Abstract:Bloom's taxonomy, which has been influential in underpinning many of the curriculum developments of the last fifteen years, may be criticized on various grounds. It is a mistake to suppose that Bloom's taxonomy, or any other proposed classification of objectives, can ever be wholly independent of questions of value. On the contrary, it appears that Bloom's taxonomy ‘suits’ the expression of a pragmatic/materialist ethic, and does not particularly suit the expression of ethics either traditionally, or currently, associated with the concept of ‘education’. In implementation Bloom's taxonomy‐‐it is argued‐‐is a disappointingly blunt instrument. This is particularly apparent when we try to use it in the analysis of mathematics in the upper school. In history the taxonomy seems to lead to conclusions which invert both commonsense and the judgement of experienced teachers. The major criticism of Bloom's taxonomy which is advanced in this paper* is, however, that the taxonomy omits a vital ingredient in education: the development of imaginative understanding. The crucial problem is therefore to identify the behavioural expression of imaginative understanding. This is defined as a ‘continuity of fluent response to “if . . . then” . . . questioning’. In the final part of the paper a new approach to the objectives of education is sketched, based centrally on the concept of imaginative understanding. The problem of formulating a satisfactory account of the objectives of education is, it is noted, particularly acute in relation to the education of the hyper‐aware student. The valuable mental residue of imaginative understanding is confidence: and confident response in turn often acts as a sign that the student really understands. *This is a revised version of a paper which was read by the author at the first of a series of Joint NFER‐Reading University, School of Education Seminars on October 30th, 1973. *This is a revised version of a paper which was read by the author at the first of a series of Joint NFER‐Reading University, School of Education Seminars on October 30th, 1973.

The Purpose and Perception of Learning Objectives

Learning outcomes and instructional objectives: is there a difference?

Writing and Using Learning Objectives

Whose Goal Emphases Play a More Important Role in ESL/EFL Learners’ Motivation, Self-Regulated Learning and Achievement?: Teachers’ or Parents’

A Noteworthy Next Class: Making Learning Objectives Work for You

Perception Differences Between Students and Teachers of Undergraduate Industrial Design Core Courses.

On Defining the Three-Dimension Instructional Objectives

Achieving Course Objectives And Student Learning Outcomes: Seeking Student Feedback On Their Progress

Why do students present different design objectives in engineering design projects?

Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment

Getting at Student Understanding - the Key to Teachers’ Use of Test Data

Faculty and student perceptions of effective study strategies and materials

Purpose development in the context of higher education

SoTL Best Practices: 21st Century College Students’ Perceptions of Learning Styles and Instructional Design Materials’ Influence on the Successful Completion of Assignments

Outcome-based Education: An Outline

Understanding the "Pathway" Towards a Searcher's Learning Objective

Young Children's Perspectives on Learning and Teacher Practices in Different Classroom Contexts: Implications for Motivation

Bloom's Taxonomy and the Objectives of Education

A Road Map for Planning Course Transformation Using Learning Objectives

Performing like a Learning Machine: The Emphasis on Performance Goals Results in Self-Objectification

Learning objects, learning objectives and learning design