This must be read together with Thinking in Layers: Why Teachers Must Know the Levels of Thinking

The Problem with a Linear Model of Thinking

Bloom’s Taxonomy, with its well-known hierarchy of cognitive levels (Remember → Understand → Apply → Analyse → Evaluate → Create), implies that thinking is a linear and hierarchical process. It paints a picture of the brain climbing a mental ladder one rung at a time. However, this neat model does not reflect how the brain actually functions during learning or problem-solving.

Reality: Thinking is Integrated and Simultaneous

The brain is a dynamic, interconnected system. It does not operate by activating one cognitive skill in isolation. Instead, it simultaneously draws on multiple thinking tools, depending on the learner’s intent, prior knowledge, emotional state, and context. You cannot meaningfully separate “analysis” from “understanding” or “evaluation” from “memory” because, the moment a learner engages with content, their brain begins to:

• Recall facts
• Recognize patterns
• Test ideas
• Make predictions
• Weigh possibilities

All of these processes occur in parallel — not in a step-by-step fashion.

An Example That Exposes the Illusion of Levels

Consider the question: “Describe the digestive system.”

According to Bloom’s Taxonomy, this would be classified as a Level 2 — Understand — question, since the verb describe falls under the comprehension category. But what really happens in the brain when a learner answers?

1. Recalls facts about organs and their functions (Remember)
2. Sequences the process from mouth to intestines (Analyse)
3. Filters out irrelevant information (Evaluate)
4. Visualizes the internal process (Apply and Synthesize)
5. Justifies the relevance of each part, if asked why it's important (Evaluate)

Though the question seems “low-level,” the brain activates multiple high-order thinking skills naturally, simply to make sense of the task.

The Hidden Damage of the Bloom Illusion

1. It tricks teachers into designing questions in isolated fragments, assuming they are testing “one level at a time.”
2. It underestimates the brain’s integrative nature — where understanding, applying, evaluating, and creating often happen together.
3. It boxes thinking into artificial categories, ignoring how learners actually construct meaning in real time.

Alternative Perspective: Thinking is Ecosystemic

Rather than viewing thinking as a vertical climb, we should understand it as a network of interacting tools. Learners don’t move “up” through levels — they move across, activating different tools in response to the demands of the moment.

Instead of asking, “Which level am I testing?”, we should ask:

“Which thinking tools will the learner need to use in combination within a contextual thinking ecosystem to make meaning here?””