n the extent of strategic expectation and authority that is built into each, which depends on your situation. Hence it is possible to make a case for Bloom's original order shown above, or Anderson and Krathwhol's version of 2001 (which simply inverts levels 5 and 6).
The above version is the original, and according to the examples and assumptions presented in the above matrix, is perfectly appropriate and logical. I also personally believe the above order to be appropriate for corporate and industrial training and development if 'Evaluation' is taken to represent executive or strategic assessment and decision-making, which is effectively at the pinnacle of the corporate intellect-set.
I believe inversion of Synthesis and Evaluation carries a risk unless it is properly qualified. This is because the highest skill level absolutely must involve strategic evaluation; effective management - especially of large activities or organisations - relies on strategic evaluation. And clearly, strategic evaluation, is by implication included in the 'Evaluation' category.
I would also argue that in order to evaluate properly and strategically, we need first to have learned and experienced the execution of the strategies (ie, to have completed the synthesis step) that we intend to evaluate.
However, you should feel free to invert levels 5 and 6 if warranted by your own particular circumstances, particularly if your interpretation of 'Evaluation' is non-strategic, and not linked to decision-making. Changing the order of the levels is warranted if local circumstances alter the degree of difficulty. Remember, the taxonomy is based in the premise that the degree of difficulty increases through the levels - people need to learn to walk before they can run - it's that simple. So, if your situation causes 'Synthesis' to be more challenging than 'Evaluation', then change the order of the levels accordingly (ie., invert 5 and 6 like Anderson and Krathwhol did), so that you train people in the correct order.
2. bloom's taxonomy - affective domain - (feeling, emotions - attitude - 'feel')
Bloom's Taxonomy second domain, the Affective Domain, was detailed by Bloom, Krathwhol and Masia in 1964 (Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Volume II, The Affective Domain. Bloom, Krathwohl and Masia.) Bloom's theory advocates this structure and sequence for developing attitude - also now commonly expressed in the modern field of personal development as 'beliefs'. Again, as with the other domains, the Affective Domain detail provides a framework for teaching, training, assessing and evaluating the effectiveness of training and lesson design and delivery, and also the retention by and affect upon the learner or trainee.
|level||category or 'level'||behaviour descriptions||examples of experience, or demonstration and evidence to be measured||'key words' (verbs which describe the activity to be trained or measured at each level)|
|1||Receive||open to experience, willing to hear||listen to teacher or trainer, take interest in session or learning experience, take notes, turn up, make time for learning experience, participate passively||ask, listen, focus, attend, take part, discuss, acknowledge, hear, be open to, retain, follow, concentrate, read, do, feel|
|2||Respond||react and participate actively||participate actively in group discussion, active participation in activity, interest in outcomes, enthusiasm for action, question and probe ideas, suggest interpretation||react, respond, seek clarification, interpret, clarify, provide other references and examples, contribute, question, present, cite, become animated or excited, help team, write, perform|
|3||Value||attach values and express personal opinions||decide worth and relevance of ideas, experiences; accept or commit to particular stance or action||argue, challenge, debate, refute, confront, justify, persuade, criticise,|
|4||Organise or Conceptualize values||reconcile internal conflicts; develop value system||qualify and quantify personal views, state personal position and reasons, state beliefs||build, devel