As a new lecturer in the 1980s, I attended a workshop for teachers where the presenter opened with a thought-provoking question: “Can you imagine a football match without goalposts?” As we considered this, he continued, “That’s the game we teachers are playing.” His message was clear: we teach without defined, specific goals. He then introduced a concept that had been developed sometime earlier to help set educational objectives. Though it initially received little attention, over time this concept gained recognition, included as a core theory in teacher education, and eventually became central to the current focus on Outcome-Based Education in Indian Higher Education Institutions. This concept, known as Bloom’s Taxonomy, has a fascinating origin and evolution that we will now explore.

The origin of Bloom’s Taxonomy can be traced to a convention of the American Psychological Association Convention in 1948. At the request of a group of assessment experts and college examiners, a committee was formed to draw out a classification of educational goals. The committee was chaired by Benjamin Bloom, a Professor at Chicago University. In 1956 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives was published. The eight years’ labour by the committee is known after its chairman as Bloom’s taxonomy. We must appreciate that, even in these early years, educators recognised the need for and established clear objectives and goals for teaching and learning.

This serves as a guideline for teaching and learning, where objectives are organised into six levels: starting from Knowledge at the base, then moving through Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and finally, Evaluation. These levels are structured to progress from lower-order to higher-order thinking skills. The teacher selects an objective, adjusting the mode of engagement accordingly. The pyramid shape, with a broad base that narrows as it ascends, illustrates the decreasing time and focus typically allotted to each level as one moves up the hierarchy. The teachers’ engagement with students will vary according to the objective or outcome selected.

Although the taxonomy was prepared at the request of assessment experts and examiners, it is used for curriculum development, syllabus setting, classroom plans, question setting, besides evaluation. This has remained the bedrock of education from Kindergarten to Postgraduate classrooms. Not just in America but across the globe.

Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy: In the 1990s, the need to revise Bloom’s Taxonomy was recognised and taken up by a new panel of experts, led by educational psychologists David Krathwohl (who had collaborated with Bloom on the original taxonomy) and Lorin Anderson (a former student of Bloom). In 2001, the revised cognitive model was published under the title A Taxonomy for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

A closer look reveals that Bloom’s Taxonomy has undergone a transformation. Originally, it used nouns like Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, and Analysis. In the revised version, these are now represented as verbs: Remember, Understand, Apply, and Analysis, respectively. Evaluation, which was previously at the top, has shifted to the fifth position as “Evaluate,” while a new verb, “Create,” takes the top position.

The concept has its critics, especially regarding its depiction as a pyramid with a fixed order of layers. A popular revision now represents Bloom’s hierarchy as interlocking cogs, symbolizing “cognition.” In this model, the large cog, Create, connects to all the others, highlighting a more dynamic, interconnected approach to learning. This underscores the importance of inculcating creativity in students’ development, equipping them for the creative era we are in.

Bloom’s Taxonomy’s 2001 revision, placing “Create” at the top, aligns in time and theme with the rise of what John Howkins described as the creative era, later known as the orange economy.

Way Forward: Bloom’s Taxonomy is now central to the Outcome Based Education scheme adopted in Indian higher education institutions. It forms the basis for chalking out the curricula, preparing lesson plans, setting questions, and evaluating students.

The question remains: are we adopting the cog view or clinging to the pyramidal view? Is ‘create’ prioritised, or is it treated as an ornament at the top? Teaching through the traditional focus on remember, understand, apply, analysis, and evaluate is easier to manage, but create [instilling creativity in students] poses new challenges. Are educators willing and equipped to meet them? Addressing this question is key to preparing the next generation to be creators in the orange economy.

Today, educational objectives are cut out. Educators are no longer playing football without goalposts.