Innovative Methods

Promoting Cognitive Complexity in Graduate

Written Work: Using Bloom's Taxonomy as a
Pedagogical Tool to Improve Literature Reviews

Darcy Haag Granello

The article applies Bloom's (B. S. Bloom, M. D. Engelhart, F. J. Furst,

W. H. Hill, & D. R. Krathwohl, 1956) Taxonomy ofEducational Objec-
tives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain to the process of graduate-level
writing in counselor education. Bloom's Taxonomy is provided as a
mechanism to help students develop and demonstrate cognitive com-
plexity when writing comprehensive literature reviews. The article
outlines common assumptions held by students operating at each
level of the Taxonomy, typical organizational structure and content
of papers at each level of the Taxonomy, and tips to move writing to
more cognitively advanced levels.

Graduate students in counselor education write numerous

papers. One of the more common types of papers assigned is the
comprehensive review of the existing literature. Both master's-
and doctoral-level students are expected to write literature
reviews for courses, and doctoral students eventually use their
writing skills for literature reviews in their dissertations.
Little literature exists, however, to support curricular or peda-
gogical methods for improving writing in graduate programs. There
is some evidence that three types of training are typically avail-
able: conducting a library search (Bern, 1995; Peper. 1971), learning
to read and understand research (Jackson, 1980), and writing in
American Psychological Association (APA, 1994) format. In other
words. students may attend classes or workshops to learn how to
conduct computerized database searches and collect information
to be included in their papers. In addition, students are typically
required to take a research methods course to help them read,
understand, and summarize research (Council for Accreditation
of Counseling and Related Educational Programs [CACREPI. 1994).
Finally, they may attend workshops or use the APA (1994) Publi-

Darcy Haag Granelio is an associate professor ofcounselor education at 1he Ohio State
University, Columbus. Correspondence should be sent to Darcy Haag GraneUo. 356
Arps HaU, 1945 North High Street, Columbus. OH 43210 (e-maU: granello.1 @[Link]).

292 Counselor Education & Supervision' June 2001' Volume 40

cation Manual to learn the specifics of how to cite references in
APAstyle. Although the APAmanual advocates cognitively advanced
writing. it does not offer a mechanism on how to improve the
complexity in writing. Rather. it focuses only on the specifics of
written presentation. Thus. although specific faculty certainly
engage in individualized instruction to improve writing. what
seems to be missing in the counselor education literature is a
formalized. intentional, and well-grounded mechanism designed
to teach students how to critically evaluate and synthesize the
material they have collected into cognitively advanced reviews
of the literature.
Comprehensive literature reviews involve more than simply a
recitation of information gleaned from other sources. Cognitively
advanced reviews organize. integrate. and evaluate previously
published material (Bern, 1995). As such. they clearly define and
clarify the problem; summarize previous work in the area; iden-
tify relationships. contradictions. gaps. and inconsistencies in the
literature; and suggest the next step or steps in solving the prob-
lem (APA. 1994). Through the process. writers enhance their own
learning and. it has been argued. advance their capacity for criti-
cal thought (Rivard, 1994). A review of the empirical research found
consistent results showing that writers who use a specific cogni-
tive strategy in their work demonstrate higher levels of cognitive
complexity than those who do not (Klein, 1999).
University faculty in graduate programs often express concerns
about students' inability to analyze. evaluate, and critically syn-
thesize the existing research and literature (Anisfeld, 1987; Cham-
berlain & Burrough. 1985; Froese. Gantz. & Henry, 1998; Makosky,
1985). Jackson (1980) noted that there is a surprising lack of
attention to the topic of reviewing and integrating the literature.
particularly given the importance that various types of literature
reviews have for the science of behavioral health. More recently.
this same sentiment has been echoed in the field of marriage and
family counseling. with indications that many faculty consider
this lack of training for students to be a relevant problem (Piercy,
Sprenkle, & McDaniel, 1996).
In the field of psychology. Froese et al. (1998) noted that "this
mismatch between expectation and performance may arise from
instructional deficiencies" (p. 103). They argued that instructors
may make faulty assumptions about students' ability to transfer
critical thinking skills learned in other facets of their graduate
programs to the writing of comprehensive literature reviews. Be-
cause of these assumptions. the essential writing skills necessary
to engage in cognitively complex writing assignments are not ex-
plicitly taught to graduate students. These writing skills both al-

Counselor Education & Supervision. June 2001 • Volume 40 293

 low students' current level of cognitive complexity to be expressed
and, in turn, force students to higher levels of complexity in their
thinking and writing (Klein, 1999). Boice (1982) and Nodine (1990)
suggested that faculty must make the effort to teach these writing
skills to students, but both lamented the absence ofrelevant models
to guide this instruction.
In the field of counselor education, there also is a lack of infor-
mation on how to teach critical writing skills to graduate stu-
dents. Articles related to writing literature reviews explain the
process of publishing (e.g., Forman, 1988), suggest methods for
improving publication success (e.g., Gladding, 1989; McGowan,
1996; Smaby & Crews, 1998), and give tips on publishing in par-
ticular journals (e.g., Brown, 1989; Hazler, 1992). No article could
be located, however, that provides a model to teach students how
to engage in the higher order thinking and writing skills neces-
sary to write advanced quality literature reviews.
There is, however, a framework available to gutde counselor
educators in their efforts to help graduate students write more
cognitively complex literature reviews. The Taxonomy of Educa-
tional Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain (Bloom, Engelhart,
Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956), more commonly referred to as
Bloom's Taxonomy, is a specification of six hierarchically ordered
levels of instructional outcomes that are intended to move stu-
dents toward higher levels of cognitive complexity. Bloom's Tax-
onomy could be a useful learning schema if applied to writing
graduate-level papers in counselor education.
This article outlines the basic premises of Bloom's Taxonomy,
applies these premises to writing comprehensive literature reviews
in counselor education, and suggests methods for moving stu-
dents to higher levels of cognitive complexity in their papers. Fac-
ulty may use this model to give their students a specific cognitive
map for their writing that includes a goal and a method to move
toward that goal. Thus, rather than simply telling a student that
his or her work "lacks critical thinking," the model is intended to
help the student recognize where his or her thinking has broken
down and what method can be used to get back on track.

Bloom's Taxonom;x
Bloom's Taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956) was one of the first models
developed to provide educators with a systematic classification of
cognitive operations. The Taxonomy outlines six hierarchical po-
sitions of cognitive complexity, ordered from the least to the most
complex: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Syn-
thesis, and Evaluation. The levels are assumed to be cumulative,

294 Counselor Education & Supervision. June 2001 • Volume 40

with each level of the system building on the successful completion
of the previous levels. Much research has been conducted on the
model, and it has been found to transcend age, type of instruction,
and subject matter (Hill & McGaw, 1981; Kottke & Schuster, 1990;
Kunen, Cohen, & Solomon, 1981). Since its inception, the model
has influenced curricular development, educational research,
and the construction of tests in education and professional or-
ganizations (Kunen et al., 1981). It is one of the most widely
accepted models of cognitive abilities and educational objec-
tives used in education, and even its severest critics agree that
the model has enormous influence and is an important step
toward understanding the structure oflearning outcomes (Kottke
& Schuster, 1990).

Bloom's Taxonomx in Graduate-Level Writing

Skills Used and Assumptions Made at Each Level of the Taxonomy

Each of the six levels in the hierarchy provides an essential skill

for students who would like to write cognitively advanced litera-
ture reviews. Applied to the process of writing, each level provides
a critical component of the process. The levels are articulated in
the following sections, with descriptions based on those included
in the Learning Skills Program (1999) and with appropriate appli-
cations made to the writing process. Of course, it should be rec-
ognized that an individual paper may not fit neatly into only one
category on the Taxonomy. Nevertheless, the paper can be classi-
fied generally into a Taxonomy level based on the overarching
principle used to organize and write it, and a precise categoriza-
tion of the entire paper is not necessary for this method to be
successful in promoting cognitive advancement.
Knowledge. In this lowest level, the student recalls or recog-
nizes information, ideas, and principles in the approximate form
in which they were learned. The material may vary from specific
facts to complete theories, but all that is requlred is remembering
the information. Students who use only this cognitive level in their
writing will simply repeat information from other sources without
demonstrating an understanding of the material or making dis-
tinctions between the quality of the different sources. Common
assumptions made by writers at the knowledge level include the
following: If it has been published, it is worthy of inclusion; all
published articles are equally valid; no true distinctions can be
drawn between research and nonresearch articles; and main ideas
from source material cannot be distinguished from less impor-
tant ideas presented.

Counselor Education & Supervision' June 2001' Volume 40 295

 Comprehension. This level is defined as the ability to grasp the
meaning of material and may be demonstrated by translating
material from one form to another or by interpreting material.
Students using comprehension present a basic understanding of
material. Whereas a student at the knowledge level can recall
information in a rote fashion, students at the comprehension level
are able to manipulate that information in a manner that demon-
strates more than simple memorization. In written work, students
demonstrating comprehension are able to summarize the main
points of articles they have read and can manipulate that infor-
mation into their own words. However, they continue to make many
of the same assumptions that students in the knowledge level
make. They are still unable to make distinctions between the quality
of the sources they are using, believing all publications to be equally
valid and relevant. They continue to have difficulty understand-
ing which information is particularly relevant to the topic at hand,
and they may include extraneous information simply because it
is interesting or is assumed to be related because it appears in an
article with other related information.
Application. Application is defined as the ability to use learned
material in new and concrete situations and includes applying
rules, methods, concepts, principles, and theories. In their writ-
ing, students at the application level are able to select the main
ideas and research findings from other sources that relate directly
or indirectly to their selected topic. They make explicit connec-
tions between the writings of others and the topic at hand. They
are able to make decisions about the relevance of a particular
piece of information. However, like those students at the first two
levels, students at the application level are unable to make dis-
tinctions about the quality of information read. In addition, like
students at lower levels, they often focus their attention solely on
the introduction and discussion sections of other articles (Anisfeld,
1987). Without a meaningful schema for analysis, they are un-
able to break down source information to the component research
principles or conceptual ideas. Therefore, they must rely on the
source authors' analysis of their own work, which is typically in
the discussion section of the source articles.
Analysis. Analysis refers to the ability to break down material
into its component parts and may include the identification of the
parts, analysis of the relationship between the parts, and recog-
nition of the organizational principles involved. Students are able
to identify the component parts of a research or literature review
article and can identify the main patterns or themes in each ar-
ticle reviewed. They no longer need to rely on the source author's
own conclusions; they can reach conclusions of their own, based

296 Counselor Education & Supervision· June 2001 • Volume 40

on an analysis of the research or ideas presented. However, they
have yet to articulate a method for evaluating the information and
therefore have difficulty reconciling contradictory findings in research.
In addition, like students at lower levels of the Taxonomy, they do
not demonstrate an ability to link source material across articles.
Each item is presented as a stand-alone piece of information.
Synthesis. Synthesis refers to the ability to put parts together to
form a new whole. The student originates, integrates, and combines
ideas into a product, plan, or proposal that is new to him or her. In
their writing, students at this level are able to draw together ideas
and research findings from source material into thematically out-
lined literature reviews. They are able to gather all relevant informa-
tion, taken from an analysis of the components of the source articles,
and combine it into broader themes and principles. However, their
writing still lacks an organized and articulated schema for evalua-
tion. Thus, like students at lower levels of the Taxonomy, students
at the synthesis level tend to give more merit to source articles that
support their premise, ideas, and values and to downplay the re-
sults of studies or opinions if they do not match the student's posi-
tion or if they contradict other sources.
evaluation. This level is concerned with the ability to judge the
value of material for a given purpose. The judgments are based on
defmed criteria that are either developed by the student or given to
the student by an outside source. This is considered to be the high-
est level in the cognittve hierarchy because it contains elements of
all the other categories and involves conscious value judgments based
on clearly defmed criteria. Whereas students at earlier levels of the
hierarchy may evaluate what they have read, they typically do so in
a subjective manner. Students who master the evaluative level rec-
ognize that there are certain preestablished criteria that are used to
evaluate source writings. They make distinctions between research
and conceptual articles and between conclusions drawn from re-
search, from experience, or from opinion. In addition, using skills
gleaned from research courses, they are able to critically evaluate
the quality of different research studies and make evaluative com-
parisons between them. Thus, they can understand and evaluate
contradictory research results when differing methodologies caused
those contradictions, and they are more likely to accept the ambigu-
ities of contradictory results when they recognize that the field does
not always yield clear-cut answers.

Format of Papers at Each Level of the Taxonomy

When instructors read students' papers, it is often apparent at

which level of the Taxonomy a particular student is operating.

Counselor Education & Supervision. June 2001. Volume 40 297

Both the format and the content of the paper provide clues. These
same clues are useful to assist students in evaluating their own work.
Knowledge. Papers at the knowledge level are typically orga-
nized by articles read rather than by topic or theme. Each para-
graph outlines a particular article or study, with a description of
what the source authors investigated and their results. The paper
may seem to be simply a listing of these articles, with little or no
integration and few summative comments. A key indicator of pa-
pers at the knowledge level is overreliance on quotations. Stu-
dents are unable to translate the ideas of the source authors into
their own words and. thus. overuse quotes.
Comprehension. Like papers at the knowledge level, papers at
the comprehension level lack integration and analysis and have
an organizational style in which paragraphs are laid out by ar-
ticles read. rather than by main ideas. However, unlike knowl-
edge level papers, papers at the comprehension level present the
main ideas of the source articles, demonstrating a student's abil-
ity to distinguish main ideas from less important ideas in the articles
read. In addition, comprehension level papers do not rely on quo-
tations but use them sparingly and appropriately.
Application. Papers written at the application level are still orga-
nized by source articles rather than by topics or themes. How-
ever. with each source article being reviewed. there is a direct and
explicit link from that article to the topic of the current paper. The
student summarizes the source article and then applies the find-
ings from that article to the topic of their own paper. These links
are neither integrative nor summative, and there are few or no
connections drawn between source articles.
Analysis. Writing at the analysis level typically includes more
detailed descriptions of source article information. Students dis-
cuss the specifications of the studies they are including and can
Identify patterns that emerge. Like students at the application level.
they link the source articles back to the main idea of their paper.
but they add a layer of complexity by identifying the component
parts of the source article that directly support their argument.
Synthesis. When students' writing reaches the synthesis stage,
the papers have a qualitatively different look to them. The most notable
change is organization based on themes rather than on source ar-
ticles. Froese et al. (1998) noted that students often summarize
articles sequentially rather than comprehensively integrating the
various findings. Sequential organization represents a failure to
accomplish synthesis. Using synthesis, the students are able to
determine the main points not just of source articles (a comprehen-
sion task) but of the paper they are composing. Source articles are
spread throughout the paper and applied to the arguments and ideas

298 Counselor Education & Supervtston » June 2001 • Volume 40

presented, using the students' own organizational schema to direct
the flow of information. Ideas from various sources that support a
theme are brought together, compared, and contrasted.
Evaluation. Papers at the evaluation level are organized themati-
cally and present convincing and well-thought-out arguments that
are well grounded in the literature. They analyze the source ar-
ticles for strengths and limitations and include objective critiques
of the quality of the source information. They present both sides
of an argument with a minimum of researcher bias. They draw
synthesized conclusions logically based on objective evaluations;
therefore, readers of these papers can feel secure in the quality of
the conclusions reached.

Moving Papers to Higher Levels of the Taxonomy

Recognizing a student's current level of functioning in writing

comprehensive literature reviews is only important if this recog-
nition can be used to move the student to a higher level of cogni-
tive complexity. A paper might not fit completely into only one
level of the Taxonomy because, as with all developmental models,
the levels of the Taxonomy are not absolutes, and some overlap-
ping is inevitable (Barrow, 1987). Nevertheless, papers can be
generally categorized into a Taxonomy level based on the predomi-
nant skills and assumptions demonstrated.
Once a paper is placed at a certain level of the Taxonomy, the next
step is to use the information collected to teach the student how to
move to the next level. There is considerable support for the idea
that the steps toward higher cognitive complexity should be incre-
mental (Bloom et al., 1956; Kottke & Schuster, 1990; Kunen et al.,
1981). Thus, if a student presents at the Knowledge level, the next
step is to move the student to the Comprehension level. Care must
be taken not to bypass that level in an effort to move the student to
higher levels of complexity; each level must be understood and com-
petency demonstrated before the next level is attempted.
Of course there are as many writing strategies as there are writ-
ers, and no universal strategy will work for everyone. Neverthe-
less, what follows are some ideas that may be useful to help push
students to higher levels of cognitive complexity. Faculty are en-
couraged to add their own ideas and strategies to the discussion
when presenting this material in class.
From knowledge to comprehension. To move from knowledge to
comprehension, students need to learn to put the ideas they are
reading into their own words. Many students admit that when
they are writing papers, they sit down at their computers with the
source articles before them, read a source article (or parts of a

Counselor Education & Supervision. June 2001 • Volume 40 299

 source article), and type what they are reading into the com-
puter. This strategy encourages low levels of complexity as stu-
dents merely repeat information directly gleaned from the source
articles without any effort to comprehend the source material.
Thus, students benefit from a strategy that forces them to re-
state or summarize source material in their own words before
they include the material in their papers. One such strategy is to
read a source article and summarize the main points or themes
on a "sticky note" or 3 x 5 card stapled to the article, then enter
material into the paper based on the summaries rather than on
the actual source articles.
From comprehension to application. To move from comprehen-
sion to application, students must take their comprehension
summaries and add a direct link from the source material to
the paper being written. By asking themselves, "How does this
information directly link or apply to my topic?" students force
themselves into the application process. If they cannot make
direct links, or if the links are strained and difficult to support,
then the student is probably including extraneous or irrelevant
information.
From application to analysis. Analysis is a necessary and often
neglected precursor to synthesis. Unless the source articles are
understood and analyzed in detail, synthesis will be based on
inaccurate or incomplete information. Whereas a written sum-
mary for the purposes of comprehension will focus on more global
themes and main points, analysis requires an in-depth review of
the source articles. If analyzing an empirical study, what was the
methodology used? Are there alternative explanations for the find-
ings? Are causal relationships inferred from correlational data?
Are effect sizes reported and are they meaningfully large? Is there
justification for the generalizations drawn from the sample that
has been studied? In nonempirical articles, how did the authors
come to their conclusions? What evidence is provided for these
conclusions? The student may develop a list of questions that he
or she would use to analyze the source articles.
From analysis to synthesis. Writing from a detailed outline is
an important component of producing quality literature reviews,
and this becomes particularly true at the synthesis stage. Stu-
dents often have vague outlines with only three or four general
categories when they begin a paper. A change in the process is
necessary. Cognitively advanced writers typically start with a
very detailed outline that emerges from the themes of the source
articles (Jackson, 1980). This is done before the writing begins.
An outline detailed enough to include subtopics and both sides
of specific arguments will not be conducive to a sequential list-

300 Counselor Education & Supervision. June 2001 • Volume 40

ing of articles. Students will be forced to use a more integrated
approach. However, this outline can be developed only after the
source material is read, understood, and analyzed, so that the
themes to be included in the outline emerge from the existing lit-
erature. Faculty can encourage the use of a detailed outline by
working on an outline with the student or, alternatively, requiring
an outline to be turned in and evaluated before the final paper is
written and submitted.
From synthesis to evaluation.. Moving to evaluation requires stu-
dents to develop an objective rating system for their source ar-
ticles. Often, students at lower levels of the complexity will struggle
with whether to include their own opinions in a literature review
(Froese et al., 1998). At the evaluation level, students understand
that opinion is not the primary method of evaluation, but reasoned
and articulated assessment of the source articles is essential to
making evaluative comparisons. To complete this task, students
must use the information gleaned at the analysis level to analyze
the quality of the research or other types of source articles. They
should have clearly defined criteria developed beforehand that will
help them make these judgments.

Conclusion
Writing a cognitively advanced literature review is a difficult but
important skill for counseling students. Cognitive complexity in
writing has been linked to enhanced learner-directed learning,
an important component of adult and graduate education
(Brookfield, 1989). It also is consistent with developing advanced
capacity for critical thought (Rivard, 1994).
Faculty cannot assume that students who are cognitivelyadvanced
in other areas of their lives or in other areas of their academic
programs will necessarily transfer those skills to their writing.
Simpson, Dalgaard, and O'Brien (1986) and Granello (1999) stud-
ied the cognitive complexity of graduate students and found that
students regressed in their cognitive development when they were
faced with new and unfamiliar tasks. These flndtngs can be applied
to the process of graduate level writing. Students without a con-
ceptual understanding of the goals and process of cogntttvely com-
plex writing may easily resort to lower levels of complexity. Certainly,
without a model or a goal for writing, it would be difficult for them
to use the experience to push their thinking to higher levels of
complexity through the process of writing.
The use of Bloom's Taxonomy to increase the cognitive complex-
ity of students' writing is just one attempt to provide a methodology
for students in their learning. Clearly, other models could be ap-

Counselor Education & Supervision. June 2001 • Volume 40 301

 plied and be equally, or even more, useful. In addition, the
Taxonomy is not intended to be an all-encompassing model of
writing. The use of the model does not preclude the importance of
other components of writing (e.g., selecting appropriate topics,
conducting a comprehensive review of the literature, setting aside
time to write, using concise language).
In presenting this model to counselor education students over
the past several years, I have found that students benefit from
having a clear understanding of the goals of writing literature
reviews. Prior to implementing this model in our program, stu-
dents complained that they were given assignments to write litera-
ture reviews without a full intellectual understanding of the desired
outcome. They expressed frustration with the faculty's evalua-
tion of their writing as lacking complexity. Discussions with fac-
ulty from programs around the country confirm a frustration on
the part of many faculty members as well. They want to help
their students advance in their writing but lack models or teach-
ing methods to do so. With a model to follow, students more
easily understand the desired goals. Furthermore, because most
students have achieved higher levels of cognitive complexity in
other domains of their lives, they readily understand and iden-
tify with the levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. With very little expla-
nation and effort, most students can begin to apply this model
to their own writing. Clearly, this model works best when stu-
dents have opportunities to receive feedback on rough drafts of
their writing and have the opportunity to resubmit a paper. A
rough draft could be analyzed, using this model, and placed at
the appropriate Taxonomy level, with input and discussion be-
tween the student and the faculty member on how to reach the
next level in the subsequent draft. Faculty who would like to
teach this model can photocopy the summary presented in Table
1 and use it with students to stimulate discussion. Students
and faculty should be encouraged to add their own ideas in the
"tips to move to the next level" category.
Although this article represents a first attempt at applying a
model to graduate writing in counselor education, the ideas
presented here could benefit from research to determine whether
students who have been taught this model actually produce
more cognitively complex papers. The symbiotic relationship
between cognitive complexity in writing and complexity in think-
ing could also be the focus of more research. In the meantime,
the empirical grounding of Bloom's Taxonomy and research
on its use to promote cognitive complexity provide a solid ini-
tial foundation for its application to graduate-level writing in
counselor education.

302 Counselor Education & Supervision. June 2001. Volume 40

 TABLE 1
Application of Bloom's Taxonomy to Graduate-Level Writing

Areas of Analysis Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation

Skills used Repeat information Summarize main Select main ideas Identify the Integrate and Able to make
from other sources. points of articles and research component parts combine ideas distinctions about
reviewed. findings from of a research or from source the quality of
others that relate literature article. articles into a new source articles
directly or Identify patterns or whole. based on
indirectly to the themes in the Draw together objectively
topic. articles reviewed. ideas into a defined criteria.
Make explicit links Use data and thematically
between source information from written research
articles and others to support review.
current paper. current paper's
ideas.
Assumptions made If it has been Make many of the Make many of the Have same lack of Lack evaluative Not applicable.
by the writer published, it is same assump- same assumptions evaluation as schema for source
worthy of inclusion. tions as a student as a student using students at lower articles. Tend to in-
All published articles using the know- the knowledge levels. clude information
are equally valid. ledge domain, e.g., domain, particularly Focus on the that supports pre-
No true distinctions if it has been regarding the lack of details and mise of current
between research published, it is evaluation of the component parts, paper and exclude
and nonresearch worthy of relative merit of rather than the that which does not.
articles. inclusion; publications. bigger picture Have difficulty
Main ideas are not all published Believe that ideas of how these developing over-
distinguished from articles are selecting main findings are arching themes
less important equally valid; ideas from articles interrelated. when data are in
[Link], the no true distinctions related to the topic conflict.
information included between research and making explicit Unable to make
from authors is not and nonresearch connections to the objective deter-
necessarily the main articles. current paper is mination of what to
points from their sufficient. do when source
Co> writings. articles are in conflict.
0
Co>
(Table continued on next page.)
Co>
o TABLE 1 (Continued)
"" Application of Bloom's Taxonomy to Graduate-Level Writing

Areas of Analysis Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation

Main organization Organized by Able to distinguish The paper is still Each article is The paper is Paper is themati-
and content of articles read, main ideas of the organized by directly and organized cally organized.
papers at each rather than topic. articles reviewed. source articles, explicitly linked to thematically, Source articles are
level Simply give a Therefore, rather than topics the topic of the rather than by analyzed and
listing of what although the or themes. current paper by source articles. critiques based
others have found organization of With each article identification of Main ideas are on strengths and
with no summative the paper may be reviewed, there is the specific presented, and limitations.
comments, no similar to a a direct and components of source material When findings are
integration. student at the explicit link from the source article that supports and in conflict, this
Information "knowledge" the source article that are relevant. questions those conflict is
contained is not domain, the to the current The findings from ideas is discussed. acknowledged.
necessarily based content will be paper (e.g., the source At the end of each Whenever
on main ideas of based on main "Therefore, the articles are not major theme, a possible, the
source articles. ideas from source findings of Smith linked to each discussion of the quality of the
There is an over- articles, not just and Jones other. results from the source articles is
use of quotations recitation of all support the source articles is discussed,
from others; they have read. premise that included, but this particularly when
unable to capture differences in age discussion still research of
main ideas in own between the does not include a differing merit
words. counselor and systematic produces contra-
client can affect objective dictory results.
the counseling evaluation. Both sides of an
relationship.") argument are
presented, with
minimal researcher
bias.

(Table continued on next page.)

 TABLE 1 (Continued)
Application of Bloom's Taxonomy to Graduate-Level Writing

Areas of Analysis Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation

Tips to move to As each article is At end of each Add to the Review all source Determine Not applicable.
next level read, before summary, develop summaries all the materials beforehand what
beginning to write, an explicit and details that are thoroughly, constitutes a
summarize main direct link from necessary to develop summa- strong versus
ideas from each the source article make decisions ries with detailed weak source
article in own to the paper about the merit of information. From article.
words on note being written. the source article. these summaries, Use information
cards. For each summary, Develop a list of develop a gleaned from
ask "How does questions that comprehensive research methods
this relate to my can be asked of and detailed, courses to
topic?" If it every source thematically determine
doesn't, or the article to based outline methodological
relationship is determine before beginning soundness of
strained, then essential to write the paper. research and
exclude it from components. results of source
the paper. Assess internal articles.
and external
validity and
whether conclu-
sions are based
on findings.

Note. When using this table to help move a student's writing to higher levels of Taxonomy, it may be useful to read down through the table
columns, rather than in rows across .

...
5:
 References
American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual oj the American
PsyclwlogicalAssociation (4th ed.). Washington. DC: Author.
Anlsfeld, M. (1987). A course to develop competence in critical reading of empirical
research in psychology. Teaching ojPsychology. 14.224-227.
Barrow. J. C. (1987). Is student development "dissonance roulette?" Journal ojCol-
lege Student Personnel, 28, 12-13.
Bern. D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin. Psyclwlogical
Bulletin. 118. 172-177.
Bloom. B. S .. Engelhart. M. D.. Furst. F. J .. Hill. W. H.• & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956).
Taxonomy oj educational objectives: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
Boice. R. (1982). Teaching of writing in psychology: A review of sources. Teaching oj
Psychology.9.143-147.
Brookfield. S. D. (1989). Facilitating adult learning. In S. B. Merriam & P. M.
CUnningham (Eds.). Handbook ojadult and continuing education (pp. 201-210).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown. D. (1989). Writing for publication in Counselor Education and Supervision.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 28. 199-204.
Chamberlain. K.• & Burrough. S. (1985). Techniques for teaching critical reading.
Teaching ojPsyclwlogy, 12,213-215.
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (1994).
Accreditation procedures manual and application. Alexandria. VA: Author.
Forman. B. D. (1988). The process of journal publishing. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 28, 181-185.
Froese. A. D .. Gantz. B. S .• & Henry. A. L. (1998). Teaching students to write
literature reviews: A meta-analytic model. Teaching oj Psychology. 25.
102-105.
Gladding. S. T. (1989). What every successful author knows. The Journaljor Special-
ists in Group Work. 14. 194-195.
Granello, D. H. (1999). Assessing the cognitive development ojcounseling students.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Hazler, R. J. (1992). Increasing your publication chances by showing you are a
part of the family. Journal oj Humanistic Education and Development. 30.
98-99.
Hill. P. W.. & McGaw. B. (1981). Testing the simplex assumption underlying Bloom's
Taxonomy. American Educational Research Journal, 18. 92-101.
Jackson. G. B. (1980). Methods for integrative reviews. Review oj Educational Re-
search, 50, 438-460.
Klein. P. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in wnting-to-learn. Edu-
cational Psyclwlogy Review, 11. 203-270.
Kottke. J. L.• & Schuster, D. H. (1990). Developing tests for measuring Bloom's
learning outcomes. Psyclwlogical Reports. 66. 27-32.
Kunen, S.. Cohen. R.. & Selmon, R. (1981). A levels-of-processing analysis of Bloom's
Taxonomy. Journal ojEducational Psychology. 73. 202-211.
Learning Skills Program. (1999). Bloom's taxonomy. Accessed via the internet at:
[Link]
Makosky. V. P. (1985). Teaching psychology in the information age. Teaching oj
Psychology, 17. 4.
McGowan. A. S. (1996). Reflections on getting published. Journal oj Humanistic
Education and Development, 34. 162-164.
Nodine. B. F. (1990). Psychologists teach writing. Teaching ojPsyclwlogy. 17.4.
Peper, E. (1971). How do you get those references into that review paper? American
Psychologist, 26, 740.

306 Counselor Education & Supervtston > June 2001 • Volume 40

Piercy, F. P., Sprenkle, D. H., & McDaniel, S. H. (1996). Teaching professional
writing to family therapists: Three approaches. Journal ofMarital and Family
Therapy, 22, 163-179.
Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for prac-
tice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 969-983.
Simpson, D. E., Dalgaard, K. A., & O'Brien, D. K. (1986). Student and faculty
assumptions about the nature of uncertainty in medicine and medical edu-
cation. The Journal of Family Practice, 23, 468-472.
Smaby, M. H., & Crews, J. (1998). Publishing in scholarly journals: Part I-Is it an
attitude or technique? It's an attitude. Counselor Education and Supervision,
37,218-223.

Counselor Education & Supervision. June 2001. Volume 40 307