P1

4 EPISODE

THE TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL

OBJECTIVES: THE LEVELS OF
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
My learning episode overview

This episode dwells on Blooms level of cognitive

processing and on the new taxonomy of processing knowledge
introduced by Kendall and Manzano.

My intended learning outcome

In this episode, I must be able to identify teaching

practice/s in the different levels of processing knowledge based
on Blooms revised cognitive taxonomy and Kendalls and
Manzanos new taxonomy.

My performance criteria

I will
be rated along the following:
a Quality of my observations
b Completeness and depth of my analysis
c Depth and clarity of my classroom observation-based
reflections,
d Completeness, organization, clarity of my portfolio and
e Time of submission of my portfolio
My Learning essentials

1 The revised Blooms taxonomy identified 3 domains of

learning cognitive, psychomotor and affective.

Psychomotor
Cognitive-Facts,
Concepts,
Principles, Affective
Etc. Values and
Attitudes
Blooms
Domains of
Learning
Activity

2. Kendall and Manzano likewise identified 3 domains of

knowledge taught and learned, namely: 1) information
(declarative knowledge) 2) mental Procedures (procedural
knowledge) and 3) psychomotor/motor procedures.

Mental
Procedures
(Procedural
Knowledge)
Information Psychomotor
(Declarative Procedures
Knowledge) (Motor Skills)

Kendalls and
Manzanos
Domains of
Knowledge
3. These domains of learning and domains of knowledge are
processed in different levels. For the revised Blooms taxonomy,
cognitive learning is processed in six (6) different levels of
processed from remembering to creating; psychomotor learning in
six (6) levels and affective in five (5) levels. Refer to the Table
below.

Domain Categories of Activities/ Levels of Processing

Cognitive 1. Remembering 2. Understanding 3. Applying
4. Analyzing 5. Evaluating 6. Creating

Affective 1. Receiving 2. Responding 3. Valuing

4. Organization 5. Internalization
Psychomotor 1. Reflex movements 2. Basic Fundamental
movement
3. Perceptual 4. Physical Activities,
5. Skilled movements 6. Non-discursive
communication (Harlow, A)
Table 1. Blooms Domain of Learning with Categories of
Educational Activities

C
r
e
a
ti
n
Evaluati
g
ng

Analyzing

Applying

Understanding

Remembering

Figure 3. The Revised Blooms Taxonomy of Cognitive Learning

4. For Kendall and Manzano, the three (3) domains information,
mental Procedures and psychomotor procedures are processed in
six (6) different levels. See Figure below.

Information
Retrieve (Cognitive)
Mental Comprehension (Cognitive)
Procedures Analysis (Cognitive)
(Cognitive)
Knowledge Utilization
Psychomoto Metacognitive System
r Self System
Procedures

Figure 4. Marzanos and Kendalls Domains of Knowledge and Levels of

Processing

Kendalls and Marzanos different levels of processing

information, mental and psychomotor procedures.

Each level of processing can operate within each of the three

domains information, mental procedures, psychomotor
procedures.

The first four levels of processing are cognitive , beginning with

Retrieval the least complex, then moving upward with an
increasing complexity through Comprehension, Analysis and
Knowledge Utilization.

The fifth level of processing, the Metacognitive System, involves

the learners specification of learning goals, monitoring of the
learners own process, clarity and accuracy of learning. Simply put
involves the learners organization of his/her learning.

The sixth level of processing, the Self System, involves the

learners examination of the importance of the learning task and
his/her self-efficacy. It also involves the learners emotional
response to the learning task and his/her motivation regarding it.
New Taxonomy

Bloom Kendall and Marzano

Domains of Revised New Taxonomy Domains of

Learning Blooms Kendall and Knowledge
Activities
Taxonomy, Marzano
Cognitive
domain
Cognitive 6 - Creating 6 Self system
5 - Evaluating 5
Psychomot Metacognitive Psychomotor
or system Procedures
4 - Analyzing 4 Knowledge
Affective Utilization Mental
Cognitive Procedures
System
3 - Applying 3 Knowledge Information
Analysis
2- 2
Understanding Comprehension -
Knowledge
1- 1 Retrieval -
Remembering Knowledge
Table 2. A comparison of Revised Blooms cognitive taxonomy and
Kendalls and Marzanos New Taxonomy

My Map

I will observe four (4) different classes.

I will reflect on the guide question given below.

To hit my target, I will follow these steps.

Step 1
Read the Learning Essentials given below.

Step 2

Observe at least (4) class with a learning partner

i will choose from each of the three groups.
Group 1 - Language/Araling
Panlipunan/Science/Math
Group 2 - Physical Education, ICT, TLE
Group 3 - Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao/Literature

OBSERVATION SHEET #4.1

BLOOMS LEVELS OF PROCESSING COGNITIVE ACTIVITIES

Resource Teacher:____________________________________ Teachers

Signature:_______________

School:
______________________________________________________________________________

Grade/Year Level: _______________________ Subject Area:______________

Date:________

Blooms level of
What learning activity/ies in the
processing
classroom did I observe in each level?
cognitive
activities

-Students asked to answer about what was

1. Remembering their topic yesterday?

Ex. Our topic last meeting was analogy. Class,

who can give an aswer what is Analogy?

-The students gave the definition of Analogy.

2. Comprehending

-The students answered the given sentence in

3. Applying the topic.
 -The teacher asked the students to identify the
4. Analyzing sentence if it is in analogy form.

5. Evaluating -The teacher conducted a quiz about the topic.

6. Creating -The students constructed analogy form of

sentence.

OBSERVATION SHEET #4.2

WRITE DOWN INSTANCES WHERE TEACHER

LEVELS OF MADE LEARNERS TO DO ANY OF THESE
PROCESSING
Information Student/s gave information
1. RETRIEVAL asked.
-The teacher asked the students to distinguish the
parts of the computer.

Mental procedures Student/s determined

if information is accurate or inaccurate.
-The teacher asked the students to demonstrate the
proper way of connecting cables to their designated
area.
 Psychomotor procedures / Motor or
physical skills

Student/s executed/performed procedures.

-The teacher selected a student to locate each part of

the computer in front individually.

Student/s constructed symbolic

2. COMPREHENSION representation of information. e.g. Draw a
symbol that represents abuse of Mother
Earth.
-Students understand the different functions of the
computer by comparing it to the human brain.

Student/s integrated information,

paraphrased information.
-The students voluntarily stand in front of the class.
Then, confidently presented the Read Only Memory or
(ROM). He then explained the brand of the computer
and delivered the functions and importance of it to his
classmates.

Student/s specified logical consequences

3. ANALYSIS
of information.
-The teacher gave a logical statement to his students,
states that Learn how to give value even to the small
ones.

Student/s stated generalizations.

-Students stated generalizations by comparing the
system unit to an umbrella.

Student/s identified factual/logical errors.

The students are very pedantic in expressing their
answer.
 Student/s did classifying.
The students classified the parts of the computer
according to its functions and purposes.

Student/s matched, identified similarities

and differences.
Students found out that the connectors of every
cables have their different sizes, numbers, colors and
shapes of its parts in their respective area.

Student/s tested hypotheses.

4. KNOWLEDGE
UTILIZATION -The students concluded that if theres an absence of
one single part of the computer it will not function.

Student/s experimented.
-During their experiment, one of the students opened
up a question asking the teacher if there would be still
a presence of electric current in the computer even
though it is not yet plug on the outlet? Then, the
teacher answered, Yes but small capacity of electricity
only.

Students solved problems given by

teacher.

-The teacher asked a question to the

students.
Ex. What do you think could be the possible reason of
losing data? The students answered that, it is because
of the fogs that covers the data.

Students made a decision.

-The students decided that if you are going to locate
the various types of cables and wires, it should be
organized obsessively neat and properly suited.

5. META-COGNITIVE
Student/s specified their learning goals.
SYSTEM
-Students showed interests and eagerness to learn
and discover more new things.
 Student/s monitored their own learning.
-Students monitored their own learning through
clarifying information that the teacher gave on them.

Student/s monitored the clarity and

accuracy of their own learning process.
-The students consulted the internet and dictionary for
unfamiliar words and etc.

Students believed in the importance of

6. SELF-SYSTEM what they learn.

-In my observation, the students believed in the

importance of what they learned it is because they
received all the information with apprehension.

Students were convinced in their ability to

learn.
-The students were convinced in their ability to learn
because they kept on asking questions, more
explanations, objections and clarifications.

Students were motivated to learn and felt

good about learning tasks.
-The students were motivated to learn and felt good
about the learning tasks because there was a
collaboration that made them interact with each other.
MY ANALYSIS
1 Were all Blooms levels of presenting information
demonstrated by the learners in class?

-Yes, because when I observed the students they are participative

and showed eagerness to learn.

2 Which level/s of processing cognitive information in

Blooms taxonomy was most displayed? least
demonstrated? Give proofs.

-Remembering, because they are more on reviewing and giving

feedback about their past lesson in order for the students to
awaken their learnings.

3 Were all Kendalls Marzanos levels of processing of

information, mental and physical procedures
demonstrated by the learners in class? Why or why not?
 - Based on my observation, Kendalls and Marzanos level of
processing of information was applied during their class
discussion. The interaction of the teacher between the students
was smooth and flexible. Their conversation was good and the
students were able to express their own thoughts and different
learnings about their topic in their class.

4 Which levels of Kendalls and Marzanos processing

information was most demonstrated? Least
demonstrated? Give proof.

-The most demonstrated levels of processing of information of

Kendalls and Marzano was retrieval. They focused more on
describing the components of computer, and the least
demonstrated was Knowledge Utilization because they perform
less in writing and reading. They are much indulged in
conversation.

5 Are Blooms cognitive taxonomy of learning activities

(cognitive, affective and psychomotor) very different
from the new taxonomy of Kendall and Marzano
(informative, metacognitve procedures and
psychomotor)? Explain your answer.

-Upon analyzing the two levels of processing of information,

therefore I conclude that Blooms taxonomy and Kendalls and
Marzanos levels of processing of information is different from
each other because Blooms taxonomy contained
Cognitive(Mental), Psychomotor(skills), and Affective (Values
and Attitude) that Kendalls and Marzano dont have, they are
only the same in metacognitive and psychomotor procedure.

MY REFLECTIONS
Analyzing the levels of processing that were demonstrated
by students in the classes that you observed, what conclusion can
you draw regarding the level of processing of information that
takes place in schools? (Are all the higher levels of processing
information done in classrooms? Or are classroom limited mostly
to the lower of information processing such as remembering or
retrieval?)
Write your reflections on the level of information processing
among student in class. Does teacher contribute to the level of
processing that students do in schools? If students are engaged
only in low level information processing, can teacher be blamed
for such?