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
1
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 deeper interpretation of knowledge, the application of knowledge and the analysis of 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
2
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
Teachers’ reflection on how Bloom’s taxonomy was
involved in the learning
and teaching process
connected to their instructional design
Learners used knowledge
of basic letter-sound
relationships to read aloud
the rhyme. They could
enjoy the basic sound
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
patterns when participating
in an action rhyme.
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
In this part, learners were supported to set the scene for
3
the story to outline the
setting of the story in the
form of a simple diagram.
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 the story 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.
4
Learners read “Part 2” of
the story to locate specific
information in a short text,
identify key words for the
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.
main idea in a sentence,
and make a guess on the
size of their bowls through
drawing.
5
Learners read “Part 3” of
the story to explain why
the little girl was called
Goldilocks and propose a
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”).
new name for the girl.
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.
6
Learners read “Part 4” of
the story to locate specific
information in a short text,
identify key words for the
Like Part 2, this part seemed to involve mainly the recall
main idea in a sentence,
and relate the key words to
the appropriate adjectives
through matching.
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
and recognition of knowledge. However, to make the
multiple choice questions more challenging to learners,
teachers deliberately urged them to go beyond the
the reading text. Understanding the connections of
ideas rather than direct recognition of information was
required in this part.
7
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
stance was 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.
8
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.
9
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.
10
Learners expressed their
personal feeling towards
Goldilocks, and rated
different parts of the story
In this part, learners were encouraged to express their
preference and make personal judgment. It is considered
as a preliminary form of evaluation.
and the characters through
coloring the smileys.
11
Learners suggested what
other things Goldilocks
could find in the cottage,
and extended the story by
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
proposing what would
happen to Goldilocks after
she left the cottage.
Below are learners’ responses to the first question:
that would vary in size or condition for the three bears.
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).
12
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
13
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.
14
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?
15
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.
16