Benjamin Bloom: Mastery Learning
Julianna R. Pasetto
School of Education, Liberty University
BENJAMIN BLOOM
Abstract
Benjamin S. Bloom, an influential educational theorist, made significant contributions to
education from his early academic pursuits in Pennsylvania to his impactful professional career
(Eisner, 2000). He earned his bachelor's and master's degrees from Pennsylvania State University
and a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, where he later joined the Board of Examinations
from 1940 to 1959. His early work focused on educational objectives and assessment,
culminating in the seminal "Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive
Domain" in 1956, which proposed a hierarchical model of cognitive skills that has become a
staple in educational theory (Eisner, 2000).
Bloom shifted focus with his "Stability and Change in Human Characteristics" in 1964,
emphasizing curriculum and human development and guided educational assessment to India
and Israel (Zimmerman et al., 2010).
His major works include his analysis of college students' problem-solving approaches, his studies
on the influence of early environment on human characteristics, which informed the Head Start
program, his strategies for compensatory education, and his advocacy for mastery learning,
promoting learning standards over fixed timeframes (Zimmerman et al., 2010).
The Taxonomy originated from a collaboration at a 1948 APA conference, intending to
systematize educational goals and testing. While part of a larger three-domain framework, the
cognitive domain guide gained the most recognition, advocating for a sequential learning process
(Zimmerman et al., 2010).
Bloom's mastery learning paradigm argued that all students could achieve mastery with
appropriate time and instruction, challenging traditional education models (Bloom, 1987). This
student-centered approach to teaching and learning remains a crucial part of Bloom's legacy,
2
BENJAMIN BLOOM
emphasizing educational equality and the transformative role of educators in nurturing student
success.
Keywords: Bloom’s Taxonomy, Benjamin Bloom, mastery learning
3
BENJAMIN BLOOM
Benjamin Bloom: Mastery Learning
Benjamin S. Bloom, a prominent figure in the realm of education, left an enduring legacy
that has significantly shaped the field. His educational journey from Pennsylvania State
University to the University of Chicago set the stage for a distinguished career marked by
contributions that continue to influence contemporary pedagogy (Eisner, 2000). During his early
years as a member of the University of Chicago's Board of Examinations, Bloom's interests
converged on the intricate relationship between educational outcomes, instructional methods, and
assessments. However, in the late 1940s, he embarked on pioneering ventures into appraising
problem-solving skills and the varied teaching methodologies that influenced them, ultimately
leading to the conceptualization of the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The
Cognitive Domain. Collaborating with Ralph Tyler, Bloom published this groundbreaking work
in 1956, introducing a structured hierarchy of cognitive functions and emphasizing the
cumulative nature of learning, where each level built upon the previous, advocating for mastery.
Throughout his career, Bloom's interests diversified, extending to curriculum and human
development, interspersed by advisory roles in India and Israel (Eisner, 2000). While Bloom's
Taxonomy enjoys greater recognition in the field of education, Bloom's more significant
contribution lies in the concept of mastery learning, a transformative approach to teaching and
learning that ensures that every student has the opportunity to achieve mastery of a subject or
skill if provided with adequate time, tailored instruction, and ongoing feedback (Bloom, 1987).
Background and Cultural Context
Benjamin S. Bloom, born in 1913 in Lansford, Pennsylvania, and passed away in 1999,
left an indelible mark on education (Eisner, 2000). His educational journey began with a
bachelor's and master's degree from Pennsylvania State University in 1935, followed by a Ph.D.
4
BENJAMIN BLOOM
in Education at the University of Chicago in 1942. In 1940, he embarked on his career as a staff
member at the University of Chicago's Board of Examinations, ultimately assuming the role of
university examiner, a position he held until 1959 (Eisner, 2000).
During the early years of his tenure on the Board, Bloom's primary focus in his writings
centered on the intricate connections between educational outcomes, instructional methods, and
educational assessment (Zimmerman et al., 2010). However, as the late 1940s and early 1950s
unfolded, he ventured into pioneering approaches for appraising problem-solving skills and the
variations in problem-solving strategies arising from different teaching methodologies. In the late
1940s the groundwork for the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive
Domain, was laid (Zimmerman et al., 2010).
Bloom's collaboration with Ralph Tyler within the examiner's office led to the
publication of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I, The Cognitive Domain, in
1956 (Eisner, 2000). This publication introduced a structured hierarchy of cognitive functions
featuring six levels of increasing complexity. It presented a groundbreaking concept where each
level built upon the previous one, emphasizing the importance of mastery in earlier stages
(Eisner, 2000).
A pivotal moment in Bloom's career occurred at the Center for Advanced Study in
Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California, where he authored significant works such as
Stability and Change in Human Characteristics in 1964 (Zimmerman et al., 2010). This
transition marked a substantial shift in his research interests, moving away from a concentration
on assessment and evaluation to a greater emphasis on curriculum and human development.
Additionally, during the late 1950s and early 1960s, Bloom played an advisory role for the
5
BENJAMIN BLOOM
governments of India and Israel, providing expertise in educational assessment and evaluation
(Zimmerman et al., 2010).
Six of Benjamin S. Bloom's most significant contributions encompass a broad spectrum.
First, his work on "Problem-Solving Processes of College Students" delved into disparities in
problem-solving approaches among college students. Second, Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives, Handbook 1: The Cognitive Domain, stands out as his most renowned work, focusing
on defining intended learning outcomes for assessments (Zimmerman et al., 2010). Third,
Stability and Change in Human Characteristics argued that environmental factors significantly
influence human traits, particularly during the first five years of life, a contribution integral to
establishing the Head Start program. Fourth, "Compensatory Education for Cultural Deprivation"
provided recommendations, including addressing basic needs and emphasizing the initial three
years of elementary school. Fifth, "Learning for Mastery" advocated a shift from fixed time
frames to fixed learning standards, often called "mastery." Finally, Developing Talent in Young
People emerged from interviews with 120 highly talented individuals, revealing a typical pattern
of talent development through guidance from coaches or parents (Zimmerman et al., 2010).
Benjamin S. Bloom was a pivotal figure in educational psychology, best known for
creating Bloom's Taxonomy, a hierarchy of cognitive functions that has had a lasting impact on
education (Zimmerman et al., 2010). His work began at Pennsylvania State University, continued
through a Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, and onto a significant role at the university's Board
of Examinations. Bloom's work spanned problem-solving in education, the development of the
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, and research into human characteristics and their change
over time. His contributions influenced educational assessment, curriculum development, and
understanding of human development, particularly the role of early childhood experiences.
6
BENJAMIN BLOOM
Bloom's philosophy of mastery learning, the importance of early educational intervention, and
his insights into talent development through his book Developing Talent in Young People remain
influential in education (Zimmerman et al., 2010).
Philosophy of Education
The inception of Bloom's Taxonomy can be attributed to a collaborative effort involving
thirty-four educators, psychologists, and school examiners from 1949 to 1953, originating in
informal discussions held during a 1948 American Psychological Association conference in
Boston (Booker, 2007). The primary objective of this diverse group was to establish a
comprehensive classification system for test questions, with the broader aim of aligning these
questions with educational goals and measurements (Booker, 2007).
Interestingly, it is often overlooked that Bloom's Taxonomy was initially conceived as
only one component of a more extensive three-part system (Booker, 2007). The domains in focus
were the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. While Bloom's committee successfully
published a guide for the cognitive domain, no such guide emerged for the psychomotor domain,
although subsequent authors have attempted to develop taxonomies for it. In 1964, a guide was
authored and published for the affective domain, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The
Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook II: Affective Domain (Booker, 2007).
Returning to the more familiar Handbook 1, Bloom's Taxonomy, which pertains to the
cognitive domain, offers a structured framework delineating the intellectual expectations for the
college classroom (Booker, 2007). It is essential to underscore that the Taxonomy's initial intent
was to serve as a tool for educators at the collegiate level. Within this taxonomy, the lowest
levels, particularly "knowledge," were regarded as the foundational building blocks that set the
stage for higher levels of learning. Each level subsequently builds upon the preceding ones and
7
BENJAMIN BLOOM
fundamentally depends on them. This interconnection within the taxonomy emphasizes the
essential progression of intellectual development from foundational knowledge to more complex
cognitive processes, fostering a comprehensive approach to education (Booker, 2007).
While Bloom's Taxonomy is one of his most recognized works, his most substantial
educational contribution lies in mastery learning. Initially, he focused on comprehending
cognitive processes and strategies for cultivating higher-order thinking (Eisner, 2000).
Simultaneously, Bloom emphasized the substantial influence of environmental factors on
individual performance. His engagement with these environmental influences prompted him to
advocate for the Head Start program in the United States Congress, featuring the critical
significance of the first four years of a child's life in fostering cognitive development (Eisner,
2000).
Incorporating the idea that every child could reach a predetermined level of achievement
if provided with the necessary time and utilized it effectively, Benjamin Bloom, influenced by
the behaviorist perspective, conceived the concept of mastery learning (Booker, 2007). This
notion stemmed from John Carroll's 1963 article "A Model for School Learning," in which
Carroll challenged traditional views on student aptitude (Guskey, 2012). The conventional
understanding held that high-aptitude students could grasp the intricacies of a subject. In
contrast, low-aptitude students could only master its fundamental aspects, categorizing children
as adept or struggling learners concerning a particular subject (Guskey, 2012).
Carroll's work introduced the concept that the extent of a child's learning is closely linked
to the time they invest in the learning process relative to their learning requirements (Guskey,
2012). In addition, Carroll identified the contributing factors that influenced both the time
dedicated to learning and the time necessary for proficiency. Specifically, the time allocated for
8
BENJAMIN BLOOM
learning was associated with a learner's perseverance and the availability of learning
opportunities. Conversely, the time required for learning was believed to be influenced by the
child's learning pace for a specific subject, the quality of instruction, and the child's capacity to
comprehend the instruction. Notably, a child's learning pace measures the time it takes to grasp
the concepts and skills under ideal instructional conditions (Guskey, 2012).
Bloom found the notion that students vary primarily in the time required for
comprehensive learning rather than their innate ability to learn particularly intriguing (Bloom,
1987; Guskey, 2012). He believed that if aptitude correlated with the time needed for learning, it
should be feasible to establish a specific level of mastery expected from each student. Teachers
could ensure that each student reaches the designated level by manipulating controllable
instructional variables, such as instruction quality and learning opportunities. With adequate time
and tailored instruction, the potential for successful learning was within reach for virtually all
students. In traditional classroom settings, the standard practice provides uniform opportunities
to learn and consistent instructional quality to all students. However, by adapting the
instructional environment to cater to individual learning needs with more appropriate
opportunities and tailored instruction, most students, potentially as many as 90 percent or more,
could be expected to excel and achieve mastery (Bloom, 1987; Guskey, 2012).
Bloom's mastery learning forms the cornerstone of his educational philosophy,
emphasizing that all students can achieve mastery with adequate time and proper instruction
(Bloom, 1987; Guskey, 2012). Rooted in John Carroll's model that learning depends on the time
a student spends relative to their learning needs, Bloom's approach challenges the notion of fixed
aptitudes (Bloom, 1987; Guskey, 2012). He suggests that most students can excel if given
tailored instruction and sufficient time to learn, a stark contrast to traditional education, which
9
BENJAMIN BLOOM
often provides uniform learning opportunities. (Harvey & Horton, 1977). Mastery learning,
therefore, is not just about reaching a predetermined level of achievement; it is about recognizing
and addressing the varying amounts of time and types of instruction different students need to
succeed (Bloom, 1987; Guskey, 2012; Harvey & Horton, 1977).
Theory to Practice
Bloom recognized that teachers typically put forth their best efforts to deliver effective
instruction (Guskey, 2007). However, he observed that conventional quizzes and assessments,
usually administered at the end of instructional units, often fell short in their role, merely
revealing which students had successfully engaged with the material and which had not (Bloom,
1987). In contrast, Ben proposed a transformative approach, suggesting that these quizzes and
assessments could become invaluable learning tools when coupled with feedback and corrective
procedures. Drawing parallels to how individual students benefit from working with adept tutors,
he outlined a method involving feedback and correction. In this model, if a student made an
error, the tutor identified the error (feedback) and provided further explanations and
clarifications (corrective). Likewise, accomplished students often scrutinized their quiz and
assessment mistakes, actively seeking additional information and deeper comprehension to
prevent the repetition of errors (Bloom, 1987).
In light of this, Ben formulated an instructional strategy incorporating this feedback and
corrective procedure (Bloom, 1987). He recommended organizing the concepts and learning
objectives into instructional units spanning approximately one to two weeks (Bloom, 1987;
Guskey, 2012). A quiz or assessment was administered after each unit's initial instruction.
However, with a new purpose: rather than marking the end of the unit, this assessment became
an integral part of the learning process (Bloom, 1987; Guskey, 2007). Termed a “formative
10
BENJAMIN BLOOM
assessment," it served as a checkpoint, offering students insights into their areas of proficiency
and highlighting areas needing improvement (Guskey, 2007, p. 90).
In the formative assessment process, Ben emphasized the inclusion of specific
suggestions for students to address identified learning difficulties (Bloom, 1987). These
corrective activities might direct students toward additional information sources and alternative
learning resources or recommend additional practice. The feedback and corrective information
from the formative assessment provided each student with a detailed prescription for mastering
the unit's concepts and desired learning objectives. Following this corrective work, Ben advised
the administration of a second formative assessment designed to gauge the effectiveness of the
correctives in helping students overcome their learning difficulties and to offer students a second
opportunity for success (Bloom, 1987).
Ben also acknowledged that some students may excel in the initial assessment,
showcasing their thorough understanding of the unit's concepts (Bloom, 1987). He suggested
providing enrichment or extension activities to foster continued learning for these students,
enabling them to expand and enhance their learning experiences (Bloom, 1987).
Through formative assessment, coupled with systematic correction of individual learning
difficulties, Ben envisioned providing all students with a more tailored and adequate quality of
instruction compared to traditional teaching approaches (Bloom, 1987; Guskey, 2007). Under
these improved learning conditions, he hypothesized that nearly all students could excel and
master the unit's concepts and learning objectives (Bloom, 1987; Guskey, 2007).
While Bloom's Taxonomy enjoys widespread recognition and extensive scholarly
exploration within pedagogy, mastery learning holds greater significance. Although Bloom's
Taxonomy provides a valuable framework for categorizing educational objectives and fostering
11
BENJAMIN BLOOM
higher-order thinking skills, mastery learning offers a transformative approach to teaching and
learning. Mastery learning suggests that every student can achieve mastery of a subject or skill if
provided with adequate time, tailored instruction, and ongoing feedback (Bloom, 1987). This
student-centered approach challenges the conventional one-size-fits-all education model by
focusing on individual learning needs and promoting a more equitable and effective educational
experience. In this sense, while Bloom's Taxonomy is essential for defining educational
objectives, mastery learning addresses the fundamental question of ensuring that every student
reaches those objectives, making it a pivotal and influential concept in education.
Perspectives on Diversity
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, a sense of pessimism prevailed in education. This
era was characterized by widespread skepticism about the effectiveness of schools, exacerbated
by the influential report on "Equality of Educational Opportunity" (Smith, 2020). This report
suggested that schools had a limited impact on student learning, particularly among minority
students, and it attributed student achievement primarily to factors beyond the control of
educators, such as social, demographic, and economic variables (Guskey, 2012). Consequently,
this period witnessed growing criticism of teachers and schools and concerns about continued
public funding for educational endeavors (Guskey, 2012).
Amid this skepticism, Benjamin Bloom made a significant and somewhat controversial
statement regarding the role of educators in student learning. His most powerful statement about
the influence of educators on student learning was articulated in his book Human Characteristics
and School Learning (Wolfe & Bloom, 1978). Several years earlier, he introduced the
fundamental theme in his notable article "Innocence in Education" (Bloom, 1972). In this article,
he challenged the notion that educators had limited potential to help all students excel in their
12
BENJAMIN BLOOM
learning. He argued that traditional thinking had placed responsibility for success or failure in
school learning outside the purview of schools and teachers. The prevailing focus had been on
"equality of opportunity," wherein each student was offered the same learning conditions, with
differences attributed to the students' utilization of these opportunities (Bloom, 1972, p. 334).
However, a shift occurred in the early 1960s, when a different educational theory
emerged, emphasizing the existence of "faster learners" and "slower learners"(Harvey & Horton,
1977, p. 189). Educators began to explore whether learning rates were a permanent trait of
individuals and sought ways to provide slower learners with additional support and time to
achieve specific levels of achievement. With this added support, many slower learners
demonstrated the capacity to master complex and abstract ideas, apply them to new challenges,
and retain their knowledge effectively. Furthermore, their attitudes and interests in school
subjects became just as favorable as those of faster learners (Harvey & Horton, 1977).
In his book, Bloom outlined his theory of school learning, indicating that significant
variation in student learning outcomes could be attributed to three key factors: “students'
cognitive entry behaviors, affective entry characteristics, and the quality of instruction” (Guskey,
2012, p. 91). The quality of instruction, containing cues, participation, reinforcement, and
feedback/correctives, played a crucial role in shaping student learning experiences. Additionally,
Bloom highlighted the significant outcomes of any learning task, encompassing the level and
type of achievement, the learning rate, and the learner's affective characteristics concerning the
learning task and self. In situations where students' entry characteristics and the quality of
instruction were favorable, Bloom's theory suggested that learning outcomes would exhibit high
levels with minimal variation. However, considerable variation was anticipated when these
factors differed among students, leading to diverse learning outcomes (Guskey, 2012).
13
BENJAMIN BLOOM
Ben consistently emphasized two fundamental points throughout his book, Human
Characteristics and School Learning (Guskey, 2012). Firstly, he underscored that students'
abilities to learn specific tasks could have been more malleable. Secondly, he contended that,
under ideal learning conditions, differences among students in terms of their learning ability, the
time and effort required for learning, the level of achievement they could attain, and their
motivation for future learning could be significantly minimized. These two key points became
central to the book's argument (Guskey, 2012).
However, it is essential to note that these assertions also drew substantial criticism,
making Human Characteristics and School Learning a topic of considerable debate (Guskey,
2012). Some critics rejected Ben's claims regarding the substantial impact educators could have
on student learning, adhering to the traditional view that social, demographic, and economic
factors held significant sway over student achievement. Others misunderstood Ben's argument
and raised objections based on these misinterpretations (Guskey, 2012).
During this debate, Ben's work challenged conventional wisdom and catalyzed a
reevaluation of the role of educators in shaping student learning outcomes (Guskey, 2012). His
theories offered a more optimistic perspective on education, highlighting the potential for
positive change when educators provide the right conditions for learning. The discussion
surrounding his work ultimately prompted a reexamination of factors influencing student
achievement, encouraging a shift from deterministic viewpoints to more dynamic and student-
centered educational approaches (Guskey, 2012).
Critical Analysis
Bloom's Taxonomy, a widely recognized framework in education, has garnered both
fervent supporters and vocal critics. While it enjoys widespread popularity and extensive
14
BENJAMIN BLOOM
research, questions persist regarding its impact on learning. However, amidst this ongoing
debate, one underlying notion has gained increasing prominence – mastery learning, rather than
the taxonomy itself, holds paramount significance in education. This shift in perspective
underscores a fundamental shift in how we view the teaching and learning process, emphasizing
the importance of personalized, adaptive approaches that allow all students to attain the highest
level of proficiency. This essay delves into the contrasting viewpoints surrounding Bloom's
Taxonomy, ultimately advocating for the significance of mastery learning as a transformative
force in education.
In a pivotal study by Kropp and Stoker in 1966, the conventional six-tier structure of
Bloom's Taxonomy was challenged (Seaman, 2011). Factor analysis suggested a more
straightforward two-category division: concrete and applied intelligence, seemingly condensing
lower and higher-order thinking skills. This critique highlights the taxonomy's rigidity and
highlights the need for a more adaptable approach to education (Seaman, 2011).
Booker (2007) argues that Bloom's Taxonomy, intended initially for postsecondary
institutions, may be better suited for something other than K-12 education. Despite
underwhelming empirical support, the taxonomy has been widely embraced (Booker, 2007).
Booker emphasizes the foundational importance of lower-level knowledge, likening it to the
walls that support higher-level thinking skills, which he compares to the roof of a structure
(Booker, 2007). However, he notes that Bloom's Taxonomy remains a crucial concept for the
Praxis examinations used to evaluate the professional competence of public-school teachers,
indicating ongoing support for its relevance (Booker, 2007).
An analysis of its popularity is reflected in the taxonomy's extensive online presence and
utilization. A simple Google search yields over 533,000 results, while Google Scholar provides
15
BENJAMIN BLOOM
approximately 7,350 results related to Bloom's Taxonomy (Seaman, 2011). Furthermore, a search
within the United States Department of Education's Education Resources Information Center
(ERIC) database produces references to more than 640 papers and articles, highlighting the
widespread use and recognition of the taxonomy as a valuable tool in the fields of educational
instruction, planning, and assessment (Seaman, 2011). This multipronged perspective highlights
the ongoing debates surrounding the taxonomy's applicability and enduring relevance in
educational contexts.
Our educational system's emphasis on higher-order thinking skills often results in the
oversight of foundational skills crucial for a well-rounded education. The relentless pursuit of
advanced questioning techniques has led to the neglect of essential basic skills (Booker, 2007).
While valuable, this fixation on higher-order thinking raises the question of whether it comes at
the expense of students needing more fundamental skills necessary for their overall development
and functionality in the real world (Booker, 2007).
As substantiated by extensive research, mastery learning has solidified its significance in
contemporary education. Its steady growth has led to widespread teacher adoption at all
educational levels, surpassing geographic boundaries to reach school districts in the United
States, Asia, Australia, Europe, and South America (Guskey, 2012). A comprehensive synthesis
of research by various scholars, such as Block and Burns, Guskey and Gates, Kulik, Ellis and
Fouts, and S. Anderson, has consistently affirmed the positive impact of mastery learning on
student achievement. It is frequently praised as one of the most potent instructional strategies
available to educators, underscoring its enduring relevance as a practical approach across diverse
educational settings (Guskey, 2012). This global acceptance and empirical validation
16
BENJAMIN BLOOM
demonstrate the compelling case for the continued prominence of mastery learning as a
cornerstone of modern education.
Implications and Conclusions
The research on Benjamin Bloom's educational contributions suggests that while Bloom's
Taxonomy is a well-known framework within pedagogy, it is the concept of mastery learning that
stands as his more pivotal contribution to educational research. Mastery learning, focusing on
individual learning progression and believing that all students can achieve mastery given the
right conditions, represents a significant shift from traditional educational models (Zimmerman
et al., 2010). This approach counters the idea that student success is primarily determined by
innate ability, offering a more egalitarian and optimistic view of student potential (Harvey &
Horton, 1977).
Bloom's mastery learning model recognizes the diversity in student learning rates and
emphasizes the importance of tailored instruction (Bloom, 1987; Harvey & Horton, 1977). It
shifts the focus from a one-size-fits-all educational approach to one that considers each student's
unique needs and time requirements. This method also reimagines the role of assessments,
transforming them from final evaluative tools to integral components of the learning process that
provide formative feedback and guide corrective measures (Bloom, 1987; Harvey & Horton,
1977).
Critically, mastery learning aligns with the contemporary educational emphasis on equity
and inclusivity (Guskey, 2007). It accounts for students' varying backgrounds and abilities,
providing a more personalized educational experience that aims to bring all students to the same
level of mastery. This stands in contrast to the hierarchical and fixed progression of Bloom's
17
BENJAMIN BLOOM
Taxonomy, which, despite its utility in structuring educational objectives, does not address the
variability in student learning experiences (Guskey, 2007).
In conclusion, Bloom's mastery learning has profoundly impacted educational practices,
asserting that with sufficient time, quality instruction, and appropriate feedback, all students can
master educational content (Bloom, 1987; Guskey, 2007). This student-centered approach
continues to resonate in modern educational theories and practices, arguably surpassing the
influence of Bloom's Taxonomy by offering a practical, adaptive, and equitable model for
teaching and learning.
18
BENJAMIN BLOOM
References
Bloom, B. (1972). Innocence in Education. The School Review, 80(3), 333–352.
https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/1084408
Bloom, B. S. (1987). A response to Slavin’s mastery learning reconsidered. Review of
Educational Research, 57(4), 507–508. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057004507
Booker, M. J. (2007). A roof without walls: Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy and the misdirection
of American education. Academic Questions, 20(4), 347–355.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12129-007-9031-9
Eisner, E. W. (2000). Profiles of Famous Educators: Benjamin Bloom. Prospects, 30(3), 387–
395.
Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s “Learning for
mastery.” Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8–31. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2007-
704
Guskey, T. R. (2012). Benjamin S. Bloom portraits of an educator. Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
Harvey, K., & Horton, L. (1977). Bloom’s Human CharacteristicsLand School Learning. The Phi
Delta Kappan, 59(3), 189–193.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
19
BENJAMIN BLOOM
Report - National advisory council on equality of educational opportunity (1966). bill.
Seaman, M. (2011). Bloom’s Taxonomy: Its evolution, revision, and use in the field of
education. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 12(1 & 2), pp. 29–131.
Smith, S. J. (2020). Windows into the history and philosophy of Education. Kendall Hunt.
Wolfe, B. L., & Bloom, B. S. (1978). Human characteristics and school learning. The Journal of
Human Resources, 13(3), 432. https://doi.org/10.2307/145557
Zimmerman, B. J., Schunk, D. H., & Anderson, L. W. (2010). Benjamin S. Bloom: His life, his
works, and his legacy. In Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 367–
389). essay, Routledge.
20
