When Bloom meets Goldilocks…

Teachers know very well that the questions or activities they set for teaching reading must be meaningful and thought provoking. By referring to Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy, a very useful reference for setting educational objectives, teachers may generate interesting but challenging questions or activities to stretch the potential of learners. The table below provides a summary description of Bloom’s taxonomy:

Taxonomy category / Involves…
Evaluation
/ judgments about the value of material and methods for given purposes
Synthesis / the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, etc. and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clearly there before
Analysis / the breakdown of a communication into its constituent elements or parts such that the relative hierarchy of ideas is made clear or the relations between ideas expressed are made explicit
Application / the use of abstractions (in the form of general ideas, rules of procedures or generalized methods) in particular and concrete situations
Comprehension / understanding of the literal message contained in a communication through translation (paraphrasing the communication from one language or form to another), interpretation (inferences, generalizations or summarizations produced by individuals) or extrapolation (extension of trends or tendencies beyond the given data to determine implications, consequences etc.)
Knowledge / the recall of specifics and universals, the recall of methods and processes, or the recall of patterns, structure or setting

It must be noted that when using Bloom’s taxonomy as a reference for designing reading questions or activities, teachers should avoid having a simplistic interpretation. For instance, regarding synthesis, learners may have to discern a pattern from diverse elements, and put parts together to form a whole, with emphasis on creating a new meaning or structure. They may also have to integrate information from several sources to solve a problem, revise the process to improve the outcome, or derive a set of abstract relations. As for evaluation, learners should be able to make judgments about the value of ideas in terms of internal evidence and external criteria.

In April 2004, teachers of SKH St Peter’s Primary Schools (AM & PM) attempted to make reference to Bloom’s taxonomy when designing a booklet to support the learning and teaching of a very well-known story “Goldilocks and the Three Bears”. They all found Bloom’s taxonomy extremely stimulating. They noticed that most of the reading questions or activities they designed in the past mainly related to the recall of knowledge. By referring to the taxonomy categories, they could pay more attention to other kinds of cognition including the deeperinterpretation of knowledge, theapplicationof knowledge and the analysisof the situations in which knowledge was used. Inspired by the taxonomy, they tried to devise a variety of reading questions and activities so as to teach the reading skills in depth.

When designing the booklet, teachers, first of all, took into account the learning targets for KS1, including:

To interpret and use simple given information (KSb)

To develop an awareness and an enjoyment of the basic sound patterns of English in imaginative texts through activities such as participating in action rhymes (ESa)

To respond to characters and events in simple imaginative and other narrative texts (ESb)

To give expression to imaginative ideas (ESc)

Therefore, in the booklet, various activities were incorporated to encourage learners to thoroughly understand the interconnections between different events in the story, enjoy themselves in the action rhyme, relate themselves to Goldilocks, and express their preference as well as imaginative ideas. Teachers also tried to elicit diversified responses from learners. The following table provides a description of the teacher-designed booklet in relation to the reading skills involved in the learning and teaching process, and teachers’ reflection on how Bloom’s taxonomy was connected to their instructional design.

Different parts of the booklet / The reading skills involved in the learning and teaching process / Teachers’ reflection on how Bloom’s taxonomy was connected to their instructional design
/ Learners used knowledge of basic letter-sound relationships to read aloud the rhyme. They could enjoy the basic sound patterns when participating in an action rhyme. / Through participating in the action rhyme, learners were introduced to the three main characters of the story. They also developed an awareness of the rhyming words used in the rhyme (e.g. around-ground, clap-lap, tongue-done). Teachers found that all learners showed great interest in the action rhyme, and that most could recite the rhyme on their own with appropriate expression, intonation and actions. However, what was expected of learners in this activity was simply the recall of knowledge.
/ Learners read “Part 1” of the story to outline the setting of the story in the form of a simple diagram. / In this part, learners were supported to set the scene for reading and exploring the story. When they were confronted with the diagram of the setting, they were expected to know what to look for (i.e. Who? When? Where?). Most of them were able to identify the main ideas provided in the reading text to complete the diagram. This would then be related to the taxonomy category of comprehension. However, teachers felt that interpreting the setting of thestory might sound unfamiliar to most primary students. They, therefore, provided some expressions for learners to match with the question words. When learners were supported in such a way, the intellectual demand emphasized in the activity would probably be reduced. Hopefully, with more practice, learners could gradually learn this reading strategy (i.e. identifying the setting of a story) and develop competence in analyzing the setting of the story even when it was not explicitly stated in the reading text.
/ Learners read “Part 2” of the story to locate specific information in a short text, identify key words for the main idea in a sentence, and make a guess on the size of their bowls through drawing. / In this part, learners were expected to recall and recognize factual but specific information provided in the reading text. This corresponds to the knowledge category of the taxonomy.
/ Learners read “Part 3” of the story to explain why the little girl was called Goldilocks and propose a new name for the girl. / In this part, learners were firstly asked to work out the literal meaning of Goldilocks based on their linguistic knowledge of the small words (i.e. “gold” and “locks”).
Learners were then required to propose a new name for Goldilocks, and their responses are as follows:
“Her new name is Barbie.”
“Her new name is Big Eyes.”
“Her new name is Stupid girl.”
“Her new name is Supergirl.”
Teachers found that most learners could make use of their knowledge of the world (e.g. “Barbie” and “Supergirl”) or the characteristics of Goldilocks (e.g. “big eyes” and “stupid”) when suggesting a new name for her.
/ Learners read “Part 4” of the story to locate specific information in a short text, identify key words for the main idea in a sentence, and relate the key words to the appropriate adjectives through matching. / Like Part 2, this part seemed to involve mainly the recall and recognition of knowledge. However, to make the multiple choice questions more challenging to learners, teachers deliberately urged them to go beyond the immediate context and make reference to the ideas provided in the preceding sentence / paragraph. In other words, learners could not directly lift the answers from the reading text. Understanding the connections of ideas rather than direct recognition of information was required in this part.
/ Learners read “Part 5” of the story to explain their preference and design a new chair for themselves. / Learners’ explanations to their new design are as follows:
“I like this chair because it is red, orange, yellow and purple.”
“I like this chair because it is comfortable.”
“I like this chair because it is beautiful.”
Teachers found that most learners could activate their prior knowledge (including colors and various adjectives) to provide an explanation that matched well with their design. Deeper understanding and an evaluative stancewas required in this part since learners had to give a reasonable explanation to their preference and their new design, though the reasons given by primary students were relatively simple.
/ Learners read “Part 6” of the story to locate relevant information for the speech bubbles. / In this part, learners should understand the features of different text-types when rephrasing the expressions provided in the narrative text into direct speech in the speech bubbles. The ability to rephrase ideas expressed in different language forms is an indication of comprehension as stated in Bloom’s taxonomy. Indeed, lots of hints for rephrasing were provided in Parts 4 and 5 of the story where most of Goldilocks’ expressions had already been presented in direct speech.
/ Learners read the rest of the story, and had to study five major events in the story in order to sequence the events and match pictures to the events in groups (as class work) and individually (as homework). / In this part, learners were expected to work out the interconnection of the major events in the story through sequencing. Such skill in comprehending the interrelationship among the ideas in a reading text would be related to the taxonomy category of analysis. But it should be noted that since “Goldilocks and the Three Bears” was a very famous story, most learners might have already learned it by heart. They could simply sequence the story based on their prior knowledge rather than the cohesive devices used in the text. However, teachers felt that this kind of sequencing activity, whether it was based on a familiar text or not, was still very challenging to young learners. They, therefore, decided to carry it out in groups first and then individually so as to boost confidence and alleviate anxiety.
/ Learners expressed their personal feeling towards Goldilocks, and rated different parts of the story and the characters through coloring the smileys. / In this part, learners were encouraged to express their preference and make personal judgment. It is considered as a preliminary form of evaluation.
/ Learners suggested what other things Goldilocks could find in the cottage, and extended the story by proposing what would happen to Goldilocks after she left the cottage. /

In the first question, learners were required to suggest the probable objects that Goldilocks could find in the cottage. In application, they would be expected to suggest things that would vary in size or condition for the three bears. Below are learners’ responses to the first question:

Set a

“She could find cups.”
“She could find pillows.”
“She could find trousers, dresses and shoes.

Set b

“She could find a cat, a mouse and a door.”
Teachers noticed that most learners could relate themselves well to the story by suggesting relevant objects that might vary in size or condition for the three bears (Set a). Some were not able to do so, and they could merely give suggestions based on their prior knowledge and experience (Set b).
In the second question, learners were required to extend the story beyond the given reading text. Such extrapolation of the probable development of the story would correspond to the taxonomy category of comprehension. Learners’ responses to the second question are as follows:
Set a:
“After Goldilocks left the cottage, she went to a big garden. She got bananas and an apple.”
“After Goldilocks left the cottage, she went home and did her homework.”
Set b:
“After Goldilocks left the cottage, she went to the next cottage.”
“After Goldilocks left the cottage,she said sorry to the three bears.”
“After Goldilocks left the cottage, she went home and said sorry to mum.”
Set c:
“After Goldilocks left the cottage, she ran out of the forest and went home. She was very tired and went to sleep.”
“After Goldilocks left the cottage,she returned to the cottage and said sorry to the three bears. They became good friends.”
There was a wide spectrum of learner performance. Most learners were not so used to simulating themselves as Goldilocks, and so what they suggested seemed to reflect more on their personal interest than Goldilocks’ (Set a).
But some learners could relate themselves well to the story by suggesting a relevant ending (Set b). Some could even elaborate more on it (Set c). This would involve a deeper understanding of how the ideas could be reasonably extended and consistently connected to provide a probable development of the story, thus implying a certain degree of application,analysis and even synthesis.

Bloom’s taxonomy did stimulate a lot of inspiring ideas for designing interesting but challenging reading questions or activities. Having made more conscious effort in addressing different taxonomy categories in the design of their reading instruction, teachers of SKH St Peter’s Primary Schools (AM & PM) found Bloom’s taxonomy a rather handy tool for developing and reviewing their instructional techniques in teaching reading skills. They felt that Bloom’s taxonomy could enable them to reflect more on the interrelationship between language input and expected outcomes. They became more aware of the fact that the intellectual demand imposed on learners could be flexibly adjusted according to the language support provided to them. Bearing this mind, they would attempt to design questions or activities requiring higher levels of cognition in learners.

In the process of learning and teaching, teachers began to examine more closely and articulate more explicitly how primary students’ responses might vary when they learned to read. Impressed by learners’ diversified responses, they all reflected that given an open-ended question or activity (e.g. extending the story), different learners might produce answers corresponding to different taxonomy categories (say comprehension, application and analysis) depending on their language ability, personal interest and prior knowledge. Such diversified responses would provide very rich data to inform future planning and teaching (e.g. deciding on the focus of reading instruction and devising appropriate follow-up measures.) The challenge ahead would be to think of what learning experiences could be incorporated in their instructional design to elicit more in-depth cognition in learners.

Connecting Bloom’s taxonomy to their instructional design, teachers of SKH St Peter’s Primary Schools (AM & PM) were happy to say that Bloom and Goldilocks joined hand in teaching pupils to read with understanding. How about trying your hands on using the taxonomy in our reading task design?

Reference:

Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). (1956).Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay.

Curriculum Development Council. (2004). English Language Education: Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide (Primary 1 – 6). Hong Kong: Education and Manpower Bureau.

1