(Nilson, 2010 p. 26).
Pros and Cons.
There are many reasons why a teacher would want to use this framework for their course design. For one, it can be used to increase one's understanding of the educational process. Teachers can see and understand complex cognitive development and how lower-level skills build into higher-order thinking (e.g., recalling facts and comprehending previous problems allows a student to apply their experience to similar problems). Teachers also face a lot of confusion when it comes to understanding the curriculum requirements. This framework offers a guide for breaking things down into chunks of information that can be used on a day to day basis making it easier for them to create learning objectives and goals for the students of the class. .
A criticism of this framework is that it is very general. Furst (1994) questioned the assumption that The Taxonomy was a "purely descriptive scheme in which every kind of goal could be represented in a relatively neutral way." (p. 28). In addition to this criticism while Bloom's Taxonomy Tool has been successfully used in multiple studies to evaluate the cognitive levels of course objectives and of assessments, these studies are focused on courses for general stream students and no such evaluation is currently available for students with learning disabilities. Given the high percentage of students with learning disabilities today it is imperative for a teacher to be prepared to work with these students. This framework does not provide sufficient evidence that it will be effective for those students and how they learn.
Perry's and Baxter-Magolda's Framework.
Perry and Baxter-Magolda's framework was designed to reflect two elements that are lacking in literature that discuss course outcomes. They called there framework a model for Intercultural maturity. The model is multi-dimensional and consists of a range of attributes, including understanding.