Talk:Bloom's taxonomy

message: What is the opinion of scientists in areas like psychology and education on this theory? Is it used in modern education practice? -- Beland 21:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloom's Taxonomy 

message: As a teacher in California, I use Bloom's all the time.  Some of the most useful Bloom's resources are lists of verbs that go with the various cognitive domains.  Adding some of those or external links to sites that list those would be nice.
Jmunger 22:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloom's Verbs 

message: I think that a Needs Expansion tag would be more appropriate.  Fishal 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: A differentiation should be made of Bloom's Taxonomy versus other Educational Taxonomies.  If I want to know what Bloom's theory was I want to see that, if I want to see other theories, these should be distinctly labeled as something else.  Taking Bloom's ideas and modifying them and passing them off as Bloom's isn't good encyclopedic practice.  KarenEdda (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Differentiation

message: I came to this page wanting to learn about the subject. I'm not figuring out the diagram accompanying the page from the text of the page. The diagram needs a better explanation or tie in with the text.
Anniepoo (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for explanation 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was page moved —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives → Bloom's Taxonomy — The main article name for this page should really be "Bloom's Taxonomy", not "Taxonomy of Educational Objectives".  The former is the common name for the idea set started by Handbook I that Bloom edited.  The latter is a partial title of Handbook I. June1969 (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This makes me think of Gene Wilder, by the way. —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Move 

message: The diagram in the "cognitive" section is both confusing and misleading. It uses the terminology of the revised taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) but is located beside a description of the original taxonomy. To make matters worse, it shows the top three categories as parallel, which has been suggested by some (according to the article, though it doesn't even say who), but NOT by Anderson & Krathwohl. Anderson & Krathwohl consider all 6 categories hierarchical. I suggest that, until the article can be cleaned up, this diagram be removed. Nasulikid (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Diagram 

message: I have tried to make sense of the article, and cannot. It starts Bloom's taxonomy is a way of distinguishing the fundamental questions within the education system. 
*What education system? does this mean the system of schools and colleges in some unspecified country? If yes, then what country? If no, then what does it mean?
*"Fundamental questions" – what are these questions? Can we have some examples of them?
*"Distinguishing" - if the questions are fundamental, it seems odd that anyone should find it hard to tell them apart.
Maproom (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the opening sentence has been rewritten, and now gives a good explanation of what Bloom's taxonomy is. Maproom (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this article about? 

message: The Understanding sections begins: "Comprehension involves demonstrating understanding of facts and ideas…" but should instead start with Understanding involves. Not quite sure where to go after that, though I'll note that "comprehension" and "understanding" are pretty much synonyms, so maybe another term is needed in there; saying "Understanding involves comprehension" seems tautological. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A random IP user , and I just . This seems to resolve the issue you noted. Biogeographist (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understanding needs new lead sentence