9315(2)247~274

NTTU EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL, 2004, 15(2), 247274

Bloom

Bloom

Bloom

sophia3.cheng@msa.hinet.net

247

 15 2

Bloom

( 1998)

(
1998)

248

Bloom

( 1999)

(2001)
(2002)2002)

249

 15 2

Bloom

Bloom

(2000)

Bloom

1956 Bloom
Taxonomy of Educational objective,Handbook1:Cognitive Domain
Knowledge
Comprehension

Application
Analysis
Synthesis
Evaluation
Bloom

Bloom

(Anderson & Sosniak, 1994)
(active) (cognitive) (constructive
processes) (know knowledge) (how they
think, cognitive process)2003 2001
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
(knowledge dimension)
250

Bloom

(cognitive process dimension)(Anderson et al, 2001)

(what to teach)(retention)
(transfer) 1
(Anderson et al ,2001)

(Bloom,1956)

(Factual Knowledge)

(Conceptual Knowledge)

(Procedual Knowledge)
(Metacognitive

(Knowledge)

( Remember)

(Comprehension)

(Understand)

(Application)

(Apply)

(Analysis)

Analyze(Evaluate )

(Synthesis)

(Evaluate)

(Evaluation)

(Create)

Cognitive
Process
Dimension

1 Bloom ( Anderson et al2001)p268)

Bloom
(Anderson et al, 2001; Krathwhol, 2002)

Bloom
()
(factual knowledge)
(concept knowledge)(procedure knowledge)
(metacognition knowledge)(what)
251

 15 2

(how)

(control) (monitoring)
(regulation)

1.

(1)(knowledge of terminology)
:GMP()
(2) (knowledge of specific details and
elements)
:
2.(Conceptual Knowledge)

(1)(knowledge of classifications and categories)

:

(2)(knowledge of principles and generalizations)

:
Bc (knowledge of theories, models, and
structures)

:
3.

(1) (knowledge of subject-specific skills

and algorithms)
252

Bloom

(2) (knowledge of subject-specific

techniques and methods)

:
(3) (knowledge of criteria for determining when to use
appropriate procedures)

4.

(1) (strategic knowledge)

:

(2) () (knowledge about cognitive

tasks, including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge)

:
HowWhenWhy
(3) (self knowledge)

()

(hierarchy)(cumulative hierarchy)
(increasing
253

 15 2

complexity hierarchy)
(Krathwhol,2002)
1.(Remember)
(1)(Recognizing)

(2)(Recalling)()
2.(Understand)(
)(make sense)

(1)(Interpreting)
()(
)

(2)(Exemplifying)

(3)(Classifying) ( )
()

(4)(Summarizing)

(5)(Inferring)

(1,2,3,5,8,13,21,?)(A:B=C:D)
(6)(Comparing)(
)

(7)(Explaining)
254

Bloom

3.(Apply)
()

(1)(Executing)

(2)(Implementing)

4.(Analyze)

(1) (Differentiating)

(2)(Organizing)

(3)(Attributing)

5.(Evaluate)
(criteria)(standards)
(1)(Checking)
(2)(Critiquing)
6.(Create)
255

 15 2

(1)(Generating)

(2)(Planning)

(3)(producing)
() Bloom
Bloom

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
--- (verb-noun
relationship)

Bloom
()
256

Bloom

()------
1.8-a-04
2.n n

3. 3x

2 x 2 + 5 x 1 x 3

a x bx

c d
()------
1.8-s-35

2.
3. L1L2L3L L1//L2
L1//L3 L1 L2 L
()------
1.8-a-24
2.

3.

y = 2( x 1) 2

(A)

(-1,0) (B) X=1 (C) X (D)(1,8)

()------
1.8-s-11

2.

3.
(A) (B) (C) (D)
()------
1.5-n-2 23 5
2. 2 5 3

3. 432907 3
257

 15 2

()------
1.S-4-12
2.

3. (1)--(10)

()------
1.9-s-07

2.

3. PA PB CD
PC * PA = PD * PB
()------
1.8-a-14
2.
3. 20 x

+ 9 x 20 =(ax+b)(cx+d)

ab-cd=

()------
1.8-s-16
2.

3. ABCD AH BC ABC = 60 AH = 2
AD = 6

ABCD

258

Bloom

( 92)

Bloom

N-3-13---

1.1

Aa

Ca
259

 15 2

1
1.1 2

A Aa C
Ca
N-3-15---

3.1

3 3.1

B
S-1-02---

260

Bloom

Bloom

2 5
80
67
58

70
60
50

58
50

4138

40

33
29

30
13

0 00 0

10

20

( 2)

120

100
86
80 82

100
80

60
40
06

1410 12
0

0 00 0

10

20

261

 15 2

( 3)

120

100100100

100
80

67

60
40

33

20

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

( 4)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

81
71
62

43

43

38

29
14
0

13
0

0 0 0 0

( 5)

262

Bloom

6 9
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

67
535550

4341
40

33

43

10
0

000

0000

0000

( 6)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

80
62

57

41 38 4338

20
000

000

000

0000

( 7)

263

 15 2

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

75

71

42
33

34
29

33
29 29
25

0000

0000

0000

( 8)

75

80
60
40

50
4447

40

56
43

25

20

10
000

00

5
00 0

0000

( 9)

264

Bloom

Bloom

()
Bloom
()

(Bransford,
Brown & Cocking, 1999)
(Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992;
Snow,Corno, & Jackson, 1996)

()
Bloom

265

 15 2

Bloom
Bloom
1.

2.
3.

Bloom

Bloom

Bloom

Bloom

266

Bloom

2 Bloom

1-15

1-10

9-10 9-13

9-13

( Anderson et al ,2001, p167)

( 18)

Bloom

Bloom

267

 15 2

1 A
2

3 C

Bloom

N-2-13

N-2-13

N-2-13

Bloom

Bloom 1.
268

Bloom

Bloom A

Bloom 3.1

Bloom Ca

3.1

Ca

Bloom 2.1
Bloom B

2.1

269

 15 2

3
3

270

Bloom

Bloom

Bloom

(1999)-
()
271

 15 2

(2001)
2000
451-13
(1998)2577
(2002)
51~94

1998
2003
(2002)

95-123
(2003)Bloom
10594-106

Anderson, W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.)(2001). A taxonomy for learning,

teaching, and assessing: A revision of Blooms educational objectives.
NY: Longamn.
Anderson, L. K. & Sosniak, L. A. (Eds.)(1994). Blooms taxonomy: A
forty-year retrospective. Chicago, IL: The National Society for the study
of Education.
Bloom, B.S., Engelahar, M. D., Frust, E.J., Hill, W. H. & Krathwohl,
D.R.(1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objective,Handbook1:Cognitive
Domain. N.Y. : David McKay.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Krathwohl, D. R.(2002). A revision of Blooms taxonomy: an overview.
Theory Into Practice. 41(4), 212-219.
Pintrich, P. R. & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students motivational beliefs and
272

Bloom

their cognitive engagement in classroom tasks. In D. Schunk & J.

Meece(Eds), Student perceptions in the classroom: Causes and
consequences (pp149-183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbum.
Snow, R., Corno, L. & Jackson, D. (1996). Individual differences in affective
and cognitive functions. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee(Eds), Handbook of
educational psychology(pp243-310). NY: Macmillan.

273

2004.9.21

204.11.22

2004.12.9

 15 2

Theory and practice of the revision of Bloom's

taxonomy of educational objectives--Take
competence indicators of nine-year integrated
mathematical curriculum as an example
Huey-Ru Cheng

Sieh-Hwa Lin

Abstract
One of the major features of Grade 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines
(Ministry of Education, 1998) is the concept of subject knowledge
being replaced by core competence in expectation of bringing up the
"lifelong learning" abilities of students.
However, implementation of the new curriculum has encountered
many challenges. One of the challenges is how educators interpret and
transform these guidelines. In this article, the authors try to develop the
competence indicators in learning area of mathematics studies based on
Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Analysis
methods that might be helpful to teachers and textbook developers in
understanding the indicators, are also reported. In addition, this article
categorizes the competence indicators and provides assessment
examples for math achievement evaluation. Finally, the application of
Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in teaching, assessment,
and further studies is discussed.
Keywords mathematics studies, competence indicators, Bloom's Taxonomy,
educational objectives

Huey-Ru Cheng: doctoral student, Graduate School of Educational Psychology and

Counseling, National Taiwan Normal Universitysophia3.cheng@msa.hinet.net
Sieh-hwa Lin: Associate Professor, Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling,
National Taiwan Normal University
This paper is a part of the research Performance Indicators and Methods for Assessing
Student Achievements on Grade 1-9 Curriculum which was presided by Associate Professor
Sieh-hwa Lin
274