Anda di halaman 1dari 3

Google Scholar Blooms Taxonomy

1. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain (1966)


2. A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview (2002)
3. Blooms Taxonomy and Critical Thinking Instruction (1985)

Blooms Taxonomy and Critical Thinking Instructions

This article first describes Blooms Taxonomy, which is a rhetoric that is applicable for
all teacher in creating a successful teaching environment by way of critical thinking instruction.
The article goes of the Cognitive Domain of Blooms Taxonomy. That teachers need to
provide classification of their goals, help in building curriculum, develop perspective in
behaviors and easily explainable objectives. This article criticizes the cognitive domain of
Blooms Taxonomy. The taxonomy is assumed to be a recipe for fostering all forms of critical
thinking in students when there actually isnt a set definition of rules that can do this. The author
describes how teachers should develop their own form of critical thinking skills suited to the
curriculum and students, not defined by a hand book.
The author says that because the taxonomy makes an effort to create a neutral
classification of cognitive processes that does not favor any educational philosophy it is trying to
do the impossible transcend and culture, nation or system. He says the taxonomy tried to
predict all potential problems students may encounter when learning the set cognitive guidelines.
It assumes this critical thinking method is true thus should be taught to children even before they

have the capability of thinking critically on their own. It theorizes that in doing so children will
have the ability to think critically and correctly and wont learn bad habits from developing their
own way to think critically. The author argues that this si not simply teaching students good
critical thinking skill, that it is indoctrination. It is trying to teach learning efficiently when
children are starting to develop their own learning skills, with this rhetoric instilled in them they
do not learn to solve problems for themselves and instead rely on a set, ambiguous guideline that
refuses infallibility. He suggests that children must learn to think for themselves before taught
strict rhetoric, and that teachers should mold their curriculum around the childrens ability to
learn, because no child thinks critically in the same manor. He says one must not assume those
that have the best ability to think critically have developed the best skills.
The authors main point is that blindly memorized rhetoric cannot be properly called
knowledge, it restricts one from thinking for themselves, to have rely on a set of rules when
facing a problem instead of thinking of their own solution. A student must not be told to believe
something just because the text tells them to believe it. The student must not why they should
believe and not accept it blindly. He describes that the taxonomy is trying to keep children from
thinking irrationally or developing poor thinking skills, but he argues that teaching these children
rhetoric that they themselves have no rational reason to believe in is in effect teaching them to
believe irrationally. They are believing irrationally because they are told to believe in a system
without being told why they should believe in it, then they apply these beliefs, or rules, to create
new beliefs, and their entire cognitive belief system becomes reliant on something that was never
proved to them in the first place.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai