Narayan Prasad Sapkota , Educator I Trainer I Teacher I Writer
Introduction
Bloom’s Taxonomy, introduced in 1956 by Benjamin Bloom and later revised by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), is a hierarchical classification of learning objectives that educators use to guide the development of curriculum and assessments. It classifies learning into six cognitive domains: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create. While the taxonomy is widely accepted and praised globally, its application in the context of Nepal’s school education system has often brought challenges—and even trauma—for both teachers and students.
Context of Bloom’s Taxonomy in Nepal
The Curriculum Development Centre (CDC) of Nepal, under its National Curriculum Framework, has attempted to integrate Bloom’s Taxonomy into curriculum design and assessment practices, especially in the wake of competency-based education reforms. However, the translation of theory into classroom practice has not been smooth.
In many government and private schools, teachers are expected to design lesson plans, learning outcomes, and questions based on Bloom’s levels. Yet, these expectations often ignore the socio-economic, cultural, linguistic, and infrastructural realities of Nepali classrooms.
Sources of Trauma
1. Overemphasis on Theoretical Implementation
Teachers are often pressured during training to strictly follow Bloom’s cognitive levels in preparing lesson plans and assessments. However, the one-size-fits-all model fails in diverse classrooms with mixed-ability students and limited resources. The rigid application creates anxiety among teachers who struggle to meet standards they don’t fully understand.
2. Insufficient Training and Support
Most teachers in rural areas of Nepal are not adequately trained in using Bloom’s Taxonomy effectively. The workshops often emphasize jargon rather than practical classroom strategies. Without deep conceptual clarity, teachers resort to superficial compliance, leading to frustration and emotional stress.
“We are told to prepare questions of all cognitive levels, but we don’t even understand the difference between ‘analyze’ and ‘evaluate’. We feel incompetent.” — A secondary-level teacher from Rolpa district (Field interview, 2023)
3. Mismatch Between Curriculum and Assessment
Examinations in Nepal still focus largely on recall-based questions. This contradicts the idea of higher-order thinking encouraged by Bloom’s Taxonomy. Students, trained in rote memorization, feel lost and anxious when suddenly confronted with analysis or application-based questions in internal assessments.
4. Cultural and Linguistic Disconnect
In many parts of Nepal, students are first-generation learners and speak ethnic languages at home. The English or Nepali academic language used in Bloom’s-based instruction becomes a barrier, especially when moving to abstract cognitive tasks like ‘evaluating’ or ‘creating’.
5. Infrastructural Limitations
Creating activities for higher-order thinking often requires access to books, digital tools, lab equipment, or creative spaces—resources that many public schools in Nepal lack. The inability to create ‘Bloom-level’ learning experiences leads to a cycle of guilt and burnout among teachers.
The Psychological Impact
The misuse or forced use of Bloom’s Taxonomy can cause:
- Teacher burnout
- Student anxiety and demotivation
- Reduced creativity due to template-based planning
- Alienation of low-achieving students who are not cognitively ready for higher-order thinking tasks
These outcomes contradict the very spirit of Bloom’s Taxonomy, which was developed to support learning, not to become a source of trauma.
Way Forward
- Contextualization
Bloom’s Taxonomy must be adapted to suit Nepal’s socio-cultural and linguistic contexts rather than being implemented as a rigid model. - Teacher Empowerment
Practical, ongoing, and localized training is needed to help teachers internalize the taxonomy and use it meaningfully. - Curriculum Alignment
There must be coherence between curriculum design, pedagogy, and assessment practices. - Flexibility in Implementation
Teachers should be allowed to experiment and modify learning tasks based on student needs rather than feel constrained by a checklist.
Conclusion
Bloom’s Taxonomy is a valuable tool, but when misapplied in Nepal’s education system, it has become a source of confusion, stress, and even trauma. A more thoughtful, flexible, and localized approach is essential to turn it from a burden into a bridge toward meaningful learning.
References
Sharma, R. (2021). “Educational Policy and Practice: Disconnect in Nepalese Schools.” Tribhuvan University Education Review, Vol. 18.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. David McKay Company.
Curriculum Development Centre, Nepal. (2019). National Curriculum Framework for School Education in Nepal.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST), Nepal. (2022). School Sector Development Plan (SSDP) 2016-2023.
Gautam, A. (2020). “Challenges of Applying Bloom’s Taxonomy in Rural Classrooms of Nepal.” Journal of Education and Research, Vol. 10, No. 2.