Abstract: thinking named knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Specified patterns of questions lead to each kind of thinking; so a teacher who masters the six categories can classify the questions he asks in recitation, homework, and evaluation to determine whether students axe receiving an adequate variety in thinking experience. A few teachers find that they are intuitively good questioners, but a multitude of research studies shows that the majority of teachers offers a relatively narrow range of questions. The beauty of the taxonomy is that it not only provides a framework with which to measure the variety of questions but it also suggests what should be done to broaden the intellectual offerings. A science teacher, for example, who discovers that he offers few or no questions calling for creative thinking (synthesis) or evaluative ithinking can study the nature of questions in these categories and build them into (his lessons. Since ithe publication of Bloom's book, a number of other plans for classifying classroom thinking and questions have appeared. Some were a modification or redefinition of Bloom's ideas.2 Others, such as ithe description of five kinds of questions in Maurice J. Eash's book Reading and Thinking, were designed for special teaching areas.3 Several efforts have been made to simplify Bloom's system by defining fewer categories, such as remembering, understanding, and reasoning. Meredith Gall lists eleven systems for classifying classroom questions and undoubtedly many more have been
Publication Year: 1972
Publication Date: 1972-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 5
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot