7-16 Hanna M_A 2 rev 5/9/07 10:35 AM Page 7
Copyright 2007 Heldref Publications
The New Blooms Taxonomy:
Implications for Music Education
Abstract: Academic programs use objec-
tive and standardized assessment criteria.
Music education programs have avoided
such objective assessments via the asser-
tion of subjectivity and aesthetics in
music learning. In this article, the author
introduces the revised Blooms taxonomy
as a tool to translate music education out-
comes into objective educational criteria.
The author analyzes cognitive processes
and knowledge domains that address
more complex forms of musicianship
using achievement standards from the
nine national standards in music educa-
tion as examples. The author also intro-
duces four new knowledge domains to
describe procedural and metacognitive
knowledge that are integral to music
learning. In addition, the new taxonomy
elevates creativity as the most complex of
the cognitive processes, which has posi-
tive implications for the field of music
education.
Keywords: assessment, Blooms taxon-
omy, cognitive domain, music educa-
tion, national standards
M
usic has been a standard
subject in public schools
since the beginning of
compulsory education in
America (Mark and Gary
1999; Tellstrom 1971). Despite being an
established subject, music educators
WENDELL HANNA
find themselves constantly defending
their programs from budget cuts. This
often requires rationalizing how music
education programs contribute to acade-
mic performance in other subject areas
(Jorgenson 1995; Mishook and Korn-
haber 2006; Myers 2002). Furthermore,
music education falls outside the
domain of standardized testing, making
it difficult for the public to assess its
academic value. Although national stan-
dards for music education have been
established, the matching of objectives
to curriculum design and summative
assessment techniques has yet to occur
(Colwell 2002). Lacking such standard-
ized formats, music education programs
continue to be at risk. Music education,
however, is still an important and inte-
gral part of the public school curricu-
lum: few parents, students, administra-
tors, or community members are in
favor of seeing such programs cut or
discontinued.
Music education is, therefore, in a
conundrum; on the one hand, there is
general agreement about musics intrin-
sic value within the curriculum, whereas
on the other hand, decisions regarding
resource allocations are usually made on
the basis of objective and observable
outcomes, not personal values and bias.
Objective assessment of music pro-
grams is particularly difficult because
music-learning outcomes are often
judged and interpreted in a language
involving subjective assessment, aes-
thetic and psychomotor learning, and
performance. In contrast, reading, writ-
ing, math, science, language, and social
studies are not in this position because
they are taught and assessed as objec-
tive, cognitive domain activities.
Policy decisions regarding academic
programs are usually made on the basis
of factual data derived from objective
standardized assessment criteria (Linn
2003; Porter 2002). Music education
programs, however, lack precise quanti-
tative measurements for evaluating their
quality. The current form of assessment
in music education is highly informal
and subjective. If music classes are fully
enrolled, parents are happy, and if the
festival competition ratings are good,
the program is given a passing mark.
But beyond those types of informal
assessments, the ability to critically and
realistically evaluate the quality of vari-
ous music curricula is severely lacking
(Colwell 1999). Without standardized
means of assessment, music programs
will continue to struggle in their fight
for academic legitimacy in a policy
environment in which accountability
matters (Asmus 1999).
Subjects such as math, science, and
literaturewhich are usually viewed as
nonartisticalso have subjective, aes-
thetic, or artistic dimensions that are
Vol. 108, No. 4, March/April 2007 7
7-16 Hanna M_A 2 rev 5/9/07 10:35 AM Page 8
often overlooked. Indeed, many educa-
tors of these subjects recognize that aes-
thetics and artistic ability are dimen-
sions that are integral to their domains,
yet are not measured by standardized
assessments. Although the majority of
teachers value aesthetic learning in their
subjects, the reality of quantifiable aca-
demic assessments demands that stu-
dents be taught in ways that meet mea-
surable cognitive objectives, to the
exclusion or marginalization of artistic
objectives that are more subjective in
nature. A regrettable conclusion is that
policy decisions for subject areas with
quantifiable outcomes are easier to
uphold and defend (Myers 2002).
The New Blooms Taxonomy
In this article, I introduce the revised
Blooms taxonomy as a tool to translate
music education outcomes into objective
criteria to overcome the misconception
that student learning in music cannot be
assessed in the same manner as other
subjects, such as math and science.
Music learning involves a rich inter-
weaving of psychomotor, affective, and
cognitive domains of knowledge. How-
ever, I propose that focusing primarily
on the cognitive dimension of music
learning is the most effective route for
producing an articulate, holistic, yet
objective set of assessment criteria and
shared academic language for the field.
TABLE 1. Original Blooms Taxonomy
Knowledge Comprehension
Observation and Understanding
recall of information
information
Knowledge of Grasp meaning
dates, events,
places
Knowledge of Translate knowledge
major ideas into new context
Mastery of Interpret facts,
subject matter compare, contrast
Order, group, infer
causes
Predict consequences
8 Arts Education Policy Review
The publication of Blooms Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives (Bloom et al.
1956) helped to establish a shared lan-
guage for academic assessment and the
construction of learning objectives.
Researchers recently revised and updated
this commonly used and well-respected
assessment tool to reflect the advances in
cognitive psychology and educational
research that have occurred since it was
first published. The new taxonomy
(Anderson and Krathwohl 2001) pro-
vides an accurate language for creating
standardized assessment criteria that can
be applied to artistic subjects, in this case,
musicone of the subjects that was pre-
viously considered too subjective and
esoteric to assess objectively. In addition,
many of the complex cognitive aspects of
music learning are addressed in the new
taxonomy and are inherently related to
affective and psychomotor learning.
A History of the Blooms Taxonomy
A group of college examiners at the
Convention of the American Psycholog-
ical Association in 1948 developed the
original Bloom taxonomy when they
discussed the possibility of classifying
educational goals for the purpose of stu-
dent performance evaluation. The
authors classified educational objectives
according to three major domains: cog-
nitive, affective, and psychomotor. The
cognitive domain was defined as objec-
Cognitive Process
Application Analysis
Use information Seeing patterns
Use methods, Organization of parts
concepts, theories
in new situations
Solve problems Recognition of
using required hidden meanings
skills or
knowledge
Identification of
components
tives that deal with the recall or recog-
nition of knowledge and the develop-
ment of intellectual abilities and skills
(see table 1). The objectives of the
affective domain described changes in
interest, attitudes, and values, and the
development of appreciations and ade-
quate adjustment. And at last, the psy-
chomotor domain pertained to the
manipulative or motor-skill area
(Bloom et al. 1956, 78).
The Blooms taxonomy authors orga-
nized themselves into committees to
study the domains separately. Benjamin
S. Bloom (1956) was the primary editor
of the cognitive domain book, along
with Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst,
Walker H. Hill, and David R. Krath-
wohl. A taxonomy on the affective
domain was later coauthored by David
R. Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, and
Bertram B. Masia (1964). The original
committee members were unable to find
psychomotor objectives in the literature
at that time and decided not to write a
third handbook on the psychomotor
domain although several have been writ-
ten by other authors since then (Harrow
1972; Simpson 1972). The Blooms tax-
onomy has been applied to a diverse
number of disciplines since its initial
publication (Athanassiou, McNett, and
Harvey 2003; Ball and Washburn 2001;
Benson, Sporakowski, and Stremmel
1992; Dettmer 2006; Christopher,
Synthesis Evaluation
Use old ideas to Compare and
create new ones discriminate
between ideas
Generalize from Assess value of
given facts theories,
presentations
Relate knowledge Make choices
from several areas based on
reasoned
argument
Predict, draw Verify value of
conclusions evidence
Recognize
subjectivity
7-16 Hanna M_A 2 rev 5/9/07 10:35 AM Page 9
Thomas, and Tallent-Runnels 2004;
Gierl 1997; Granello 2000; Gray and
Waggoner 2002; Kastberg 2003; Noble
2004; Pimmel 2003; Reeves 1990;
Usova 1997; Ven and Chuang 2005).
Music, however, is not one of them.
A Comparison of the New and Old
Taxonomies
The new taxonomy introduced
changes in terminology, organization,
and hierarchical importance (see table
2). Changes made in terminology
include renaming the six major cognitive
process categories from noun to verb
forms. Because cognition is thinking and
thinking is an active process, the authors
chose verbs as better descriptors of
actions for the new taxonomy. They also
replaced the new subcategories of the six
major categories by verbs and reorga-
nized some subcategories. The authors
renamed the knowledge category, for
instance, remembering, because knowl-
edge is an outcome of thinkingnot a
form of thinking.
The authors also renamed the cate-
gories comprehension and synthesis as
understanding and creating, respectively.
They also made other changes to the cog-
nitive categories in the order of increased
complexity. As a result, the authors inter-
changed the order of synthesis (create in
the new taxonomy) and evaluation (eval-
uate in the new taxonomy) because they
believed that creative thinking is a more
complex cognitive process than is critical
thinking. In other words, one can be crit-
ical without necessarily being creative,
but creative production often requires
critical thinking. The most significant
change in the new taxonomy is that it is
now two-dimensional rather than one-
dimensional through inclusion of types
of knowledge, namely factual, conceptu-
al, procedural, and metacognitive (Krath-
wohl 2002).
The New Taxonomy Applied to the
National Standards in Music
Education
The new taxonomy is a framework for
aligning learning objectives, curriculum,
and assessment that match the complex-
ity of learning while addressing impor-
tant aspects of subject matter-specific
instruction. The new taxonomy com-
bines both cognitive processes and
knowledge domains in which the learner
is operating, thereby creating a two-
dimensional model that addresses more
complex forms of learning.
Therefore, the new taxonomy pro-
vides a common language for educators
to design and align their curricula with
cognitive learning objectives. To
demonstrate the practicality of the new
taxonomy, the authors solicited teachers
T
he new taxonomy is a framework
for aligning learning objectives,
curriculum, and assessment that
match the complexity of learning
while addressing important aspects of
subject matter-specific instruction.
from various subjects to submit their
curricula. They submitted curricula
from such subjects as health, English
literature, mathematics, history, science,
and language arts in the form of learn-
ing objectives, activities, and assess-
ments. The authors subsequently ana-
lyzed these according to the taxonomy
through descriptive vignettes describing
how they conducted the analysis. The
authors stated that the process was not
often clear and that at times they made
best guesses regarding relevant nouns
and verbs for the type of knowledge and
cognitive process in question. As the
authors noted, We had to come to grips
with some of the major issues and con-
cerns that confronted the teachers in
planning and implementing their units
(Anderson and Krathwohl 2001, 117).
It is unfortunate that they did not
include examples from music curricula
for analysis in the vignettes. This section
shows how the new taxonomy can be
applied to music education by analyzing
objectives for each of the nine national
standards in music education (MENC
1995). The following examples are taken
from Music Educators National Confer-
ence, Performance Standards for Music:
Strategies and Benchmarks for Assess-
ing Progress Toward the National Stan-
dards, Grades PreK12 in the five
through eight grade-level section of that
document (MENC 1996).
National standard 1. Singing, alone and
with others, a varied repertoire of music.
Achievement standard: 1a. Students
sing accurately and with good breath
control throughout their singing
ranges, alone and in small and large
ensembles.
In the earlier example, the main
objectives are to sing accurately in the
full range of the voice and with
breath control. Alone and in a group
and a varied repertoire are further
requirements of the standard. Singing is
the verb that indicates the cognitive
process involved. Referring to table 3,
singing is a type of cognitive process
related to the Apply category because it
is the carrying out of an action. It also
can be classified further in the subcate-
gory executing because it is applying a
procedure to a familiar task. The
nouns, breath control, range, and
accuracy indicate knowledge of cor-
rect Procedures, and pertain specifically
to subject specific skills, techniques,
and methods, in this case, singing.
Therefore, national standard 1a is
placed in the Apply and Procedural cell
of the taxonomy grid (see table 3).
National standard 2. Performing on
instruments, alone and with others, a
varied repertoire of music.
Achievement standard: 2d. Students
play by ear simple melodies on a
melodic instrument and simple
accompaniments on a harmonic
instrument.
Vol. 108, No. 4, March/April 2007 9
 7-16 Hanna M_A 2 rev
10
Arts Education Policy Review

TABLE 2. The New Blooms Taxonomy with Music Education Examples

5/9/07
Cognitive Process
Understand

10:35 AM
Interpret
Exemplify
Classify
Summarize Analyze Create
Remember Infer Apply Differentiate Evaluate Generate

Page 10
Recognize Compare Execute Organize Check Plan
Type of knowledge Recall Explain Implement Attribute Critique Produce

Factual Recognize and recall Understand music Apply basic musical Analyze basic musical Evaluate music by Improvise,
Terminology music vocabulary, terminology and basic knowledge elements checking for correct compose, and
Basic elements symbols, note values, elements such as time notes, rhythms, and perform music
instrument parts, etc. periods, styles, other basic music by using basic
pedagogical concepts, etc. elements elements
Conceptual Recognize and recall Understand, explain, and Apply music concepts Analyze music Evaluate music Improvise,
Interrelationships concepts of music discuss music concepts to the performing, concepts in a variety through conceptual compose, and
among the basic elements theory, time periods, and musics relationships composing, of ways such as critique perform music
within the larger structure. musical styles, specific to other areas both improvising, or music theory analysis, by using
Classification and composers, etc. within and outside of listening to music ethnomusicology, principles,
category music philosophy, music theories, and
Principals and education, multiple musical
generalization transcription, etc. concepts
Theories, model, and
structure
Procedural Recognize and recall Understand, explain, and Apply certain skills, Analyze how to apply Evaluate music Improvise,
Skills basic procedures for discuss performing, methods, techniques, specific types of through checking compose, and
Techniques and methods musical notation, composing, improvising, and performance skills, methods, and and critiquing perform music
Performance criteria instrumental and vocal or listening to music criteria to music techniques to music whether certain by using a
performance skills, and using correct procedures techniques, methods, variety of skills,
other musical methods and skills were used techniques, and
and techniques correctly methods
Metacognitive Recognize and recall Understand, explain, and Apply metacognition Analyze how Critique and self- Improvise,
Knowledge of self and self-knowledge and discuss self-knowledge ability to musical metacognition assists evaluation of compose, and
personal cognition of music personal cognition in and personal cognition tasks in understanding a performances, how perform music
Strategic knowledge music; strategies for in music; personal given piece of music music is personally by using self-
Knowledge of cognitive remembering musical strategies for listening or analyzing a perceived knowledge and
demands symbols, procedures, to music, audiation musical problem personal
Self-knowledge facts, techniques, etc. cognition
 7-16 Hanna M_A 2 rev
5/9/07
TABLE 3. The New Blooms Taxonomy Applied to Selected National Standards for Music Education

10:35 AM
Cognitive Process
Understand
Interpret
Exemplify
Classify

Page 11
Summarize Analyze Create
Remember Infer Apply Differentiate Evaluate Generate
Recognize Compare Execute Organize Check Plan
Type of knowledge Recall Explain Implement Attribute Critique Produce

Factual 6a
Terminology Analyzing music
Basic elements
Conceptual 8a 5a 6a
Interrelationships Understanding Read and notate Analyzing music
among the basic elements relationships music
within the larger structure. between
Classification and arts and other
category disciplines
Principals and 9a
generalizations Understanding music
Theories, models, and in relation to history
structures and culture
Procedural 1a 3b
Skills Singing Improvising
Techniques and methods 4a
Performance criteria Composing
Metacognitive 2d 6a 7a
Vol. 108, No. 4, March/April 2007

Knowledge of self and our own Playing by ear Analyzing music Evaluating music
personal cognition of music performances
Strategic knowledge
Knowledge of cognitive
demands for different tasks
Self-knowledge
11
7-16 Hanna M_A 2 rev 5/9/07 10:35 AM Page 12
In this example, the main objective is
to play by ear. Performing on a
melodic and a harmonic instrument are
further requirements pertaining to the
objectives. The verb play indicates the
cognitive process involved. Referring to
table 3, playing is a type of cognitive
process related to the category Apply
because it is the carrying out of an
action. It can also be further classified
in the subcategory executing because it
is applying a procedure to a familiar
task. The noun in the objective by ear
indicates Metacognitive knowledge
because it uses knowledge of cognition
in general as well as awareness and
knowledge of ones own cognition. In
this case, the specific types of Metacog-
nitive knowledge used are strategic
knowledge because it involves outlin-
ing as a means of capturing the structure
or heuristics, and cognitive task
knowledge because the task demands
knowledge of the cognitive demands of
different tasks. For that reason, national
standard 2d is placed in the Apply and
Metacognitive cell of the taxonomy grid.
National standard 3. Improvising
melodies, variations, and
accompaniments.
Achievement standard: 3b. Students
improvise melodic embellishments and
simple rhythmic and melodic variations
on given pentatonic melodies and
melodies in major keys.
In this example, the main objective is
to improvise. Performing melodic
embellishments, simple rhythmic and
melodic variations within pentatonic
and major keys are further require-
ments pertaining to the objective. The
verb improvise indicates the cognitive
process involved. Referring to table 3,
improvise is a type of cognitive process
related to the category Create because it
is the putting elements together to form
a coherent or functional whole, reorga-
nizing elements into a new pattern or
structure. It can also be further classi-
fied in the subcategory generating
because improvisation is a divergent
thinking process of coming up with
alternative hypotheses based on crite-
ria. The nouns melodic and rhythmic
12 Arts Education Policy Review
variations in the objective indicate the
Procedural knowledge area of the per-
formance criteria for improvising musi-
cal variations. The specific types of Pro-
cedural knowledge used are subject
specific skills, in this case, performing
on instrument or voice and subject spe-
cific techniques and methods, in this
case, techniques for improvisation. As a
result, National standard 3b is placed in
the Create and Procedural cell of the
taxonomy grid.
National standard 4. Composing and
arranging music within specified
guidelines.
Achievement standard: 4a. Students
compose short pieces within specified
guidelines, demonstrating how the
elements of music are used to achieve
unity and variety, tension and release,
and balance.
In this example, the objective is to
compose and arrange music. Within
specified guidelines, demonstrating
how the elements of music are used to
achieve unity and variety, tension and
release, and balance, are further
requirements pertaining to the objec-
tive. The verbs compose and arrange
indicate the cognitive process involved.
Referring to table 3, compose and
arrange are types of cognitive process-
es related to the category Create
because they involve putting elements
together to form a coherent or func-
tional whole, reorganizing elements
into a new pattern or structure. They
can also be further classified in the
subcategory planning because compo-
sition and arranging are convergent
thinking processes. The noun in the
objective music (that has specified
guidelines) indicates the Procedural
knowledge area. The types of Proce-
dural knowledge used are subject spe-
cific skills in this case, composing
and arranging using specified composi-
tional techniques and methods com-
mon to the music field. Therefore,
National standard 4a is placed in the
Create and Procedural cell of the tax-
onomy grid.
National standard 5. Reading and
notating music.
Achievement standard: 5a. Students
read whole, half, quarter, eighth,
sixteenth, and dotted notes and rests in
2/4, 3/4, 4/4, 6/8, 3/8, and alla breve
meter signatures.
In this example, the objective is to
read and notate music. To read,
whole, half, quarter, eighth, sixteenth,
and dotted notes and rests in 2/4, 3/4,
4/4, 6/8, 3/8, and alla breve meter signa-
tures are further requirements pertain-
ing to the objective. The verbs read and
notate indicate the cognitive process
involved. Referring to table 3, read and
notate are types of cognitive processes
related to the category Apply because it
is to carry out or use a procedure in a
given situation. It also can be further
classified in the subcategory implement-
ing because reading and notating are
convergent thinking processes that
involve applying a procedure to an
unfamiliar task. The noun in the objec-
tive music (whole, half, quarter, eighth,
sixteenth, and dotted notes and rests in
2/4, 3/4, 4/4, 6/8, 3/8, and alla breve
meter signatures) indicates the Concep-
tual knowledge area the interrelation-
ships among the basic elements within a
larger structure that enable them to
function together. In this case, the spe-
cific types of Conceptual knowledge
knowledge of theories, models, and
structures. As a result, national stan-
dard 5a is placed in the Apply and Con-
ceptual cell of the taxonomy grid.
National standard 6. Listening to,
analyzing, and describing music.
Achievement standard: 6a. Students
describe specific music events in a
given aural example, using appropriate
terminology.
In this example, the main objectives
are to analyze and describe what the
student hears while listening to music.
Using correct terminology is a further
requirement pertaining to the objective.
The verbs analyze and describe indicate
the cognitive process involved. Refer-
ring to table 3, analyze and describe are
types of cognitive processes related to
the category Analyze because it is
breaking material into its constituent
parts and determining how the parts
7-16 Hanna M_A 2 rev 5/9/07 10:35 AM Page 13
relate to one another and to an overall
structure or purpose. It can also be fur-
ther classified in the subcategories dif-
ferentiatedistinguish relevant from
irrelevant parts of presented material
and organizingdetermining how ele-
ments fit or function within a structure.
The noun in the objective what the stu-
dent hears indicates listening, which
uses multiple ways of knowing, Factual,
Conceptual, and Metacognitive. Factual
knowledge is the basic elements stu-
dents must know to be acquainted with
the discipline or solve problems in it,
Conceptual knowledge is the interrela-
tionships among the basic elements
with a larger structure that enable them
to function together, and Metacogni-
tive is knowledge of cognition in gen-
eral as well as awareness and knowl-
edge of ones own cognition. For a
student to hear all the elements of the
music, understand their interrelation-
ships, and be able to analyze and
describe, by using terminology, what
they hear from their own subjective
experience uses a complex set of knowl-
edge domains. Therefore, national stan-
dard 6a is placed in the Analyze and
Factual, Conceptual, Metacognitive
cells of the taxonomy grid.
National standard 7. Evaluating music
and music performances.
Achievement standard: 7a. Students
develop criteria for evaluating the
quality and effectiveness of music
performances and compositions and
apply the criteria in their personal
listening and performing.
In this example, the main objective is
to develop criteria. Applying the crite-
ria to compositions and performances
are further requirements pertaining to
the objective. The verbs develop and
apply criteria indicate the cognitive
process involved. Referring to table 3,
develop criteria is a type of cognitive
process related to the category Evaluate
because it is the ability to make judg-
ments based on criteria and standards.
It can also be further classified in the
subcategories checking because it is
detecting inconsistencies and effec-
tiveness within a process or product
and critiquing because it is detecting
inconsistencies and between a product
and external criteria to determine its
external consistency. Personal listen-
ing and performing indicate the
Metacognitive knowledge area. In this
case, the specific type of Metacognitive
knowledge used is strategic knowledge
because it involves outlining as a
means of capturing the structure or
heuristics, specifically applying crite-
ria to a performance of music that has
personal meaning and cognitive task
knowledge because the task demands
knowledge of the cognitive demands of
different tasks, such as being able to
evaluate a performance by using an
evaluation form. As a result, national
standard 7a is placed in the Evaluate
and Metacognitive cell of the taxonomy
grid.
National standard 8. Understanding
relationships between music, the other
arts, and disciplines outside the arts.
Achievement standard: 8a. Students
compare in two or more arts how the
characteristic materials of each art
(that is, sound in music, visual stimuli
in visual arts, movement in dance,
human interrelationships in theater)
can be used to transform similar
events, scenes, emotions, or ideas into
works of art.
In this example, the objective is to
compare characteristics within the
arts. Demonstrating the characteristic
in several art forms is a further require-
ment pertaining to the objective. The
verb compare indicates the cognitive
process involved. Referring to table 3,
compare is a type of cognitive process
related to the category Understand
because it involves constructing mean-
ing from instructional messages,
including oral, written, and graphic
communication. It can also be further
classified in the subcategories interpret
(change from one form of representa-
tion to another); exemplify (find a
specific example or illustration of a
concept or principle); and compare
(detecting correspondences between
two ideas, objects and the like). The
noun in the objective characteristic
materials indicates Conceptual knowl-
edge of each specific art. In this case,
the specific types of Conceptual knowl-
edge used are knowledge of classifica-
tions and categories and knowledge
of principals and generalizations.
Therefore, National standard 8a is
placed in the Understand and Conceptu-
al cell of the taxonomy grid.
National standard 9. Understanding
music in relation to history and culture.
Achievement standard: 9a. Students
describe distinguishing characteristics
of representative music genres and
styles from a variety of cultures.
In this example, the objective is to
describe distinguishing characteristics
of representative music genres and
styles from a variety of cultures. The
verb describe indicates the cognitive
process involved. Referring to table 3,
describe is the type of cognitive process
related to the category Understand
because one must construct meaning
from instructional messages, including
oral, written, and graphic communica-
tion. It can also be further classified in
the subcategories interpret (change
from one form of representation to
another), exemplify (find a specific
example or illustration of a concept or
principle), summarize (abstracting a
general theme or major points),
explain (constructing a cause and
effect model of a system) and compare
(detecting correspondences between
two ideas, objects and the like). The
noun in the objective music genres and
styles indicates the Conceptual knowl-
edge. In this case, the specific types of
Conceptual knowledge used knowl-
edge of classifications and categories
and knowledge of principals and gen-
eralizations. As a result, national stan-
dard 9a is placed in the Understand and
Conceptual cell of the taxonomy grid.
As shown in table 3, the national stan-
dards for music education represent a
wide range of complex cognitive abili-
ties and knowledge domains. This is
good news for music educators, because
the authors of the revised taxonomy
encourage educators to enhance their
pedagogical approaches by addressing
Vol. 108, No. 4, March/April 2007 13
7-16 Hanna M_A 2 rev 5/9/07 10:35 AM Page 14
the more complex cognitive and knowl-
edge areas. It is gratifying to know music
education is already doing this quite well
and can participate in standardized
assessment by using this widely shared
educational language.
Why Use the Revised Taxonomy for
Music Education?
There are several reasons why the
revised taxonomy is particularly appro-
priate for music education. First, the
additions of knowledge domains are
important because procedural and
metacognitive knowledge are integral to
music learning (Taylor 1993). Second,
the new taxonomy elevates creativity as
the most complex of the cognitive
processes. These additions have made
the Blooms taxonomy a tool worthy of
further study in the field of music edu-
cation.
Procedural Knowledge
The importance of procedural knowl-
edge in music education is paramount
and has been a hot topic of philosophi-
cal debate. David Elliott, in his book
Music Matters: A New Philosophy of
Music Education (1995), uses the term
music-ing to mean all five forms of
music making: performing, improvis-
ing, composing, arranging and conduct-
ing (40). For Elliot, procedural knowl-
edge is learned on the basis of the active
creation of music. Procedural skills are
the central knowledge domain in use
during music performance, requiring
careful and precise cognitive processing
to ensure correct development (Wester-
lund 2003). The new taxonomy is able
to address important aspects specific to
music performance that are procedural,
skill based, and involve a high degree of
interaction between cognition and
motor skill. For instance, initial skill
development for bowing, shifting,
tonguing, breathing, fingerings, and
articulation requires step-by-step proce-
dures and intense cognitive concentra-
tion on the part of the student. Students
may eventually perform tasks without
being conscious of the cognitive and
knowledge domain processes involved,
but if asked to explain the steps
involved in the performance task, they
14 Arts Education Policy Review
should be able to recall and clearly
explain the procedure. The addition of
the procedural knowledge domain
allows the new taxonomy to indirectly
reflect the psychomotor skill domain,
which is particularly crucial in perform-
ing, improvising, composing, arrang-
ing, and conducting.
Metacognition and Performance
Strategies
Metacognition is defined by Wikipedia
(2007) as two types of knowledge:
explicit/conscious, factual knowledge;
and implicit/unconscious knowledge.
The ability to think about thinking is
unique to sentient species and indeed is
one of the definitions of sentience
(Klaczynski 2006). In music learning, a
key aspect of metacognition is strategic
knowledge, which is vital to musical
refinement. The ability to skillfully inter-
pret and perform music demands a high
degree of self-knowledge. For example,
many strategies that are formed during
the development of musicianship are
idiosyncratic and private; only the indi-
vidual musician is privy to which strate-
gies work for him or her. For example,
strategic knowledge might take the form
of particular techniques, images, or and Evaluation. Evaluate was consid-
thoughts that help a musician to not
freeze up when it is his or her turn to per-
form a solo; personal images and emo-
tional feelings that allow him or her to
play a particular piece with genuine
musicality; or an awareness of destruc-
tive practice traps and how to avoid them.
Metacognition allows learners to step
back from their familiar routines to
develop more self-awareness and honest
self-assessment (Kuhn and Dean 2004;
Wiley, Griffin, and Thiede 2005). Some
music learners may discover through
metacognition that their playing is overly
technical in style, whereas others may
discover that their over-reliance on being
an expressive player will only take them
so far without significant improvements
in technique. Developing metacognition
can help music learners to become more
objective about their overall musician-
ship. If learners lack metacognition
that is, if learners are not able to think
about musical-thinking,their musi-
cianship will plateau and fail to progress.
Audiation is another metacognitive
skill in music learning that Gordon
(2003) views as the cognitive process by
which the brain gives meaning to musi-
cal sounds. In particular, audiation is the
hearing and comprehending of music in
ones mind when the musical tones are
not actually present and explains how
people understand and create meaning
in music, thereby developing a vocabu-
lary within the language of music
(Liperote 2006). Viewed as another
form of metacognition, audiation
involves not only the individual con-
struction of musical meaning, but also
the development of tacit knowledge,
which reflects how music is perceived
within oneself. The addition of the area
of metacognitive knowledge in the
revised taxonomy allows educators to
articulate aspects important to music
listening and processing that were
heretofore considered too subjective
and esoteric to codify.
Complexity of Cognitive Processes
The original taxonomy listed cogni-
tive processes in the following order of
complexity: Knowledge, Comprehen-
sion, Application, Analysis, Synthesis,
ered the highest level of cognitive com-
plexity in the original taxonomy. In the
new taxonomy, Create is ranked as the
highest level of cognitive complexity,
relegating Evaluate one step lower in
the hierarchy. In essence, the authors of
the new taxonomy have established that
creativity is the most complex form of
cognition. The revised taxonomy lists
the following cognitive processes in
progressively higher orders of complex-
ity: Remember, Understand, Apply,
Analyze, Evaluate, and Create. The new
Create process is composed of three dis-
crete areas: generate, plan, and produce.
In the field of music education, impro-
visation, composition, and performance
can be viewed as involving these three
processes (Hickey and Webster 2001;
Webster 1990). On the one hand, gener-
ate, for example, is a cognitive process
that involves divergent thinking. In
music performance this cognitive
process is known as improvisation.
Improvisation requires divergent think-
7-16 Hanna M_A 2 rev 5/9/07 10:35 AM Page 15
ing that is based on solid musical
knowledge, skills, and experience. On
the other hand, planning, the second
component of the creative process, is
oriented toward convergence. Planning
amounts to a shift from divergent to
convergent thinking, in which the ele-
ments generated from the divergent
thinking process are chosen and
arranged in a particular order, as in
musical composing and arranging. Pro-
ducing, the final stage in the creative
process, is, as the term implies, the
emergence of a unique product. The
production of a creative musical
achievement is the result of prior cre-
ative processes involving both divergent
and convergent thinking in the generate
and planning modes.
Policy Implications for Music
Education
Music educators have intuitively rec-
ognized the development of musician-
ship as a cognitively complex process.
Prior to the new taxonomy, music edu-
cators depended on implicit intuitions
for cognitive assessment and subscribed
to the myth that music learning was too
esoteric and subjective in nature to be
assessed using standardized methods
common to other subject areas. The
New Bloom Taxonomy shatters this
long-held myth; music educators now
have a means of making their implicit
notions of music learning explicit,
allowing them to participate as equals in
the assessment arena. Indeed, as the
analysis of the national standards in
music education has shown, the cogni-
tive processes involved in music learn-
ing span multiple levels of cognitive
complexity, requiring a conglomeration
of learning abilities.
The new taxonomy provides music
educators a common educational termi-
nology for articulating and assessing
music learning outcomes that can be
used as a tool for teaching and evalua-
tion of music programs. Moreover,
because the taxonomy provides a stan-
dardized vocabulary for all academic
subjects, music education programs can
overcome their long-standing marginal
and second-class citizen status by
adopting commonly agreed objective
criteria that the new taxonomy offers.
By doing so, music programs not only
enhance their academic credibility in
the eyes of policymakers, but also
strengthen their ability to compete for
scarce funding. Armed with objective
evidence founded on the basis of solid
program assessment, music programs
can participate in the language game of
accountability and join the cognitive
assessment discourse that has been
ongoing in other academic subjects.
The New Blooms taxonomy is a tool
that allows music educators to translate
their intuitive understandings and tacit
knowledge of cognitive processes
involved in music learning into an aca-
demic language that can be understood
by nonmusicians. However, skeptics
may claim that the new taxonomy
places undue emphasis on the cognitive
aspects of music, and that such forms
of cognitive assessment would be sell-
ing the music profession short. Is the
omission of the affective dimension of
music in the new taxonomy, in a sense,
negating its presence? It is clear that
the affective domain is essential for
musicality to develop and vitally
important to the musical growth and
development of students. Other tax-
onomies are attempting to combine all
three domains in a holistic manner
(Chan et. al 2002; Hauenstein 1998;
Marzano 2001) and may be adopted in
the future. If possible, a holistic
approach to teaching and assessment is
needed; yet, at the present time all aca-
demic areas are under similar pressures
to adhere to objective standardized
assessment criteria demanded by the
public and policymakers.
Having a shared educational terminol-
ogy to align objectives, learning tasks,
and assessments in music education is a
major benefit in the area of arts policy.
Music educators can use the language
that the new taxonomy offers to commu-
nicate to administrators and the public
that music education programs are
founded on the basis of sound and objec-
tive academic criteria. If such an innova-
tion were widely adopted, music educa-
tion would be judged as a cognitive
equal among its fellow subjects areas
and no longer marginalized to the spe-
cialized realm of aesthetic learning that
claims it cannot be easily understood
and interpreted. The new taxonomy is a
welcome addition to the field of music
education and further exploration of its
application is needed.
References
Anderson, L. W., and D. R. Krathwohl, eds.
2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Blooms
taxonomy of educational objectives.
Abridged. New York: Longman.
Asmus, E. P. 1999. Music assessment
concepts. Music Educators Journal 86
(2): 19.
Athanassiou, N., J. M. McNett, and
C. Harvey. 2003. Critical thinking in
the management classroom: Blooms
taxonomy as a learning tool. Journal of
Management Education 27 (5): 53355.
Ball, A. L., and S. G. Washburn. 2001.
Teaching students to think: Practical
applications of Blooms taxonomy. Agri-
cultural Education Magazine 74 (3): 16.
Benson, M. J., M. J. Sporakowski, and
A. J. Stremmel. 1992. Writing reviews of
family literature: Guiding students using
Blooms taxonomy of cognitive objec-
tives. Family Relations 41 (1): 65.
Bloom, B. S. Ed. 1956. Taxonomy of educa-
tional objectives: The classification of
educational goals. Handbook 1: Cogni-
tive domain. New York: David McKay.
Chan, C. C., M. S. Tsui, M. Y. C. Chan, and
J. H. Hong. 2002. Applying the structure
of the observed learning outcomes
(SOLO) taxonomy on students learning
outcomes: An empirical study. Assess-
ment and Evaluation in Higher Educa-
tion 27 (6): 51127.
Christopher, M. M., J. A. Thomas, and M. K.
Tallent-Runnels. 2004. Raising the bar:
Encouraging high level thinking in online
discussion forums. Roeper Review 26
(3): 16671.
Colwell, R. 1999. The 1997 assessment in
music: Red flags in the sunset. Arts
Education Policy Review 100 (6): 3339.
____. 2002. Assessments Potential in Music
Education. In The new handbook of
research on music teaching and learning,
ed. R. Colwell and C. Richardson,
112858. New York: Oxford.
Dettmer, P. 2006. New blooms in established
fields: Four domains of learning and
doing. Roeper Review 28 (2): 7078.
Elliott, D. J. 1995. Music matters: A new
philosophy of music education. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Gierl, M. J. 1997. Comparing cognitive
representations of test developers and
students on a mathematics test with
Blooms taxonomy. Journal of Educa-
tional Research 91 (1): 26.
Vol. 108, No. 4, March/April 2007 15
7-16 Hanna M_A 2 rev 5/9/07 10:35 AM Page 16
Gordon, E. E. 2003. Learning sequences in
music. Chicago: GIA.
Granello, D. H. 2000. Encouraging the cog-
nitive development of supervisees: Using
Blooms taxonomy in supervision. Coun-
selor Education and Supervision 40
(1): 31.
Gray, K. C., and J. E. Waggoner. 2002.
Multiple intelligences meet Blooms
taxonomy. Kappa Delta Pi Record 38
(4): 184.
Harrow, A. 1972. A taxonomy of psychomo-
tor domaina guide for developing behav-
ioral objectives. New York: David McKay.
Hauenstein, A. D. 1998. A conceptual
framework for educational objectives: A
holistic approach to traditional tax-
onomies. Lanham, MD: University Press
of America.
Hickey, M., and P. Webster. 2001. Creative
thinking in music. Music Educators
Journal 88 (1): 612.
Jorgenson, E. 1995. Justifying music
instruction in American public schools: A
historical perspective. Arts Education
Policy Review 96 (6): 3141.
Kastberg, S. E. 2003. Using Blooms
taxonomy as a framework for classroom
assessment. Mathematics Teacher 96
(6): 4025.
Klaczynski, P. A. 2006. Learning, belief
biases, and metacognition. Journal of
Cognition and Development 7 (3):
295300
Krathwohl, D. R. 2002. A revision of
Blooms taxonomy: An overview. Theory
into Practice 41 (4): 212.
Krathwohl, D. R., B. S. Bloom, and B. B.
Masia. 1964. Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The classification of educa-
tional goals. Handbook II: The affective
domain. New York: David McKay.
Kuhn D., and D. Dean. 2004. Metacogni-
tion: A bridge between cognitive psychol-
ogy and educational practice. Theory into
16 Arts Education Policy Review
Practice 43 (4): 268273.
Linn, R. L. 2003. Accountability: Responsi-
bility and reasonable expectations. Edu-
cational Researcher 32 (7): 313.
Liperote, K. A. 2006. Audiation for
beginning instrumentalists: Listen, speak,
read, write. Music Educators Journal 93
(1): 4652.
Mark, M. L., and C. Gary. 1999. A history of
American music education. 2nd ed.
Reston, VA: Music Educators National
Conference.
Marzano, R. J. 2001. Designing a new
taxonomy of educational objectives.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Mishook, J. J., and M. L. Kornhaber. 2006.
Arts integration in an era of
accountability. Arts Education Policy
Review 107 (4): 311
Music Educators National Conference.
(MENC). 1995. Opportunity-to-learn
standards. Reston, VA: Consortium of
National Arts Education Associations.
. 1996. Performance standards for Webster, P. (1990). Creativity as creative
music, grades preK12: Strategies and
benchmarks for assessing progress toward
the national standards. Reston, VA: Music
Educators National Conference.
Myers, D. E. 2002. Policy issues in
connecting music education with arts
education. In The new handbook of
research on music teaching and learning,
ed. R. Colwell and C. Richardson,
90930. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Noble, T. 2004. Integrating the revised
Blooms taxonomy with multiple
intelligences: A planning tool for
curriculum differentiation. Teachers
College Record 106 (1): 193211.
Pimmel, R. L. 2003. Student learning of
criterion 3 (a)(k) outcomes with short
instructional modules and the relationship
to Blooms taxonomy. Journal of
Engineering Education 92 (4): 35159.
Porter, A. C. 2002. Measuring the content of
instruction: Uses in research and practice.
Educational Researcher 31 (7): 314.
Reeves, M. F. 1990. An application of
Blooms taxonomy to the teaching of
business ethics. Journal of Business
Ethics 9 (7): 609.
Simpson, E. J. 1972. The classification of
educational objectives in the psychomotor
domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House.
Tellstrom, A. T. 1971. Music in American
education past and present. New York:
Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.
Taylor, J. A. 1993. The evolution and future
of cognitive research in music. Arts
Education Policy Review 94 (6): 35.
Usova, G. M. 1997. Effective test item dis-
crimination using Blooms taxonomy. Edu-
cation 118 (1): 10010.
Ven, J., and C. Chuang 2005. The comparative
study of information competencies-using
Blooms taxonomy. Journal of American
Academy of Business 7 (1): 13643.
thinking. Music Educators Journal 76 (9)
2228.
Westerlund, H. 2003. Reconsidering aesthetic
experience in praxial music education. Phi-
losophy of Music Education Review 11
(1): 4562.
Wikipedia. 2007. Metacognition. http://en
.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metacogn
ition&oldid=101092209 (accessed January
21, 2007).
Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., and K. W. Thiede.
2005. Putting the comprehension in
metacomprehension. Journal of General
Psychology 132 (4): 40828.
Wendell Hanna, PhD, is an assistant pro-
fessor of music education at the School of
Music and Dance, College of Creative Arts
at San Francisco State University, San
Francisco.