’s Taxonomy 1956
Anderson and Krathwohl’s Taxonomy 2001
| know identify relate list | define recall memorize repeat | record name recognize acquire |
| restate locate report recognize explain express | identify discuss describe discuss review infer | illustrate interpret draw represent differentiate conclude |
| apply relate develop translate use operate | organize employ restructure interpret demonstrate illustrate | practice calculate show exhibit dramatize |
| analyze compare probe inquire examine contrast categorize | differentiate contrast investigate detect survey classify deduce | experiment scrutinize discover inspect dissect discriminate separate |
| compose produce design assemble create prepare predict modify tell | plan invent formulate collect set up generalize document combine relate | propose develop arrange construct organize originate derive write propose |
| judge assess compare evaluate conclude measure deduce | argue decide choose rate select estimate | validate consider appraise value criticize infer |
Table 1.1 – (Wilson, L.O. 2001) – Bloom vs. Anderson/Krathwohl revisions
Additional Resources: There are many different types of graphics cleverly depicting the new versions that can be printed and readily used as everyday references during instructional planning. In a search engine like Google enter “revised Bloom’s taxonomy” and view the “images” portion of the search to find many different types of colorful and useful graphics on this topic.
Like cognitive objectives, affective objectives can also be divided into a hierarchy (according to Krathwohl). This area is concerned with feelings or emotions (and social/emotional learning and skills). Again, the taxonomy is arranged from simpler feelings to those that are more complex. This domain was first described in 1964 and as noted before is attributed to David Krathwohl as the primary author.
1. Receiving
This refers to the learner’s sensitivity to the existence of stimuli – awareness, willingness to receive, or selected attention.
| feel sense capture experience | pursue attend perceive |
2. Responding
This refers to the learners’ active attention to stimuli and his/her motivation to learn – acquiescence, willing responses, or feelings of satisfaction.
| conform allow cooperate | contribute enjoy satisfy |
3. Valuing
This refers to the learner’s beliefs and attitudes of worth – acceptance, preference, or commitment. An acceptance, preference, or commitment to a value.
| believe seek justify | respect search persuade |
4. Organization
This refers to the learner’s internalization of values and beliefs involving (1) the conceptualization of values; and (2) the organization of a value system. As values or beliefs become internalized, the leaner organizes them according to priority.
| examine clarify systematize | create integrate |
5. Characterization – the Internalization of values
This refers to the learner’s highest of internalization and relates to behavior that reflects (1) a generalized set of values; and (2) a characterization or a philosophy about life. At this level the learner is capable of practicing and acting on their values or beliefs.
| internalize review conclude | resolve judge |
Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom,B.S. and Masia, B. B. (1964).Taxonomy of educational objectives, Book II. Affective domain. New York, NY. David McKay Company, Inc.
Note: As with all of the taxonomies, in labeling objectives using this domain there has to be a very clear instructional intention for growth in this area specified in the learning objective(s). Folks in the sciences and in math often avoid including affective objectives stating that their areas are not emotional. However, any group work or cooperative exercise where deportment, or collaborative or cooperative skills are discussed, used, and emphasized qualifies as having the potential for affective growth. Additionally, if students are asked to challenge themselves with independently taking risks to develop and present a hypothesis and/or persuade others on drawn conclusions, or actively take an intellectual risk whereby they increase in self-confidence, these types of exercises also have the potential to be affective as well as a cognitive. Also, in areas of potential debate, where data allows students to draw conclusions about controversial topics or express opinions and feelings on those topics, this too can be tweaked so there is intentional affective growth. Since emotion draws both attention and channels strong residual memory, it behooves all dedicated and artful educators to include affective objectives, no matter what their discipline or area of study.
Psychomotor objectives are those specific to discreet physical functions, reflex actions and interpretive movements. Traditionally, these types of objectives are concerned with the physically 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, autonomic responses or reflexes.
In examining the three domains of learning it is interesting to note that while the cognitive taxonomy was described in 1956, and the affective in 1964, the psychomotor domain was not fully described until the 1970s. And while I have chosen to use the work of Anita Harrow here, there are actually two other psychomotor taxonomies to choose from — one from E. J. Simpson (1972) and the other from R.H. Dave (1970). See full citations and hyperlink below.
As stated earlier, to avoid confusion, if the activity is simply something that is physical which supports another area — affective or cognitive — term the objective physical rather than psychomotor. Again, this goes to instructional intent. A primary example of something physical which supports specific cognitive development and skills might be looking through a microscope, and then identifying and drawing cells. Here the instructional intent of this common scientific activity is not to develop specific skilled proficiency in microscope viewing or in reproducing cells through drawing. Usually the key intent in this activity is that a physical action supports or is a vehicle for cognitive growth and furthering recognition skills. The learner is using the physical action to achieve the cognitive objectives — identify, recognize, and differentiate varied types of cells.
If you are using a physical activity to support a cognitive or affective function, simply label it as something physical (labeling the objective as kinesthetic, haptic, or tactile is also acceptable) and avoid the term psychomotor. Rather labeling something psychomotor means there is a very clear educational intention for growth to occur in the psychomotor/kinesthetic domain.
Certainly more complex learning objectives can be written so that they that meld 2 or 3 domains. For instance, students can gain appreciation (an affective objective) for the culture or country of origin through conducting investigations or listening to stories while learning the dances from other countries. Learning dance steps would fall under “skilled movements” in the psychomotor domain.
(Terms in this area based on Anita Harrow’s taxonomy).
Reflex movements
Objectives at this level include reflexes that involve one segmental or reflexes of the spine and movements that may involve more than one segmented portion of the spine as intersegmental reflexes (e.g., involuntary muscle contraction). These movements are involuntary being either present at birth or emerging through maturation.
Fundamental movements
Objectives in this area refer to skills or movements or behaviors related to walking, running, jumping, pushing, pulling and manipulating. They are often components for more complex actions.
Perceptual abilities
Objectives in this area should address skills related to kinesthetic (bodily movements), visual, auditory, tactile (touch), or coordination abilities as they are related to the ability to take in information from the environment and react.
Physical abilities
Objectives in this area should be related to endurance, flexibility, agility, strength, reaction-response time or dexterity.
Skilled movements
Objectives in this area refer to skills and movements that must be learned for games, sports, dances, performances, or for the arts.
Nondiscursive communication
Objectives in this area refer to expressive movements through posture, gestures, facial expressions, and/or creative movements like those in mime or ballet. These movements refer to interpretative movements that communicate meaning without the aid of verbal commands or help.
The following page and PPT AGO2 illustrate how you can use all three domains to create more holistic learning experiences.
The following plans were created by my undergraduate students between 2002-2008. Even if they are not in a subject area you are interested in, the format can serve as a prototype.
**New: Learning Taxonomies – A comprehensive listing of the 3 traditional domains of learning, plus additions in the psychomotor domain, and examples of newer taxonomies.
End Note: As we learn more about how the brain learns and retains information, today’s educators are realizing that targeted physical movement has the potential to enhance memory and recall and can aid in accelerating longterm memory. Intentionally adding movement to enhance learning is often called “embodied learning.” With the aid of technology this field is growing rapidly.
Additional resources:
Giving = Continued Sharing
I created the Second Principle to share information about the educational ideas at the heart of all good teaching. I am dedicated to the ideal that most of materials on this site remain free to individuals, and free of advertising. If you have found value in the information offered here, please consider becoming a patron through a PayPal donation to help defray hosting and operating costs. Thanks for your consideration, and blessings on your own journey.
Sources:
(As these hotlinks take readers to Amazon, the FTC requires me to indicate that they qualify as ads)
There are 3 editions of the revisions of Bloom’s from Anderson and Krathwohl and others, or from Anderson.
Bloom, B.S. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al.(1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. NY, NY: Longmans, Green (This is the original work. It is unavailable for purchase, however there are later editions available.)
Dave, R.H. (1970). Psychomotor levels in Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives, pp.20-21. R.J. Armstrong, ed. Tucson, Arizona: Educational Innovators Press. (Unavailable for purchase)
Simpson E.J. (1972). The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House.
** FTC Notice: For readers’ convenience throughout this site I have placed hotlinks to Amazon for a wide variety of books that relate to the topics discussed. Many of these books I have read, while others I not only read but purchased for my own professional collection. Other entries were recommended by folks I respect. In compliance with the United States FTC, I am required to tell readers that if they use the provided hotlinks to purchase linked materials, then I receive a very, very, very small commission from Amazon. These monies I use to help offset my website hosting fees.
Copyright © 2024 https://thesecondprinciple.com.
Church WordPress Theme by themehall.com