Bloom's taxonomy and critical thinking in teacher education

The article analyzes and compares Bloom's traditional and revised taxonomy, focusing on the cognitive domain and, in particular, on knowledge. A two–dimensional model of Bloom's revised taxonomy is proposed for consideration, since an interesting situation has developed in Kazakhstan education now - the hierarchy of cognitive skills is used from the classical taxonomy, while the concept of active verbs is already used from the revised one. We believe that it is necessary in this case to fully use the revised concept, and the article provides an example of a matrix for formulating educational goals. Particular attention is paid to the cognitive skill of application, which some classify as the lowest level of thinking, while others consider it the highest. The article suggests that this skill is transitional, echoing both levels. In addition, the article explores the relationship between critical thinking and Bloom's taxonomy in the context of teacher training. It is considered how the use of Bloom's taxonomy can contribute to the development of critical thinking in future teachers, and what advantages this may have in educational practice. The article provides a better understanding of the evolution of the taxonomy and descriptions of cognitive skills and abilities presented in Bloom's taxonomy, their role in the formation of competent teachers with the ability to think critically and effectively apply knowledge in the learning environment.

1. A Committee of College and University Examiners. Taxonomy of educational objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals. HANDBOOK 1 Cognitive domain / ed. Benjamin S. Bloom et al. LONGMANS, 1956.

2. Williams M., Lively M., Harper J. Higher Order Thinking Skills: Tools for Bridging the Gap // Foreign Lang Ann. 1994. Vol. 27, № 3. P. 405–426.

3. Anderson L.W. et al. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Pearson Education, 2001.

4. Nussbaum E.M., Edwards O. V. Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices // Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2011. Vol. 20, № 3. P. 443–488.

5. Ngum N.D. The Benefits of Critical Thinking Skills and Techniques for Teaching these Skills in the Classroom for Quality Education // African journal of Social Sciences. 2019. Vol. 10, № 3. P. 99–106.

6. Soyadı B.B.Y. Creative and Critical Thinking Skills in Problem-based Learning Environments // Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity. 2015. Vol. 2, № 2. P. 71.

7. White B.Y., Frederiksen J.R. Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students // Cogn Instr. 1998. Vol. 16, № 1. P. 3–118.

8. Zhan Y. et al. Effects of online peer assessment on higher‐order thinking: A meta‐analysis // British Journal of Educational Technology. 2023. Vol. 54, № 4. P. 817–835.

9. Van Damme D. et al. Assessing and developing critical‐thinking skills in higher education // Eur J Educ. 2023. Vol. 58, № 3. P. 369–386.

10. Sinnewe E., Yao D., De Zwaan L. Developing critical thinking: An examination of contemporary practices in accounting // Accounting and Finance. John Wiley and Sons Inc, 2023.

11. Orakci Ş. Structural relationship among academic motivation, academic self-efficacy, problem solving skills, creative thinking skills, and critical thinking skills // Psychol Sch. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2023. Vol. 60, № 7. P. 2173–2194.

12. Bezanilla M.J. et al. Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: The teacher’s view // Think Skills Creat. 2019. Vol. 33. P. 100584.

13. Brears L. et al. Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century Using PBL as an Integrating Strategy in Science and Technology Education. // Design and Technology Education. 2011. Vol. 16, № 1. P. 36–46.

14. Trilling B., Fadel C. 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times. 2009. 1–256 p.

15. Eva K.W. et al. How Can I Know What I Don’t Know? Poor Self Assessment in a Well-Defined Domain // Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2004. Vol. 9, № 3. P. 211–224.