Bloom's Taxonomy: Core Critical Thinking Skills

Blooms Taxonomyfaciones Core Critical Thinking Skillspaul And Elde

Bloom's taxonomy. Facione's core critical thinking skills. Paul and Elde's elements of thought. Compare and contrast these models. What do you see as their strengths and weaknesses? What do they share in common? What does synthesize mean within the context of Bloom's taxonomy and Granello's 2001 article, "Promoting Cognitive Complexity in Graduate Written Work"? How could you imagine using each model as a practitioner-scholar working in your specialization? Give an example of how you would use each model to evaluate some content in one of the articles you located for your research project.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The development of critical thinking skills and cognitive complexity is essential for academic success and professional effectiveness, especially within graduate-level scholarship. Various conceptual frameworks, including Bloom's Taxonomy, Facione's Core Critical Thinking Skills, and Paul and Elder’s Elements of Thought, have been influential in shaping educational practices and comprehension strategies. This paper aims to compare and contrast these models, highlighting their strengths, weaknesses, shared features, and relevance within the context of practicing as a scholar. Additionally, the concept of synthesis within Bloom’s taxonomy and Granello's (2001) framework will be examined, illustrating how these models can be applied practically to evaluate scholarly content.

Comparing Bloom's Taxonomy, Facione's Skills, and Paul & Elder's Elements

Bloom's taxonomy, established by Benjamin Bloom and colleagues in 1956, is a hierarchical classification of cognitive skills ranging from lower-order to higher-order processes: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation (Bloom et al., 1956). This taxonomy serves as a guide for educators to design curriculum and assessments that promote deeper understanding and critical thinking (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). A notable strength of Bloom’s taxonomy is its structured approach, making it easier for practitioners to develop learning objectives that foster progressive cognitive development. However, critics argue that its hierarchical nature may oversimplify the complexity of thought processes and neglect the interconnectedness of cognitive skills (Krathwohl, 2002).

Facione's (1990) Core Critical Thinking Skills emphasize specific cognitive sub-components necessary for critical reasoning. These include Interpretation, Analysis, Evaluation, Inference, Explanation, and Self-Regulation (Facione, 1990). One of the strength of Facione’s model is its focus on skills directly linked to reasoning processes, which are applicable across disciplines. Its weaknesses involve a lack of explicit hierarchical structure and potential difficulty in operationalizing these skills within curricular designs (Facione, 2015).

Paul and Elder's Elements of Thought (2006) frame critical thinking within eight interconnected elements: purpose, questions, information, inferences, assumptions, concepts, implications, and point of view (Elder & Paul, 2006). This model emphasizes the interconnectedness of components involved in reasoning and encourages reflective thinking. Its strength lies in fostering awareness of one's own thought processes and biases, which is crucial for advanced scholarship. Conversely, it can be perceived as broad and somewhat abstract, making assessment of mastery challenging.

Shared Features and Differences

All three models prioritize the development of higher-order thinking skills necessary for critical analysis and reasoning— central to academic and professional success. They share an emphasis on evaluation, analysis, and inference, which are foundational to effective scholarship. However, Bloom’s taxonomy is more hierarchical and structured, while Facione’s skills are more process-oriented without a strict hierarchy, and Paul and Elder focus on elements that interplay dynamically during reasoning.

Bloom’s taxonomy traditionally emphasizes cognitive development stages, which can guide curriculum sequencing. In contrast, Facione and Paul and Elder emphasize the qualities and components of critical thought processes, fostering reflective and self-regulatory thinking. These distinctions influence their application: Bloom facilitates curriculum design, whereas Facione and Paul and Elder support metacognitive skills and reflective practice.

Synthesizing within Bloom’s Taxonomy and Granello’s Framework

Within Bloom's taxonomy, synthesizing involves combining different elements or ideas to create new, original concepts, positioned as the highest cognitive process (Bloom et al., 1956). Granello (2001) expands on this by advocating for promoting cognitive complexity in graduate work, stressing students’ ability to integrate multiple perspectives and construct sophisticated arguments (Granello, 2001). Synthesis, therefore, represents a peak in cognitive development where learners demonstrate the capacity to connect disparate ideas innovatively and critically.

Applied practically, synthesis facilitates the creation of novel solutions or comprehensive conceptual frameworks essential for scholarly research. It requires analytical and evaluative skills learned in lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy to generate integrated, complex insights—a process aligned with graduate-level expectations.

Application as a Practitioner-Scholar

As a practitioner-scholar, each model offers practical tools for evaluating scholarly content. Bloom’s taxonomy can guide the assessment of the depth of analysis in an article. For example, evaluating whether a source demonstrates comprehension, application, analysis, or synthesis. Facione’s model can help scrutinize the reasoning quality, such as evaluating the interpretation of data or the inference process. Paul and Elder’s Elements enable reflection on the reasoning process, questioning assumptions, and biases present in the content.

For instance, when analyzing a research article, I would employ Bloom's levels to determine if the author has moved beyond mere description to synthesis of ideas. Using Facione’s skills, I would evaluate the clarity of inferences and the soundness of evidence. With Paul and Elder’s elements, I would contemplate the purpose, perspectives, and underlying assumptions influencing the argument’s strength. These combined approaches foster a more holistic critique and understanding of scholarly work.

Conclusion

The models of Bloom’s taxonomy, Facione’s core critical thinking skills, and Paul and Elder’s elements of thought collectively enrich the conceptual toolkit for educators and scholars committed to developing advanced cognitive and reasoning skills. While each has distinctive features, their shared focus on higher-order thinking underscores their importance in graduate education and scholarly practice. Applying these models enhances critical evaluation, encouraging synthesis, reflection, and analytical rigor necessary for scholarly excellence. As a practitioner-scholar, integrating these frameworks can profoundly improve the depth and quality of research evaluation and knowledge synthesis, ultimately advancing the scholarly community.

References

  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
  2. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay Company.
  3. Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2006). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Foundation for Critical Thinking.
  4. Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. The Delphi Report.
  5. Facione, P. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment.
  6. Granello, D. H. (2001). Promoting cognitive complexity in graduate written work. Journal of counseling & development, 79(4), 432-441.
  7. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
  8. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). The talk about thinking: Executing the critical thinking competencies. Journal of Developmental Education, 29(2), 28-29.
  9. Granello, D. H. (2001). Promoting cognitive complexity in graduate written work. Journal of counseling & development, 79(4), 432-441.
  10. Granello, D. H. (2001). Promoting cognitive complexity in graduate written work. Journal of counseling & development, 79(4), 432-441.

Related Assignments