Benjamin Bloom: Influential Educator

             Benjamin S. Bloom, renowned American educational psychologist, scholar and researcher, had tremendous influence on educational policy and practice.  In a career that spanned over five decades, his work contributed our understanding of educational objectives and evaluation, the importance of the environment on early childhood learning, mastery learning, and the development of exceptional talent (Eisner, 2000).  He authored or co-authored 17 books, and published numerous articles; his writings and research guided the creation of numerous educational programs (Guskey, 2006).  Former student of Bloom, and noted educational academic, Elliot Eisner, believed that Bloom was a model of educational leadership, founding, directing or chairing multiple educational organizations (2000). Bloom was also the recipient of numerous awards, including the John Dewey award in 1968 (Guskey, 2006). His influence extended internationally as well, he presented at educational conferences throughout the world and served as the educational consultant to India, Israel and many other nations (Eisner, 2000, Guskey, 2006).

Early Career

            Following the concurrent completion of a B.A. and M.S. in psychology, Bloom enrolled at the University of Chicago to begin a doctorate in Education in 1939.  Bloom was drawn to UOC for the chance to continue his studies under the guidance of his mentor, esteemed psychcometrist, Ralph W. Tyler (Guskey, 2006).  While he completed his doctoral program, he worked as a research assistant at the Office of the Board of Examiners at the University of Chicago. Following completion of his Ph.D. in 1942, he stayed with the board, this time in the role of university examiner, until 1959.  During this time, he co-authored and published his first book, Problem-Solving Processes of College Students (Bloom, 1950) and concentrated his research on testing, measurement and evaluation (Guskey, 2006).

            During his tenure at the Board of Examiners, he convened a meeting of post-secondary examiners attending the American Psychological Association convention to explore the possibility of designing a common framework for classifying the expansive range of learning outcomes faced by examiners on a regular basis ("B.S. Bloom," “n.d.”). Bloom believed that such a framework would provide the examiners a more reliable procedure for examining students, as well as the outcomes of pedagogical practice (Eisner, 2000).  He further believed that this framework could be useful to stimulate research on the relationship between education and examinations (Anderson & Sosniak, 1994; Bloom, 1956).  Soon after this initial meeting, he organized a committee with the intention to develop a common framework that could be used by college and university examiners to encourage the exchange of ideas and materials for testing (Anderson & Sosniak, 1994).

Creation of the taxonomy

            The fruition of this committee’s labor was published eight years later as The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook 1: The Cognitive Domain (Bloom, 1956). This handbook - focused entirely on the cognitive domain - was meant to be a flexible tool that would change with the times, it was meant to be a “work in progress” (Anderson, Krathwohl, 2001, p.xxvii). Although the committee eventually published the handbook for the affective domain in 1964, the original group never completed the handbook of the psychomotor domain (Anderson, Krathwohl, 2001). As a testament to its popularity, within a decade, it was known simply as Bloom’s Taxonomy ("B.S. Bloom," “n.d.”). 

            In the opening pages of the book, the authors articulated the intended purpose of the taxonomy as a means to facilitate communication within the field of education (Bloom, 1956).  And indeed it has; it has served as a means to aid in the development of curriculum design and evaluation resources throughout the world (Eisner, 2000) and has been translated into more than 20 languages (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The now seemingly ubiquitous Bloom’s Taxonomy is considered to be one of the most influential writings in the field of American education (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Anderson & Sosniak, 1994; Marzano & Kendall, 2007).   In light of the taxonomy’s success, Bloom, who was known for his wit, once humorously remarked that the Taxonomy was one of the most widely cited, but least read published pieces in American education (Anderson & Sosniak, 1994, Guskey, 2006).

            Fashioned in an era of learning that preponderantly emphasized lower-order thinking skills -especially knowledge- the taxonomy provided educators the framework to help move students from lower to higher order thinking skills (Anderson & Sosniak, 1994; Bloom, 1956; Guskey, 2006).  Widely considered a classic in pedagogical theory, the hierarchy of learning as outlined in the taxonomy is fundamental to the ability to articulate clear, measureable and accurate instructional objectives (Savitz, 1999). It is a ladder of increasing cognitive complexity, ordered into six levels: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Each level is contingent upon the student’s ability to perform at the preceding levels (Bloom, 1956).  A graphic representation of the taxonomy is shown in Figure 1.  In this Figure, each level also suggests examples of various objectives (skills and abilities) that demonstrate application of that category.         

            Bloom’s vision was ground-breaking; it provided a practical tool that would allow educators to apply what was known at the time about thinking - the cognitive domain - to specific classroom practices (Eisner, 2000); a tying together of instructional strategy and materials to an understanding of the learners’ cognitive processes (Sprinthall, Sprinthall & Oja, 1998). The taxonomy of educational objectives provided a framework that allowed educators to systematically describe specific educational goals and methods for achieving and evaluating those goals (Sprinthall, Sprinthall & Oja, 1998).  Further, it provided educators a much-needed common language about curriculum and assessment (Anderson & Sosniak, 1994).  But perhaps most importantly, Bloom provided educators the tools they needed to develop a greater understanding of the underlying cognitive processes of learning.

Figure 1.  Bloom’s Taxonomy

Copyright by Worldpress.com, 2011

The Taxonomy Revised       

            In 2001, Lorin Anderson, a former doctoral student of Bloom, and David Krathwohl, co-author of the original Taxonomy, spearheaded a collaborative effort to revise the Taxonomy.  In the decades since the publishing of the Taxonomy, major changes to curriculum, testing, research and educational psychology had occurred, and the revised taxonomy sought to make the framework more “practical and useful for teachers” (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, p.xxii; Anderson & Sosniak, 1994).

            The new taxonomy, as shown in Figure 2, was a reflection of the new thought and knowledge influencing the current practice of education (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). While primary differences between the two were the re-wording of nouns to verbs, the re-positioning of the last two categories, and the re-naming of some of the components, a further significant difference lies in the more useful and inclusive additions of how the different types and levels of knowledge including factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive intersect and interact (Wilson, 2013). The goal of the revision was to allow teachers to effectively align standards, objectives, instruction and assessments in a manner that is cognitively rich and creative (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).

Figure 2. A Graphic Comparison of the Original and Revised Taxonomies

Copyright by Leslie Owen Wilson, 2005

The Importance of the Environment on Early Childhood Learning

            Bloom’s former doctoral student, Thomas Guskey, provides insight into the enduring work of Bloom in his book, Benjamin S. Bloom, Portraits of an Educator (2006). Guskey notes that while Bloom’s early work at the University of Chicago centered on the relationship between instructional methodology, educational outcomes, and measurement of those outcomes, his research focus shifted and expanded following a year long fellowship at the Center for the Advanced Study of Behavioral Sciences in Palo Alto, California in 1959.  Here, he returned to his background in psychology, and began to focus his research on human development.  It was during this time, according to Guskey, that Bloom theorized that much of an individual’s development is formulated and solidified in early childhood. His research demonstrated that more than half of an individual’s cognitive development takes place by the age of four, and that early experiences in the home strongly shape learning ability.  Guskey notes that Bloom further posited that as the child’s age increased, environmental influences played less and less of a role on intellectual growth, an idea that was revolutionary at the time. Although he would not publish Stability and Change in Human Characteristics until 1964, much of the foundational work for that research was conducted during his time at the center. This research served to focus not only the attention of educators and psychologists on the importance of early education and the home environment, but it also influenced educational policy-makers at the time (Guskey, 2006; Honan, 1999).  Indeed, in 1965, Bloom was invited to testify before congress about his findings.  His testimony and the research he presented helped lead to the establishment of the Head Start Program ("Bloom, influential educator," 1999; Eisner, 2000; Guskey, 2006; Honan, 1999).

Mastery Learning

            In 1968, Bloom published a noteworthy article entitled Learning for Mastery, in which the central thesis was that most students (conceivably more than 90%) could master the content they were expected to learn in school if instruction was approached systematically (Bloom, 1968; Bloom, 1973).  His view of achievement was in stark contrast to the commonly accepted bell-curve that represented student achievement, with only 20% of learners achieving mastery (Guskey, 2001).  Bloom (1968) felt that it was the basic duty of education to find the means to allow all students to develop to their fullest potential.

            Here, he outlined practices for improving the quality of classroom instruction so that nearly all students could reach very high levels of achievement providing students were provided the time and instructional methods appropriate to the realization of individual goals (Guskey, 2001).  The model, as laid out by Bloom in Learning for Mastery (1968), features instruction that is divided into small, sequenced and hierarchal units with clearly defined learning objectives, typically lasting one to two weeks.  Following this, a formative assessment is given; this test serves to provide both diagnostic and prescriptive feedback (providing information on what was learned well in addition to identifying areas of difficulty).  Students demonstrating mastery are provided enrichment or extension activities, while those who do not are provided correctives (individualized activities designed to move the learner toward mastery).  Following the completion of correctives (typically a few class periods), a second assessment is given to assess progress. 

            Guskey (2001) asserts that few educational programs have been as widely implemented and evaluated as those associated with mastery learning.  Additionally, he states that students who learn following the mastery model have been shown to consistently learn better, obtain higher levels of achievement, and cultivate an increased sense of confidence in their identity as a learner; the very outcomes that Bloom had predicted (1968).

Institution Building

            According to Eisner (2000), Bloom’s influence extended beyond the scope of research to include institution building, evidence, he asserts, of Bloom’s social activism.  Bloom was instrumental in the creation of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (the IEA), a group of educators working cooperatively to improve student learning in dozens of countries throughout the world. Eisner asserted that the creation of the MESA (Measurement, Evaluation and Statistical Analysis) program at the University of Chicago was virtually created single-handedly by Bloom as a means to aid quantitative educational researchers in developing and designing evaluation practices that would be truly informative and pedagogically useful. Additionally, Eisner noted, in 1971 Bloom assisted in the organization of the International Seminar for Advanced Training in Curriculum Development. Educators attending this seminar were able to return to their home countries armed with knowledge to develop more effective educational approaches and materials and were expected to aid in the creation of national curriculum centers within their own nations. Bloom’s influence had clearly extended beyond the American classroom to the educational world at large.

A Lasting Impact

            Bloom devoted his career to conducting research and designing educational programs based on the belief that virtually any student can learn what he or she is expected to learn to a high standard provided proper learning conditions are created (Anderson, 2002).  Further, he eschewed the contemporary view that education was a competition, with the primary aim the identification of the brightest and quickest learners (Eisner, 2000). Instead, he believed it was the job of the school to create the conditions that would allow all children to individually reach their own highest level of achievement (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971).  His belief that the conditions of learning could “ …bring about equality of educational outcomes…” (Bloom, 1980) was not only a demonstration of a new way of considering student ability, but it was indicative of an optimistic and egalitarian stance of a man who committed his career to social justice (Guskey, 2006).