Video Upload Options

References

1. Bloom et al. 1956, p. 4: "The idea for this classification system was formed at an informal meeting of college examiners attending the 1948 American Psychological Association Convention in Boston. At this meeting, interest was expressed in a theoretical framework which could be used to facilitate communication among examiners.
2. Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company. 
3. Simpson, Elizabeth J. (1966). "The classification of educational objectives: Psychomotor domain". Illinois Journal of Home Economics 10 (4): 110–144. 
4. *Harrow, Anita J. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives. New York: David McKay Company. 
5. *Dave, R. H. (1975). Armstrong, R. J.. ed. Developing and writing behavioral objectives. Tucson: Educational Innovators Press. 
6. Clark, Donald R. (1999). "Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning Domains". http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html. 
7. Krathwohl, David R. (2002). "A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview". Theory into Practice (Routledge) 41 (4): 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2. ISSN 0040-5841.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15430421tip4104_2
8. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.. 2001. ISBN 978-0-8013-1903-7. 
9. Hoy, Anita Woolfolk (2007). Educational psychology (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. pp. 530–531, 545. ISBN 978-0205459469. OCLC 68694368.  http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/68694368
10. Armstrong, Patricia (2010-06-10). "Bloom's Taxonomy". Vanderbilt University. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/. 
11. Simpson, Elizabeth (1972). Educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. 3. Washington, D.C.: Gryphon House. pp. 25–30. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED010368.pdf. Retrieved 3 April 2018. 
12. Bloom et al. 1956, p. 201.
13. Paul, R. (1993). Critical thinking: what every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world (3rd ed.). Rohnert Park, California: Sonoma State University Press. 
14. Flannery, Maura C. (November 2007). "Observations on biology". The American Biology Teacher 69 (9): 561–564. doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2007)69[561:OOB2.0.CO;2]. https://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/File/pdfs/american_biology_teacher/2007/069-09-0561.pdf. Retrieved 2017-03-05. "Biology is often referred to as an observational science almost as a slur, with the implication that biologists simply look at the living world without the strong theoretical and mathematic underpinnings of a science like physics. There is the suggestion that observation is easy. Thus biology is viewed as a lightweight science—anyone can do it: just go out and start looking, at birds, at grass, at cells under the microscope. Benjamin Bloom's taxonomy of learning tasks puts observation at the lowest level, with recall of information. This denigration of observation has long bothered me because I see it as often difficult and complex, a skill that needs to be learned and a talent that is much more developed in some.". 
15. Lawler, Susan (26 February 2016). "Identification of animals and plants is an essential skill set". The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/identification-of-animals-and-plants-is-an-essential-skill-set-55450. "Ironically, the dogma that has been so detrimental to field taxonomy is known as Bloom's taxonomy. University lecturers are told to apply an educational theory developed by Benjamin Bloom, which categorises assessment tasks and learning activities into cognitive domains. In Bloom's taxonomy, identifying and naming are at the lowest level of cognitive skills and have been systematically excluded from University degrees because they are considered simplistic." 
16. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). "Chapter 6: Interaction between learning and development". Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 79–91. 
17. Keene, Judith; Colvin, John; Sissons, Justine (June 2010). "Mapping student information literacy activity against Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive skills". Journal of Information Literacy 4 (1): 6–21. doi:10.11645/4.1.189. http://jil.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V4-I1-2010-1. "When supporting students outside the classroom situation, a subject aware advisor should be capable of spotting mistakes in a student's solution and of analysing these mistakes to identify the difficulty that the student is encountering. Such support can be seen as offering scaffolding in a student's 'zone of proximal development' (Vygotsky, 1978) and exemplified by teaching students to analyse a problem through the identification of the key elements and the relationships between these elements.". 
18. Fadul, J. A. (2009). "Collective Learning: Applying distributed cognition for collective intelligence". The International Journal of Learning 16 (4): 211–220. doi:10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v16i04/46223. ISSN 1447-9494.  https://dx.doi.org/10.18848%2F1447-9494%2FCGP%2Fv16i04%2F46223
19. Newton, Philip M.; Da Silva, Ana; Peters, Lee George (10 July 2020). "A pragmatic master list of action verbs for Bloom's taxonomy". Frontiers in Education 5. doi:10.3389/feduc.2020.00107.  https://dx.doi.org/10.3389%2Ffeduc.2020.00107
20. BJ Jansen, D Booth, B Smith (2009) Using the taxonomy of cognitive learning to model online searching, Information Processing & Management 45 (6), 643-663 https://faculty.ist.psu.edu/jjansen/academic/pubs/jansen_using_the_taxonomy_of_cognitive_learning_to_model_online_searching.pdf
21. Kress, G.; Selander, S. (2012). "Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition". Internet and Higher Education 15 (1): 265–268. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.003.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.iheduc.2011.12.003
22. Paul, R.; Elder, L. (2004). Critical and creative thinking. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking. 
23. The New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review.