In discussing
learning objectives and educational activities, one framework that assists with
understanding its relevant classifications, definitions, and groups is
illustrated in the theory of Bloom’s Taxonomy (e.g., seen in Green, 2015).  In addition, this theory identifies certain
domains (i.e., cognitive, affective, psychomotor) which explain the shared
characteristics of these domains.  As
noted by Green (2015), this is a “…six stage, hierarchal framework of critical
thinking and problem solving …” (p. 144) and, of these, include “…categories of
knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation” (p.
145).    

                Although
there are many different theories to learning (e.g., behavioral, constructive,
experimental, humanism, pedagogy, androgogy, etc.) Bloom’s theory is aligned more
closely with the cognitive style to learning (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, &
Krathwohl, 1956).  This is supported in
the work of Granello (2001) and Krathwohl (2002).  This framework can be utilized in
standardized and generalized learning and performance platform domains; however,
there theory elicits questions in how this model can be applied in the more
current practices of today’s learning (e.g., face-to-face vs. online).  For example, many confounding variables exist
in that of teaching methodologies, and that of preferential settings for more
recent adult learners (e.g., see Davenport & Davenport, 1985).

                Therefore,
it is recommended that content should be itemized and displayed consistent in a
manner that can allow for generalized, holistic, and optimum critical thinking
just as the theory tenets classify.  Essentially,
this could also circumvent cognitive overload to all learners; whilst,
simultaneously assisting in cognitively recalling information from long-term
memory (LTM) back into short-term memory (STM) (see Granello, 2001).  Therefore, it is could be said that instructional
scaffolding (e.g., see Vygotskian, 1978) may serve purposeful in this discussion.  Insofar, the practice of taxonomy in writing
and critical thinking must be assisted with the latter. 

                To this
end, understanding the cognitive domain (e.g., remembering, comprehending,
applying, analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating) must be accompanied with the
affective domain (e.g., receiving, responding, valuing, organizing, characterizing)
and, also be attuned with the psychomotor domain (e.g., perception, set, guided
response, mechanism, complex overt response, origination).  However, specific affective components towards
research articles – assistive in cognition – could involve receiving, response,
and organization.  For psychomotor
components, perception, guided response, and also complex overt responses.                                      

References

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H.,
& Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I:
The cognitive domain (Vol. 19, p. 56). New York: David McKay Co Inc.

Davenport, J., & Davenport, J. A. (1985). A chronology
and analysis of the andragogy debate. Adult education quarterly, 35(3),
152-159.

Granello, D. H. (2001). Promoting cognitive complexity in graduate
written work: Using Bloom’s taxonomy as a pedagogical tool to improve literature
reviews. Counselor Education &
Supervision, 40(4), 292-307.

Green, J. L. (2015). Graduate
savvy: Navigating the world of online higher education (3rd ed.).
Warrenton, VA: Glocal Press.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An
overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4),
212-218.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and
development. Readings on the Development
of Children, 23(3), 34-41.