Comments on: Bloom’s Taxonomy and the Purpose of Education

By: Dr Mbongeni. S.Mpungose

Dr Mbongeni. S.Mpungose — Sun, 20 Mar 2022 17:10:36 +0000

A very important article for Educators.

By: Steven Jonathan

Steven Jonathan — Wed, 04 Nov 2020 21:02:37 +0000

I appreciate the civil discourse on this topic, an all too rare occasion (if non-existent) in the public schools. There is no doubt that a recovery of the 5 intellectual virtues, understood and apprehended in their fullness, will advance a fuller recovery of the genuine liberal arts.
I am far less interested in my perspective than I am in understanding how Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas would articulate their approbation, affirmation, integration or rejection of Bloom’s theories on human intellection.
I don’t think we are actually headed in the same direction, which may be to your credit. I don’t have experience in the circles of leadership or otherwise in modern classical education, but I am kind of an informal expert in the methods, pedagogy and ideology of the modern public school. I have only read and followed you guys from the outside. I don’t see how Bloom’s can co-exist with a proper understanding of the genuine liberal arts, and perhaps we find ourselves at odds in our principle definitions- You make reference to Plato’s tripartite soul, head, heart and belly, is this the extent of your anthropology? or do you proceed into Aristotle’s De Anima fleshed out by Thomas’ treatment of man in the Summa? Would it be possible for you to give me a few essential definitions? That I might better understand your perspective?
Art
grammar
logic
liberal
virtue
wisdom
truth
You must know that our definitions of these very words in the public schools cannot co-exist in an intellectual honest and morally good authentic education. I thank you in advance for essential definitions, and any further thoughts you may have that may disabuse me of my errors. And I will thank you sincerely for pouring yourself into this project. It hardly matters that a soul like me disagrees, this is a very important topic for aspiring teachers and it may help many to engage in the right conversation. Peace and blessings to you Mr. Barney, Steven

By: Jason Barney

Jason Barney — Wed, 04 Nov 2020 19:06:21 +0000

Thanks for this follow-up as well. Perhaps as I get deeper into my full critique of Bloom’s and my articulation of how I think Aristotle’s intellectual virtues can restore and advance a fuller recovery of the genuine liberal arts tradition, my arguments will come more in line with your perspective. You have to remember that I’ve spent my teaching and school leadership career in classical education circles, where Bloom’s taxonomy could happily co-exist within “classical” ideas and resources with no awareness of the apparent contradictions. In a way, some at least of our disagreement could simply come out of the rhetorical stance I am taking vis-a-vis Bloom’s. My ultimate goal and intention is to break the chains of Bloom’s taxonomy and modern educational parlance about “thinking skills”. Once we shift our entire vision of the educational project further toward the five intellectual virtues as our primary aims (in various parts of the curriculum and school experience), then we will have re-envisioned education from top to bottom. Therefore, I think we’re heading for the same thing, but that you may just be a few steps ahead of me, and I feel the need to go slowly and carefully, so as to take as many with me as I can. Thanks again!

By: Steven Jonathan

Steven Jonathan — Wed, 04 Nov 2020 17:26:08 +0000

Thank you for you good and intelligent response Mr. Barney- I agree with you that we must plunder the Egyptians and that we ought to reject false dichotomies. I struggle with the definition of “clear goals” and reject modern education as I do modern psychology and for the same reasons. Not out of chronological snobbery either way for the present or the past but because as Anscombe said moral philosophy ought to be set aside until an adequate philosophy of psychology is developed. And an adequate philosophy cannot be developed around a false anthropology, a denial of objective truth and a denial of virtue and vice. Bloom was not a philosopher and his taxonomy is self-referencing and relative. There is nothing new in terms of naming “thinking skills” except that they are no longer intellectual, but material. I think the baby that was supposed to be in the bathwater was aborted.
Education is an intellectual and moral endeavor primarily. In a scientific reduction of “thinking skills” and in mistaking those thinking skills for the 3 acts of the mind and mistaking those skills for the 5 intellectual virtues seems to me, not a false dichotomy, but truly mutually exclusive theoretical considerations.
I have been working in the public schools for decades and working in impoverished areas makes the bankruptcies of modern education transparent in ways unnoticeable in more affluent communities. I have also seen how quickly authentic notions of the liberal arts and the classic works can have a dramatic effect on human souls.
I have extensively studied Dewey and Bloom in an attempt to plunder the Egyptians, but have been unsuccessful. In the absence of an intelligible counter on my part, we may have to conclude that I am a reactionary. Your articulations, and I did read you next article, were not helpful in elucidating a baby in the bathwater, but further inflamed my rejection of what I consider materially reduced theories and false goals. I admire your work and appreciate it even if I was unable to learn what you intended, because I have been struggling to figure out what troubles me about the Christian classical movements and you have shed much light on that for me.
I must stand in error in light of the present evidence (measurable evidence) due in part to my natural lack of talent and in light of the fact that you have done so much work here. But I will continue to try to articulate what I have been unable to clearly articulate here and if I manage to illustrate it better I will reach out, or if I learn of my errors I will extend gratitude. Blessings to you Mr. Barney

By: Jason Barney

Jason Barney — Wed, 04 Nov 2020 15:40:41 +0000

Good sir, thank you for your critical feedback, as I take it to mean you are engaging fully with my post. I hope that you do go on to read the next article and future posts. I think it is important to give the devil his due, and that is why I would engage positively as well as critically with Bloom’s project. I must say I disagree with your statement that “we cannot separate parts of his project from the reality that it is an example of scientism, materialism and subjectivism in its very aims”; we can and should plunder the Egyptians by taking what is valuable in their intellectual endeavors (even if disordered) and offering them up to God within a holistic worldview. Bloom’s idea or gesture, that we should have clear goals for our courses and classes is valuable and can serve as a helpful counter to postmodern relativism, as I argue in the second post. But I have no wish to argue for Bloom’s broader perspective or philosophical stance. The very point of my series, as you’ll see, is to take him to task and propose a reorientation of the educational project around Aristotle’s intellectual virtues. I have to say that I am a bit perplexed by your response that I am “playing on the wrong field” or rejecting transcendental realities or embracing nominalism. Perhaps, you could clarify how I have given that impression. It seems strange to me that you would shudder at a “hybrid of modern theories and ancient words”, but I suppose the issue at heart may be that I do not take Aristotle or Bloom, Pieper or Lewis, to have the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That God alone holds. The Divine Wisdom may speak through many sages, whether ancient or modern, but our understanding of the truth is never perfect. The transcendentals are real and “objective” (truth, goodness and beauty), but our encounter with them is always mixed in the human voices of this fallen world. We can only attempt to transcend toward them, and one of the best ways to do that is through synthesis rather than engaging in false dichotomies. We can engage in chronological snobbery by either neglecting the old because old, or the new because new. I am attempting to avoid either error. I hope that helps you understand my “disturbing” project, even if you still do not agree with the details of my attempt. Blessings to you!

By: Steven Jonathan

Steven Jonathan — Wed, 04 Nov 2020 14:47:50 +0000

This is a deeply disordered analysis of Bloom’s (though certainly charitable in a way) It is Aristotelian to see what is good in any work, but for Bloom, a material atheist, we cannot separate parts of his project from the reality that it is an example of scientism, materialism, and subjectivism in its very aims. Outcomes Based Education calls for these kinds of schemes, but outcomes based education is mutually exclusive from what Pieper or Lewis would call education- you’ve read Abolition of Man and Leisure, but somehow have missed this truth. The measurable outcomes suggested by Bloom are not only inappropriate outcomes for an authentic education, they are absent the considerations of real final and formal causes- modern psychology and neuroscience are in the land of naturalism and are constructed on a false anthropology- the authentic educator is bound by the truth of natural physics to reject apparent truths flowing from false premises. The affective in Bloom, was never a proper consideration of man’s heart and the psychomotor was never a proper consideration of man’s body- and the cognitive in its materialism is nothing like what Aristotle and Aquinas (all the great medieval and ancient teachers, neither Pieper nor Lewis) would articulate as the right use of reason or intellection properly understood- Taking Aristotle’s 5 intellectual virtues is an excellent idea, but it is not a taxonomy per se, but a division of the science of intellection- you are playing on the wrong field and I am trying to figure out exactly why- a snap guess would be that you yourself may be conditioned by modern rejections of the transcendental realities- subjectivism and strains of naturalism and scientism even though I can hear you object- Your words on Aristotle and Pieper and Lewis seem nominalist- I highly recommend a return to Aristotle’s Organum and abandonment of your “point of view” (read Screwtape letter 27) where it differs from Aristotle. We need the categories, which is not a taxonomy. Authentic education is about the 3 acts of the intellect, not a materialistic hybrid of modern theories and ancient words.
I am deeply disturbed by this post and shudder to think of what I will find in “3 blessings from Bloom.”