Bloom's Taxonomy: Criticisms

Criticisms of Bloom's Taxonomy
Educational theorists have criticized Bloom’s Taxonomy on a few grounds.

1. Learning is not sequential – Bloom’s Hierarchy seems too artificially constructed. It is a very linear, straightforward view of how humans comprehend information. Although each concept or classification has its place, researchers are beginning to see the mind as more of a web. A person might skip from knowledge to application then analyze the application, come to a conclusion (evaluation) and then re-analyze the conclusion all working toward a greater synthesis of information. Constructivist teaching has suggested that teachers need to spread higher-order thinking skills throughout a task rather than begin with the imparting of knowledge.
2. It is incomplete – Bloom concentrated his efforts on learning, yet there is little about motivation or about classroom management.
3. It is too precise – Classifying and separating learning into three spheres and nice hierarchies is a very modern, scientific view of learning. Yet, a postmodern critique would attempt to deconstruct this idea. For one, they would suggest that brain science is still in its earliest formation and that we do not entirely understand the mystery of the mind. In addition, postmodernists would suggest that many of the terms are simply artificial constructs used as ideology to conceal the messy side of learning.
4. It is individualistic – Unlike the Social Learning Theory, Bloom’s Taxonomy focuses heavily on how an individual learns. It misses what occurs when there are social forces. For example, an individual’s ability to reach “evaluation” can easily be clouded by “groupthink.”

Responses to Criticism
Critics make valid points. However, they need to keep a few things in mind. First, Bloom saw his work as scientific and therefore contributed to the larger, democratic pool of scientific reserach. If his theories were incomplete, this is because he saw them as always changing and he validated many outside theories. In addition, his taxonomy focuses on learning and assessment more than on how to teach. When critics take the time to read his work, they realize it was much broader than first assumed. In terms of being too precise and too individualistic, that is understandable. He lived during a period of rugged American individualism. He was a modern man, which meant that he took individualism, science and objective knowledge for granted.