Revisit Bloom’s Taxonomy: A reflection of education in a digital era

Authors

  • Rizki Farani Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36597/jelp.v5i1.9347

Keywords:

Bloom Taxonomy, Digital Era, Literature Review

Abstract

Bloom’s taxonomy has been used in the education field since 1956. It promotes a higher form of thinking in education. However, the shift from traditional classroom interaction to technology-based education, such as e-learning, blended learning, and distance learning, changes the paradigm on how educators design learning instruction. This article presents a general description of Bloom’s taxonomy application in the digital era based on some literature reviews. The articles were selected purposively among open-access journals only in two reputable international journals: (1) Computer and Education and (2) Cogent Education. The journals were selected due to their publication mostly related to Bloom’s taxonomy in the education field. The review covers two aspects: (1) the identification of Bloom’s taxonomy applications and (2) the modification of Bloom’s taxonomy to promote thinking skills. The analysis presents information on how educators modify Bloom’s taxonomy to deliver content through technology-based learning. The results show that: (a) there is limited access to identify Bloom’s Taxonomy studies; (b) there is limited open access to literature reviews on Bloom’s Taxonomy in the education field; (c) modification of Bloom’s Taxonomy in the digital era position technology as a tool to facilitate students’ learning, and (d) most learning only builds students’ cognitive skills. There is still a limited exploration of affective and psychomotor domains. As a further recommendation for future research, there is a demand to provide more open-access journals on how to use technology to support affective and psychomotor domains.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alamry, A., & Karaali, A. (2016). Flipped education: Transitioning to the homeschool environment. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1224607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.002

Bouwmeester, R. A. M., de Kleijn, R. A. M., van den Berg, I. E. T., ten Cate, O. T. J., van Rijen, H. V. M., & Westerveld, H. E. (2019). Flipping the medical classroom: Effect on workload, interactivity, motivation and retention of knowledge. Computers & Education, 139, 118–128.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.

Crogman, H., & Crogman, M. T. (2016). Generated questions learning model (GQLM): Beyond learning styles. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1202460. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1202460

Crogman, H., & Crogman, M. T. (2018). Modified generated question learning, and its classroom implementation and assessment. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1459340.

Dardjito, H. (2019). Students’ metacognitive reading awareness and academic English reading comprehension in EFL context. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12439a

Koumi, J. (2015). Learning outcomes afforded by self-assessed, segmented video–print combinations. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1045218. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1045218

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Manoharan, S. (2019). Cheat-resistant multiple-choice examinations using personalization. Computers & Education, 130, 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.007

Mohseni, F., Seifoori, Z., & Ahangari, S. (2020). The impact of metacognitive strategy training and critical thinking awareness-raising on reading comprehension. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1720946. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1720946

Molin, F., Haelermans, C., Cabus, S., & Groot, W. (2020). The effect of feedback on metacognition-a randomized experiment using polling technology. Computers & Education, 152, 103885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103885

Purwaningsih, H., & Dardjito, H. (2021). Implementation of CIPP model for online learning evaluation during covid-19 pandemic. Getsempena English Education Journal, 8(2).

Shapiro, A. M., Sims-Knight, J., O’Rielly, G. V, Capaldo, P., Pedlow, T., Gordon, L., & Monteiro, K. (2017). Clickers can promote fact retention but impede conceptual understanding: The effect of the interaction between clicker use and pedagogy on learning. Computers & Education, 111, 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.017

Van Seters, J. R., Ossevoort, M. A., Tramper, J., & Goedhart, M. J. (2012). The influence of student characteristics on the use of adaptive e-learning material. Computers & Education, 58(3), 942–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.002

Whiteley, T. R. (2006). Using the socratic method and Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain to enhance online discussion, critical thinking, and student learning. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 33, 65–70. https://absel-ojs-ttu.tdl.org/absel/index.php/absel/article/view/499

Zhou, M., & Brown, D. (2015). Educational learning theories. Education Open Textbooks.

Downloads

Published

2022-06-10

How to Cite

Farani, R. (2022). Revisit Bloom’s Taxonomy: A reflection of education in a digital era. Journal of English Language and Pedagogy, 5(1), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.36597/jelp.v5i1.9347

Issue

Section

Artikel

Citation Check