Bloom’s taxonomy is a well-known tool created in the 1950s by educational psychologist, Benjamin Bloom. Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain originally consisted of six levels. Moving from least complex to most complex, the levels are knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. In 2001, using modern understandings of learning, a group of educators published a revised taxonomy. From least complex to most complex, the revised levels include: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. Remember replaced knowledge, and understand replaced comprehension. These changes reflect more accurate cognitive processes at these levels. In addition, all the levels were labeled with verbs to better align with learning objectives. Finally, the top two levels switched positions, and synthesis was renamed create. This change reflects the modern understanding that producing a new product requires more complex thinking than evaluating. This tool, when used correctly, can help students increase student learning, interest, and achievement (Sousa, 2011).
In this essay, I will review the first three lessons of outdoor learning school (OLS) and identify how all levels were addressed and what, if any, improvements could have been made. The central theme of OLS 1 was ecosystems, specifically the montane vs. the aquatic. OLS 2 was shortened due to transportation issues but focused on macroinvertebrates. Moreover, OLS 3 consisted of activities that exemplified different values of water. Finally, the essay will present one example of a question or activity relating to each level of Bloom’s taxonomy for all three OLS lessons.
Remember, the lowest level of Bloom’s taxonomy, refers to the recall of learned material. This material could be an idea, a definition, or a theory. The individual must only recall information; there is no assumption of understanding (Sousa, 2011). Elements of the remember level arose in all three OLS lessons. In OLS 1, students drew a picture of two plants and two animals in their science notebooks that they saw in both the riparian and montane ecosystems. This question effectively enabled students to reproduce new information. Similarly, in OLS 2, students were asked to sketch three macroinvertebrates they found in the lake. This activity required students to transfer information. This activity would be most effective if students reproduced the definition of a macroinvertebrate next to their sketches. This change would require students to remember what a macroinvertebrate is, along with examples of specific macroinvertebrates. Finally, in OLS 3, the students were asked to define the words or images representing the five water values (ecological, aesthetic, economic, recreational, …). Focusing on either the words or images representing the values would have improved this question. If we want students to remember specific things, it is best to be clear on what we want our students to produce. Increasing repetition would have improved all three lessons. Students can recall information much faster and effectively the more frequently they are asked to remember that information.
The next level, understand, refers to an individual’s ability to grasp the content. The major difference between remembering and understanding is that the latter allows the material to be used in the future (Sousa, 2011). For example, when discussing the water cycle in OLS 1, I asked my students which ecosystem (riparian or montane) the water comes from in the water cycle. This question aimed to assess the understanding of water abundance in each ecosystem and how water moves in the water cycle. To get at this more directly, I could have asked which ecosystem has more water. I then could have asked my students to point to water that might evaporate. In the OLS 2 lesson, the game “oh trout” (an aquatic version of the game “oh deer”) was used to help students understand the concept of carrying capacity. The game was a great activity to visualize population growth and resource scarcity. When discussing water values in OLS 3, students were asked to record an activity representing each value. I could have improved this question by asking students to state why the activities represented the values to ensure they were not simply remembering something I had previously said aloud.
Bloom’s next level, apply, requires individuals to use concepts they understand in new settings (Sousa, 2011). Students were asked to draw how water moves in the water cycle within one ecosystem in the first OLS lesson. This question did a great job asking students to think about the water cycle and how it applies to one of our ecosystems. In OLS 2, students noted whether the macroinvertebrates they identified were sensitive, facultative, or tolerant. This identification required students first to understand the words and then use a categorizing sheet to identify the macroinvertebrates they found. Finally, students commented on the water quality of the lakes. I thought this activity did a reasonably good job guiding students to apply the terms (sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) to assess water quality in the Catamount lakes. In the watershed activity during OLS 3, students and educators collaborated to create a model watershed for the Catamount Mountain Campus. Students discussed the values they wanted to emphasize and developed the land accordingly. I think this activity would have been more effective with more assistance. The students were able to pick their favorite values but got caught up in the fun of development and did not do a good job prioritizing specific values. If given the opportunity to teach this activity again, I would require the students to justify each action and elaborate on how their new development supports the values they wanted to represent.
The fourth level, analyze, deepens an individual’s understanding of a concept. Analysis requires breaking a larger concept into smaller parts so that an individual can understand the structure of the concept. This stage asks individuals to organize information into categories (Sousa, 2011). Students in OLS 1 were asked to describe the riparian ecosystem if all the water in the lakes went away. This question was not the most effective analysis question. We should have asked students to discuss the changes if all the water in the riparian ecosystem disappeared. This question could be scaffolded by prompting students to comment on changes to plants, trees, soil, insects, and animals. In the end, the students should answer the original question to tie it all together. There were not many opportunities in the shortened OLS 2 curriculum to address the analyze level. Discussing how to use the dichotomous key to identify different macroinvertebrates could have helped students use the tool more precisely and address the analyze level. Asking students to teach each other how to use the identification key would allow them to break down the process. This activity would help students improve their identification skills and understanding of the identification process. In OLS 3, students were informally asked: what contributes to poor water quality? Most of the students described a handful of factors (cow poop, trash, sediments). This question would be more effective if I asked the students to categorize the pollutants into human-made and not human-made.
Next in the revised taxonomy, is evaluate. This stage requires individuals to assess value based on criteria or standards. Often when evaluating, there is not a definitively correct answer (Sousa, 2011). One evaluation discussion occurred at the end of my OLS 1 lesson. After describing what might happen if water disappeared from an ecosystem or biome, a handful of students discussed whether that would be a good or bad thing. I attempted to guide the conversation by asking students to identify who might benefit or suffer from those changes. It would have been helpful to ask students to create a list of pros and cons related to changes in biomes and answer if they think it is a good or bad thing that biomes might be changing. During OLS 2, students rated water quality on a scale from one to ten in their science notebooks. This question could have been more effective if asked again in OLS 3 after asking about what contributes to poor water quality. Revisiting the question would have allowed the students to consider more factors to decide which were most applicable to the Catamount lakes.
The most complex cognitive level, create, relates to consolidating many parts into a completely new product or plan. At this level, individuals require a large amount of information and a strong understanding of that information to be creative (Sousa, 2011). In OLS 1, there were few opportunities to be creative, as the lesson focused on developing more knowledge and a more robust understanding of that knowledge. One question that would require students to create would be to draw a new plant, insect, or animal that could survive in the montane ecosystem and discuss how it would interact with existing plants, animals, and insects. A similar question could have been asked in OLS 2 with macroinvertebrates. OLS 3 had more explicit opportunities for the create level. Students spent a large chunk of the day doing a trail restoration service project. This activity was successful in terms of students’ fun, but it was ineffective for teaching erosion and trail maintenance. The activity lacked the abundance of information and depth of understanding required for an activity at the create level. If students had previously discussed erosion in-depth, they would have been much more adept at creating a product that more accurately helped with the actual trail erosion in front of them.
All three OLS lessons contain elements of the six levels of Bloom's taxonomy. Increasing repetition of core concepts would have helped students remember the most important parts of each lesson. Students demonstrated understanding of the water cycle, carrying capacity, and different values of water. In OLS 1, students applied knowledge of the water cycle to different ecosystems. Students in OLS 2 applied macroinvertebrate sensitivity to water quality. In OLS 3, students applied the values of water to the development of a watershed. All three OLS lessons should be adapted to more explicitly include activities that include analysis. Students evaluated the effects of climate change on biomes and got close to evaluation when discussing water quality. Finally, the last level, create, of Bloom's taxonomy was missing from OLS 1 and 2 but could be seen during the trail restoration project in OLS 3. Identifying where the cognitive levels of Bloom’s taxonomy are present and missing helps educators understand where their lesson might need extra scaffolding.
Works Cited
Sousa, D. (2011). Thinking skills and learning: Revisiting Bloom's taxonomy of the cognitive domain. In How the Brain Learns (pp. 255 - 278). Corwin Press.