{"id":1879,"date":"2021-02-13T06:44:11","date_gmt":"2021-02-13T12:44:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/educationalrenaissance.com\/?p=1879"},"modified":"2023-05-01T19:34:51","modified_gmt":"2023-05-02T00:34:51","slug":"breaking-down-the-bad-of-blooms-the-false-objectivity-of-education-as-a-modern-social-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/educationalrenaissance.com\/2021\/02\/13\/breaking-down-the-bad-of-blooms-the-false-objectivity-of-education-as-a-modern-social-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Breaking Down the Bad of Bloom’s: The False Objectivity of Education as a Modern Social Science"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the first two posts of this series (which I am reviving after a 6 months long hiatus) I proposed replacing Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy of educational objectives with Aristotle\u2019s intellectual virtues<\/a>. The major flaw in Bloom\u2019s taxonomy, which is a hierarchical categorization of educational goals in the cognitive domain, is that it privileges the bare intellect over the heart, like so much of modern education. Even if Bloom and his university examiner colleagues proposed an affective and psychomotor domain as well, and had the modest goal of improving clarity and communication among teachers, curriculum planners and educational researchers, still they codified the modern academic system\u2019s focus on intellectual abilities and skills alone. In doing so they divorced the head from the heart and body in a way that makes it hard for even classical educators today to fully recover. We all breathe in this educational air, and walk through these educational halls, with Bloom\u2019s built into the very architecture. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n