Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive outcomes, legal thinking, and competency maps

When someone in a law department tries to describe a lawyer’s powers of cerebration, the vocabulary likely foils everyone. We know it when we experience it, but we can’t define with discrimination the level of a person’s mental faculties. A recent article (Historically Speaking, Sept./Oct. 2005 at 14) presented a solution.

Fifty some years ago Benjamin Bloom proposed what has become widely accepted as a model of cognitive outcomes . If you want to more clearly explain a lawyer’s thinking level and develop competency maps, try these six levels of increasing mental sophistication.

Knowledge: the lawyer can list, label, name, state and define legal principles, requirements, or steps in the approximate form in which they were learned: “what is a security interest and how to perfect it”

Comprehension: the lawyer can explain, summarize, describe and paraphrase the principle, statute, or steps, which involves a higher level of interpretation and understanding: “the importance and function of security interests”

Application: the lawyer uses and applies the known and comprehended legal information to solve a problem or complete a task: “perfecting a UCC Article 9 security interest in chattel”

Analysis: the lawyer can analyze, categorize, compare and contrast the facts and legal issues of a situation in light of its structure, assumptions and evidence: “does the lender need a mortgage, an Article 9 security interest, a pledge, or another form of collateral”

Synthesis: the lawyer can create, design, develop and invent a service, product, or plan that is new to the lawyer and suitable for the legal challenge: “the lender needs collateral protection in two countries with different legal codes and judicial systems for foreclosure”

Evaluation: the lawyer can judge, recommend, and critique the degree of protection obtained by the lender on the basis of specific standards and criteria: “the lender, having taken the actions prescribed by the lawyer, has an 80-90 percent level of protection upon the borrower’s default, for articulated reasons.”

(See my post of July 31, 2005 on emotional intelligence and Nov. 13, 2005 on broader intelligences.)

We welcome comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *