The Curious Case of Benjamin Bloom
How do we learn? What constitutes comprehension of a particular subject? What about mastery and the ability to improvise? These kinds of questions trail about behind me constantly like the wake of a high speed boat. I love to learn, and I discover more every day about how I best acquire certain types of skills. Early on in life, I developed ‘tricks’ to memorize facts, and even entire pages of words. My tactics were nothing more than brute force memorization, and I quickly abandoned them as I matured and became convinced that the real test of my knowledge and comprehension lie in whether or not I could extrapolate and improvise based on prior knowledge, and not simply repeat facts.
In a recent discussion with my sister (a school teacher with her Masters in Education) on this very subject, I learned about Benjamin Bloom. In 1956, Bloom – an educational psychologist – proposed a structure to help identify the process of learning and assist teachers in formulating objectives to help guide students through each phase of learning, and not inadvertently mire them in the early stages of the process. This structure became known as “Bloom’s Taxonomy” (of the cognitive domain). In short, he theorized that learning moves through the following processes:
- Knowledge – ability to recall data from memory.
- Comprehension – ability to construct meaning from learned data, understand & interpret the facts.
- Application – solving new problems by using the acquired knowledge in new ways.
- Analysis – ability to examine and break down information into parts, identify causes & find evidence to support new conclusions.
- Synthesis – compile information together in different ways to create new patterns & solutions.
- Evaluation – defend conclusions and make judgments on the validity of ideas or quality of work.
In the 1990’s, Lorin Anderson – a student of Blooms’, came up with a “revised” taxonomy, which can be seen on the right below:
| Bloom’s Taxonomy | Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy |
So – how does this apply to us in our daily lives? Two experiences from my work as a software developer come to mind. Several years ago, the company I worked for hired a mid-level developer for the team I ran. This person held two degrees in IT, had a good resume and a good attitude. However, it became apparent early on that they were simply repeating steps they had learned in school, but didn’t understand development at a conceptual level – at least not enough to improvise and create without immediate supervision. In a different instance, the company hired a junior developer. It’s expected in these circumstances to have a lot of close supervision, but over the first year on the job this developer didn’t progress past the basic steps of following pre-determined instructions. In both cases, the most damaging fact was that neither truly grasped that they weren’t strong enough on concepts; they thought reproducing someone else’s steps was sufficient.
Whether I’ve been in an official leadership position or not, I’ve tried to better understand how I can help people in those positions grow past “rote-based” work ethic into what I believe is not only a higher standard of excellence and quality of work, but also a much more fulfilling career. I admit it’s difficult for me to relate at times. For me, the first criteria I hold myself to on whether or not I truly understand a concept is if I can create something original using that knowledge. In one of the cases mentioned above, the developer was motivated when they moved into an even more demanding consulting job. In the other case, the developer was motivated when their job was a stake. Their reactions are understandable, since motivational sources are as unique as personalities. The members of the team I am currently part of are motivated by a love for learning (as am I). I think this pays the highest dividends both for the individual employee and the company. Employees who love to learn are rarely ever the kind of employees who need to be closely supervised (for wasted time or productivity), and they’re very likely to truly love what they do – which results in higher morale, greater productivity and cutting edge innovation.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:07 AM
[...] my last post I discussed Benjamin Bloom and how Bloom’s Taxonomy can be a guide to helping us determine if [...]
February 4th, 2010 at 1:28 PM
Interesting. Concerning Bloom’s ‘revised’ taxonomy, I’ve always thought of synthesis as a first step toward creation or creative activity. I’m curious as to why the distinction for young students.
February 5th, 2010 at 5:52 AM
Alan – I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to when you said you were curious "as to why the distinction for young students". Can you elaborate on that for me?