Search

The aim of this study is to point out the reasons of and the critics about revised taxonomy which has been used since 1956 and was revised in 2001. Scanning method is used in this study. In the light of analysis of data collection, these results are obtained: 1. Reasons behind the revision of Bloom's taxonomy are; being unable to respond with a one-dimensional form to the developments in educational psychology and learning approaches, having difficulty in evaluating owing to the cumulative hierarchical framework of original taxonomy, and being insufficient of one-dimensional form of Bloom's taxonomy within the scope of cognitive processes. 2. Here are the main critics of the revised taxonomy; revised taxonomy brings terminological and structural innovations for the process of instructional planning, increased number of sub-categories contributes to phase of reading objectives, revised taxonomy makes it possible to use new concepts, such as performance and authentic assessment, there are different opinions about the two steps that are accepted as the most difficult and located at the top. The knowledge dimension and cognitive process dimension are understandable enough and there are difficulties regarding the use of the classification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study is to point out the reasons of and the critics about revised taxonomy which has been used since 1956 and was revised in 2001. Scanning method is used in this study. In the light of analysis of data collection, these results are obtained: 1. Reasons behind the revision of Bloom's taxonomy are; being unable to respond with a one-dimensional form to the developments in educational psychology and learning approaches, having difficulty in evaluating owing to the cumulative hierarchical framework of original taxonomy, and being insufficient of one-dimensional form of Bloom's taxonomy within the scope of cognitive processes. 2. Here are the main critics of the revised taxonomy; revised taxonomy brings terminological and structural innovations for the process of instructional planning, increased number of sub-categories contributes to phase of reading objectives, revised taxonomy makes it possible to use new concepts, such as performance and authentic assessment, there are different opinions about the two steps that are accepted as the most difficult and located at the top. The knowledge dimension and cognitive process dimension are understandable enough and there are difficulties regarding the use of the classification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]