The New Bloom's Taxonomy: Implications for Music Education

Arts Education Policy Review

Volumn 108, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 7-16

  Hanna, Wendell ^a  

^a SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

assessment; Bloom's taxonomy; cognitive domain; music education; national standards

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449598312     PISSN: 10632913     EISSN: 19404395     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/AEPR.108.4.7-16     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Anderson, L. W., and D. R. Krathwohl, eds. 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Abridged. New York: Longman.
2. Asmus, E. P. 1999. Music assessment concepts. Music Educators Journal86 (2): 19.
3. Athanassiou, N., J. M. McNett, and C. Harvey. 2003. Critical thinking in the management classroom: Bloom's taxonomy as a learning tool. Journal of Management Education27 (5): 533-55.
4. Ball, A. L., and S. G. Washburn. 2001. Teaching students to think: Practical applications of Bloom's taxonomy. Agricultural Education Magazine74 (3): 16.
5. Benson, M. J., M. J. Sporakowski, and A. J. Stremmel. 1992. Writing reviews of family literature: Guiding students using Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive objectives. Family Relations41 (1): 65
6. Bloom, B. S. Ed. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
7. Chan, C. C., M. S. Tsui, M. Y. C. Chan, and J. H. Hong. 2002. Applying the structure of the observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy on student's learning outcomes: An empirical study. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education27 (6): 511-27.
8. Christopher, M. M., J. A. Thomas, and M. K. Tallent-Runnels. 2004. Raising the bar: Encouraging high level thinking in online discussion forums. Roeper Review26 (3): 166-71.
9. Colwell, R. 1999. The 1997 assessment in music: Red flags in the sunset. Arts Education Policy Review100 (6): 33-39.
10. Colwell, R. 2002. Assessment's Potential in Music Education. In The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning, ed. R. Colwell and C. Richardson, 1128-58. New York: Oxford.
11. Dettmer, P. 2006. New blooms in established fields: Four domains of learning and doing. Roeper Review28 (2): 70-78.
12. Elliott, D. J. 1995. Music matters: A new philosophy of music education. New York: Oxford University Press.
13. Gierl, M. J. 1997. Comparing cognitive representations of test developers and students on a mathematics test with Bloom's taxonomy. Journal of Educational Research91 (1): 26.
14. Gordon, E. E. 2003. Learning sequences in music. Chicago: GIA.
15. Granello, D. H. 2000. Encouraging the cognitive development of supervisees: Using Bloom's taxonomy in supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision40 (1): 31.
16. Gray, K. C., and J. E. Waggoner. 2002. Multiple intelligences meet Bloom's taxonomy. Kappa Delta Pi Record38 (4): 184.
17. Harrow, A. 1972. A taxonomy of psychomotor domain-a guide for developing behavioral objectives. New York: David McKay.
18. Hauenstein, A. D. 1998. A conceptual framework for educational objectives: A holistic approach to traditional taxonomies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
19. Hickey, M., and P. Webster. 2001. Creative thinking in music. Music Educators Journal88 (1): 6-12.
20. Jorgenson, E. 1995. Justifying music instruction in American public schools: A historical perspective. Arts Education Policy Review96 (6): 31-41.
21. Kastberg, S. E. 2003. Using Bloom's taxonomy as a framework for classroom assessment. Mathematics Teacher96 (6): 402-5.
22. Klaczynski, P. A. 2006. Learning, belief biases, and metacognition. Journal of Cognition and Development7 (3): 295-300
23. Krathwohl, D. R. 2002. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice41 (4): 212.
24. Krathwohl, D. R., B. S. Bloom, and B. B. Masia. 1964. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: The affective domain. New York: David McKay.
25. Kuhn D., and D. Dean. 2004. Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice43 (4): 268-273.
26. Linn, R. L. 2003. Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher32 (7): 3-13.
27. Liperote, K. A. 2006. Audiation for beginning instrumentalists: Listen, speak, read, write. Music Educators Journal93 (1): 46-52.
28. Mark, M. L., and C. Gary. 1999. A history of American music education. 2nd ed. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.
29. Marzano, R. J. 2001. Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
30. Mishook, J. J., and M. L. Kornhaber. 2006. Arts integration in an era of accountability. Arts Education Policy Review107 (4): 3-11
31. Music Educators National Conference. (MENC). 1995. Opportunity-to-learn standards. Reston, VA: Consortium of National Arts Education Associations.
32. Music Educators National Conference. (MENC). 1996. Performance standards for music, grades preK-12: Strategies and benchmarks for assessing progress toward the national standards. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.
33. Myers, D. E. 2002. Policy issues in connecting music education with arts education. In The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning, ed. R. Colwell and C. Richardson, 909-30. New York: Oxford University Press.
34. Noble, T. 2004. Integrating the revised Bloom's taxonomy with multiple intelligences: A planning tool for curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Record106 (1): 193-211.
35. Pimmel, R. L. 2003. Student learning of criterion 3 (a)-(k) outcomes with short instructional modules and the relationship to Bloom's taxonomy. Journal of Engineering Education92 (4): 351-59.
36. Porter, A. C. 2002. Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher31 (7): 3-14.
37. Reeves, M. F. 1990. An application of Bloom's taxonomy to the teaching of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics9 (7): 609.
38. Simpson, E. J. 1972. The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House.
39. Tellstrom, A. T. 1971. Music in American education past and present. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.
40. Taylor, J. A. 1993. The evolution and future of cognitive research in music. Arts Education Policy Review94 (6): 35.
41. Usova, G. M. 1997. Effective test item discrimination using Bloom's taxonomy. Education118 (1): 100-10.
42. Ven, J., and C. Chuang 2005. The comparative study of information competencies-using Bloom's taxonomy. Journal of American Academy of Business7 (1): 136-43.
43. Webster, P. (1990). Creativity as creative thinking. Music Educators Journal76 (9) 22-28.
44. Westerlund, H. 2003. Reconsidering aesthetic experience in praxial music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review11 (1): 45-62.
45. Wikipedia. 2007. Metacognition.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metacognition&oldid=101092209
46. Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., and K. W. Thiede. 2005. Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. Journal of General Psychology132 (4): 408-28.