Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives - Template for Primary School KM Education

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to suggest how to begin to teach Knowledge Management (KM) fundamentals and skills starting in primary school. It connects competency objectives and KM skills instruction, identifies fundamental KM skills to teach, and suggests needed skills for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in terms of STEM organic functions. The methodology approach is analysis and synthesis of related topics to induce, deduce, and abduce commonality and new perspectives. This paper discusses how the Eight Ways to Learn, Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs), a taxonomy of educational competency objectives, and critical thinking contribute to seeing revised Bloom can be effectively used to teach basic KM. STEM functional needs are identified in developing STEM as an example. With a shift of perspective, the revised taxonomy’s separation of knowledge from the cognitive objectives provides a vehicle for a template for integrating educational competency objectives and traditional subjects. The US Government’s KSA résumé requirements show support for Bloom from a competency perspective. KM education already occurs indirectly in current primary school education. Competency objectives for STEM fit the revised Bloom model and provide an example for concurrent KM skills instruction. The analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, and abduction approach excludes other potentially useful inputs. Extending the concepts in Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives supports the ideas of functional, educational competency objectives and blends with topic objectives such as STEM. The paper suggests practical ways to tie KM education to current primary school activities.

SEE EXAMPLES IN PRESENTATION: ECKM 2019 - Using Revised Bloom as a Template for Primary KM Education - STEM as an Example

Full text

20th European Conference on Knowledge Management
Academic Conferences and Publishing International
969
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: A Template for Primary
School KM Education
Philip William Sisson and Thomas Mazzuchi George
Washington University, Washington, USA
psisson@gwu.edu mazzu@gwu.edu
DOI: 10.34190/KM19.059
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to suggest how to begin to teach Knowledge Management (KM) fundamentals and skills
starting in primary school. It connects competency objectives and KM skills instruction, identifies fundamental KM skills to teach,
and suggests needed skills for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in terms of STEM organic functions.
The methodology approach is analysis and synthesis of related topics to induce, deduce, and abduce commonality and new
perspectives. This paper discusses how the Eight Ways to Learn, Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,
Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs), a taxonomy of educational competency objectives, and critical thinking contribute to
seeing revised Bloom can be effectively used to teach basic KM. STEM functional needs are identified in developing STEM as an
example. With a shift of perspective, the revised taxonomy’s separation of knowledge from the cognitive objectives provides a
vehicle for a template for integrating educational competency objectives and traditional subjects. The US Government’s KSA
résumé requirements show support for Bloom from a competency perspective. KM education already occurs indirectly in current
primary school education. Competency objectives for STEM fit the revised Bloom model and provide an example for concurrent
KM skills instruction. The analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, and abduction approach excludes other potentially useful
inputs. Extending the concepts in Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives supports the ideas of functional,
educational competency objectives and blends with topic objectives such as STEM. The paper suggests practical ways to tie KM
education to current primary school activities.
Keywords: Bloom’s Taxonomy, organic functions, educational competencies, KSA, KM education, STEM
1. Introduction
Some suggest that Knowledge Management (KM) training and education is missing in primary school. This paper
asserts that KM education exists, perhaps unrecognized, in educational systems in topics such as mediacy education,
science courses, after-school activities, etc. While Bedford et al. (2018) investigates KM for primary institutions
along the more traditional topical lines (their nine strands), Sisson and Ryan (2017c) suggest a competency approach
integrating Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives levels as KM skills – needed competencies. This paper also
suggests critical thinking, using mediacy courses and justifiability of knowledge, in terms of knowledge being a
justified, true belief, is an essential primary school topic. This difference in focus may reflect what Kibler et al. (1974)
might say is the difference between general educational objectives such as published Bedford and associates’
strands, levels, goals, and objectives and instructional objectives (this paper).
This paper integrates six ideas showing: 1) Learning has recognition and discovery components. 2) Revised Blooms’
knowledge and objective parts enable KM education. 3) Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs) support the idea of
Bloom’s domains in terms of competencies. 4) A taxonomy of educational competencies objectives shows the split
between knowledge topics and competencies. 5) Critical thinking and mediacy education support essential
justifiability education. 6) Bloom’s knowledge/levels approach supports Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) education with concurrent KM skills training.
This paper also suggests a way to provide KM education in primary school both in addressing KM topics and applying
KM in STEM as a vehicle for KM skills training. It is for the educator in that they can begin to add KM to their
instruction without fundamentally changing what they teach. It is for the school system so that they have an idea
on how to modify guidelines to add KM without major additions to the curriculum. It is for KM delivery in specifying
initial, basic KM functions to teach and knowledge justifiability through critical thinking.

20th European Conference on Knowledge Management
Academic Conferences and Publishing International
970
Words currently used in writing educational objectives can help in identifying approaches for teaching KM skills. By
example, adapting, combining, compiling, formulating, etc. (Dalkir, 2011) are words teaching for synthesis. They are
“action[s] that can be used” to indicate the fulfillment of the objective, and as gerunds, provide skills that can be
taught for the KM skill synthesizing. Besides “know-that” and “know-what” (Sisson and Ryan, 2015) for STEM
training such as “properties of materials” in engineering (Hudson et al., 2015), STEM common activities such as
verify should be added. Each knowledge objective has learning objectives such as analyze, which is a KM skill that
can be taught concurrently.
2. Literature review
Views on KM education as it is, and should be, differ. For this paper, five concepts provide ideas that contribute to
seeing that Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy of Educational Objectives provides a template to address STEM skills in
addition to know-that and know-what knowledge. KM also has knowledge components such as justifiability and
skills. STEM learning objectives provide an example of possible concurrent KM skills training.
2.1 KM education and standards
KM education has historically been reported to be primarily graduate-level courses; however, vocational training
(Weidner, 2011, per KM Institute, 2019, since 2001) and one high school program do exist (Hershkovich and
Haberman, 2012, Handzic et al., 2017). The courses for certificate and degree programs reflect early informal
standards for KM education. Chaudhry and Higgins (2003) collect them into five curriculum areas (foundations,
technology, process, applications, and strategies). Rehman and Sumait (2010) summarize the development of
graduate KM education identifying 12 modules. Cervone (2016) reports “While all [graduate] programs offer at least
one course that is an introduction or overview of KM, [unfortunately,] there is no other topic that is consistently
required in all programs.” Bedford et al. (2018) list fifteen pre-eminent sources from 2001 to 2012 concluding, “in
2018 the situation surrounding knowledge management education remains largely unchanged from 2016.”
Meanwhile, Bedford (2011a) explicitly suggests KM education at all levels, reporting widespread agreement of the
idea (Bedford, 2011b). Sisson and Ryan (2017c) support this suggestion with educational competencies objectives
for primary school.
In her presentation to the Knowledge Management Education Forum, Bedford (2011b) lists ten (graduate)
curriculum areas. These ten areas seem to provide a basis for Bedford, D, Brown-Grant, and Georgieff’s (2016)
suggested “strands [for] the knowledge management discipline.” Bedford, Georgieff, and Brown-Grant (2017)
provide an objective and goal approach for K-6 through doctoral degrees in levels. Suggested topics include
knowledge, KM, sharing, technology, critical thinking, knowledge economy, intellectual capital, collaboration, the
practice of KM, knowledge economics (Bedford, Brown-Grant and Georgieff, 2016), language and semantics,
organizational culture, collaboration and community building, etc.
Sisson and Ryan (2016b, 2017c) propose a Taxonomy of Educational Competency Objectives that integrates KM
education with other recognized basic competencies. Schmitt (2016) asserts that “top-down centralized approaches
ought to be substituted by bottom-up [personal KM] concepts” implemented in technology that provides adapting,
sensing, inferring, learning, anticipating, and self-organizing knowledge services.
Omitting Bedford, Sisson, Schmitt, and Rehman and Sumait (2010), Handzic et al. (2017) in their review point out:
“What is remarkable is that the orientation of research has a substantial bias towards ‘KM in education’ (75 percent
of papers) rather than ‘education in KM’ (25 percent).” They also suggest focusing primary and secondary KM
education at personal KM. Handzic et al. furthermore state that KM education represents a “gap[, also a literature
gap,] that needs to be filled.”

20th European Conference on Knowledge Management
Academic Conferences and Publishing International
971
2.2 Eight ways to stimulate pattern recognition or discovery
Learning is an outcome of pattern recognition (Sisson and Ryan, 2016d). Sisson and Ryan (2016c) identified eight
ways to learn – interrogative stimuli to lead to pattern recognition. While figure 1 shows education and training as
teach and study, educators use all eight ways to get students to recognize or discover a pattern and learn.
Primary school education is about developing repeated, correct recognition of facts or discovery of new facts. KM
is about both.
Figure 1: Eight ways to learn to stimulate pattern recognition – recognizing something already known or discovering
something new
Note: Updated Sisson and Ryan (2016c)
2.3 Taxonomies for educational and educating objectives
Revised Bloom with multiple types of knowledge and six levels of cognitive objectives, that can be considered KM
skills, provides a template for developing KM educational objectives.
In table 1, the words used for objectives flow from a review of suggestions for educational objectives. Bloom (1956a)
published the handbook for the cognitive domain (Bloom, 1956b). The affective domain (Krathwohl, Bloom and
Masia, 1964) and psychomotor domain (Simpson, 1966, Dave, 1967, Harrow, 1972, Jewett et al., 1971, Corbin, 1976,
Kibler et al., 1974, Goldberger and Moyer, 1982) were developed later. Cooper (1973) supports Harrow perhaps
missing Dave. Goldberger and Moyer (1982) propose a different, form-oriented psychomotor approach built on
three dimensional: strength, flexibility, and kind of movement (Mosston, 1965, Mosston and Ashworth, 2008). Bixler
(2007) integrates Simpson, Dave, and Harrow, suggesting observing, imitating, practicing, and adapting. Marzano
and Kendall (2007) suggest metacognition; Fink (2013) expands to include educating objectives. Table 1 shows the
relationships between Blooms, Krathwohl, and Bloom and Masia’s and the other mentioned authors’ ideas using
this paper’s current adaptions of words.

20th European Conference on Knowledge Management
Academic Conferences and Publishing International
972
Table 1: Variations on Bloom’s educational objective domains adding Fink’s educating objectives
Psychomotor
(1967-72)
Affective (1964)
Cognitive
(2001)
Cognitive (1956)
(Marzano and
Kendall, 2007)
Fink
(2003)
Naturalization
Characterizing
Creating
Evaluation
Metacognition
Integration
Articulation
Organizing and
Conceptualizing
Evaluating
Synthesis
Use
Precision
Analyzing
Analysis
Analyze
Manipulation
Valuing
Applying
Application
Apply
Application
Imitation
Responding
Understanding
Comprehension
Comprehend
Foundational
Knowledge
Perception
Perceiving
Remembering
Knowledge
Retrieval
(Dave, 1967):
N,A,P,M & I
Perception
(Simpson, 1966)
Revised
Original
Another
Human Dimension
Caring (care about)
How to Learn
Note: Adapted primarily from cited authors and (Sisson and Ryan, 2017c)
Integrating human resources with KM, Brewer and Brewer (2010) suggest a theoretical KM model composed of
human resource management activities, KM targets, and Bloom’s (revised) knowledge dimensions. Knowledge
dimensions include facts (know-that and know-what) and procedural knowledge (skills) (Krathwohl, 2002). Seaman
(2011) and Atherton (2013) summarize the first three of the cognitive levels as “use,” and the other three as
“reason.” The first set has a recognition emphasis, and the second set has a discovery component. From a KM
perspective, justifiability and KM functions such as accumulate and organize are knowledge components. The
cognitive objectives can also double as KM skills knowledge objectives.
Knowledge combined with the cognitacy domain from a KM perspective will be the focus of much of this paper –
educational objectives morphed into educational competency objectives viewed as KM skills.
2.4 Knowledge skills and abilities
Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs) address cognitacy domain, know-how, affective domain competencies, know-
what, how-how, and behaviors, as shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: Bloom comprehension and KSA competence
The United States Government uses KSAs for job applicants to submit résumés and then evaluate the applicants
based on them (McKinney, 2012). These can be related to Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives to get an
integrated look at cognitacy, affectivacy, and kinestheticacy (competencies in the cognitive, affective, and
psychomotor domains) in terms of knowledge skills and abilities.
For Bloom, these can be approximated as know and understand, attitudes and feelings, ability to (physically apply)
and comprehension of know-that, influencers, and know-how. In personnel selection, competence is know-what,
know-how, and behaviors (that show abilities) people can do. Figure 2 shows the relationships between these
concept terms.
Knowledge
Know
-
how
Knowledge
–
Skills
-
Abilities
US Office of Personnel
Management
Behaviors
Know
-
how
Know
-
what
comprehension
Know
-
that
Influencers
competence
Trying to Make Tacit Explicit
Can Do
Bloom
s Taxonomy
know and understand
attitudes and feelings
ability to (physically) apply
KSAs
In education
In personnel selection

20th European Conference on Knowledge Management
Academic Conferences and Publishing International
973
Learning through education, training, service, and experience produces expertise: know-how, ability, capability,
capacity, and competence. KSAs address demonstratable expertise and support the idea of looking at Bloom in
terms of educational competencies in addition to educational objectives.
2.5 Taxonomy of educational competency objectives
A taxonomy of educational competency objectives may permit a more effective way to set education guidelines
than the currently used topical ones. As an example, use the word “English” as the only specification for the
knowledge component and combine with oracy and literacy (competencies) for English speaking countries – or
French in France or Quebec. English and French as subjects understate the need to hear and speak (oracy), read and
write (literacy), and use correct grammar and vocabulary as evidenced by the relatively recent definition of oracy
(Wilkinson, 1970).
Sisson and Ryan (2016b, 2017c) suggest a taxonomy of competency objectives (figure 3) beginning with language,
oracy, and literacy leading to linguisticacy (“able to understand and use language”). Language (grammar and
vocabulary) is shown separate from oracy and literacy and yet is essential in being competent in linguistic ability.
(Sisson and Ryan, 2017c). The authors then include competency versions of Bloom’s three domains adding kennacy
and mediumacy (completing KM competencies (Sisson and Ryan, 2016d)). Archer (1978) provides the concept for
artistacy (making and doing). Numeracy (Allen, 2008) is a precursor to science; all of which leads to socialization and
employable and acculturated citizens. Science and socialization represent educational topics such as the physical
sciences or history – knowledge in revised Bloom. The lack of competency terms for science, mentioned in Sisson
and Ryan (2017c) also points out a lack of agreement on the scientific method (Gimbel, 2011, Ramsey, 2010, Haig,
2010, Carey, 2011). This lack of a competency term points towards viewing STEM education with a heavy focus on
topics – biology (general) or engineering (“properties of materials” (Hudson et al., 2015).
Figure 3: Taxonomy of educational competency objectives
Note: From Sisson and Ryan (2016b, figure 2), Sisson and Ryan (2017c)
In figure 3, specific socialization topics such as history and government are knowledge areas; although, overall
socialization includes language, oracy, literacy, etc. Science in high school is often biology, chemistry, and physics,
knowledge areas. So, in this figure one sees another differentiation between skills (competencies to achieve) and
knowledge in terms of know-that – something that can be remembered, retrieved, recognized, [or] recalled” (Sisson
and Ryan, 2017a, Sisson and Ryan, 2015, Marzano and Kendall, 2007) as one kind of objective from Bloom’s
taxonomy.

20th European Conference on Knowledge Management
Academic Conferences and Publishing International
974
2.6 Critical thinking
Critical thinking is present in the educational system in media literacy courses. “Defined against the traditional
conception of theory governing the sciences (including the social or human sciences such as sociology), which holds
that it is a system of abstract (i.e., ahistorical, asubjective, and asocial) propositions which can be verified
empirically, critical theory holds the opposite view, namely that theory is historical, subjective, and a part of society”
(Buchanan, 2010-2016). Mediacy is “the knowledge, skills, and competencies required in order to use and interpret
media” (Buckingham, 2003, Hobbs, 2005, Kamerer, 2013, Sisson and Ryan, 2016a) and “think critically about them”
(Chandler and Munday, 2010-2016) - “the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and produce communication in a
variety of forms” (Scheibe, 2007). Since media literacy (US) (media education (UK)) (Kamerer, 2013) are “directly or
indirectly referenced in the learning standards for all 50 states” (Scheibe, 2007), a vehicle exists to address critical
thinking is already present in many primary schools.
3. Observations for primary school KM education
A closer linkage to current educational practices may more easily implement Bedford and associates’ goals for
primary schools. Tying to current primary topic objectives might be more intelligible to the uninitiated and more
useful long term.
Bedford, Brown-Grant, and Georgieff (2016) suggest “basic concepts will often be embedded within other curricular
areas such as social science, language arts, mathematics, and science.” This paper sees them as already heavily
embedded. Bedford, Brown-Grant, and Georgieff suggest to “instill in [primary] students the inherent value of
knowledge; develop behaviors related to sharing of ideas, learning with others, creativity and good knowledge
citizenship” More basic KM needs to be addressed as well. Both KM fundamentals and basic KM skills (educational
competencies) need to be taught although tied into current educational objectives and methods of instruction.
Good citizenship merits inclusion within an affective domain-related, socialization, acculturation goal.
Although Bedford, Brown-Grant, and Georgieff (2016) discuss an understanding of the importance of understanding
knowledge, justifiability needs to be an early emphasis. Nuwer (2015, Scientific American) reports that crosswalk
“fatalities for children around the world” are the most common cause of death. Besides learning to check both ways,
children need to learn to be suspect of the complete truth of some of their observations. Knowledge is, after all, a
justifiable, justified, true belief. Justifiability also ties in well with mediacy education in being able to distinguish
thoughts, opinion, beliefs (Sisson and Ryan, 2017a). In looking at KM mediums besides media, a beginning
understanding of the limitations of the human medium (Sisson and Ryan, 2016a) given studies on the assuredness
of eyewitness reports is merited.
KM topics such as justifiability and skills such as synthesize presented as knowledge need to be introduced, Skill
objectives such as synthesize for other knowledge topics such as STEM can be addressed concurrently.
4. Implications for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education needs to address basic STEM skills as well as
traditional know-that, know-what, and topic-specific skills.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) is a curriculum approach combining the four topics to
encourage more interest and future education in these topics for national skills’ development and future economic
development. Sisson and Mazzuchi (2017a) introduced organic functions as a way to differentiate basic KM from
knowledge applications disciplines such as management, finance, engineering, etc. Using the concept of organic
functions, table 2 compares activities and needed skills of STEM, KM, and management as a start at STEM
fundamental skills identification.

20th European Conference on Knowledge Management
Academic Conferences and Publishing International
975
The cornerstone of science is reproducibility, engineering is the application of science, and information technology
(IT) is one practical application of science. Mathematics is fundamental to all three - their language. “Tomorrow, we
will have learned to understand and express all of physics in the language of information” (Gleick and Shapiro, 2011,
Wheeler, 1990) – digital sense (Huyssteen, 2003). (While not shown, technology can be assumed to have similar
skills; although, those skills might be more closely related to the specific technology.) Some of the engineering
functions of explore, analyze, design, develop, produce, test, deploy, support and retire and IT functions of capture,
store, manage, preserve, and deliver overlap with each other and KM functions; however, uniqueness is not as
essential as specifying competencies needed.
Table 2: Science, engineering, information technology, and mathematics’ skills and KM fundamentals
Practical
Application
Of Science.
It’s Language
Fundamentals
IT
Engineering
Science
Mathematics
KM (Cognitacy)
Management
capture
explore
observe
numerical operations
accumulate
aim
store
analyze
infer
logic
organize
plan
manage
design
deduce
reason
organize
preserve
develop
induce
use
assign
deliver
produce
abduce
-through mediums-
monitor
test
explain
represent
review
deploy
test
store
feedback
support
justify
communicate
adjust
retire
Note: Adapted from (Sisson and Mazzuchi, 2017a, Sisson and Ryan, 2017c)
“Carey (2011) mentions a basic three-step, scientific method process (observation, explanation, and justification
(experimentation)” (Sisson and Ryan, 2017c), which table 2 expands to test and justify. Observe is visually and
cognitively biased due to historical, scientific activities. “Sense” from the Eight Ways to Learn opens the input filter
to permit other “observations” and stimuli to kick off the scientific process.
Mathematics’ statistics provides a measure for justification in uncertain situations. Traditional science subjects
(knowledge) biology, chemistry, and physics lend themselves more towards reproducibility than the social sciences
where the methodology of the approach can invalidate the potential of reproducibility.
So, STEM objectives should include both topical and skills knowledge with Bloom’s cognitive measures. These
cognitive measures are KM skills that can be taught as KM at the same time. By example, “justify” is a science skill
which students need to be able to remember, understand, and apply.
5. Findings and conclusion
KM education has been primarily graduate-level and topical. Acceptance, in the KM field, for broadening KM
education to all levels of education is growing and a strand approach (topical combinations) / level standard has
been proposed.
Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy of Educational Objectives with knowledge and objectives adapted as competencies can
provide an objectives template to look at for primary school KM education and other educational needs such as
STEM. For KM, cognitacy can be incorporated by supplementing the objective approach to education and including
generic competencies for those objectives. Words currently used in writing those objectives can help in identifying
approaches to teach those skills. Using “pedagogical knowledge practices” (Hudson et al., 2015) can help develop
such objectives. However, objectives should precede the pedagogical framework implementation steps of
“planning, timetabling, preparation, teaching strategies, content knowledge, problem solving, classroom
management, questioning, implementation, assessment, and viewpoints.”

20th European Conference on Knowledge Management
Academic Conferences and Publishing International
976
As “the Commonwealth of Virginia … [suggests,] the importance of correct terminology” (Sisson and Ryan, 2017b,
Standards of Learning (SOL) and Testing, 2012-2014) means basic KM terms should be known and used. Begin by
teaching “knowledge” of KM as accumulate, organize, reason, and use (Sisson and Mazzuchi, 2018). Mediumacy
concepts of represent, store, and communicate fit within mediacy training along with critical thinking skills, at least
some of which are very important at the primary level. Justifiability (strand 1) fits with mediacy. Collaboration and
communities (strands 1, 6, &7) exist in after-school clubs and sports. Synthesize (strand 5) is a cognitive objective
as well as a KM skill.
STEM objectives should address STEM skills training, functions (table 2), as well as knowledge. The functions and
other know-what knowledge will be in the knowledge part of the template and the KM skills in the objectives part.
Additional research into ways to teach to Bedford, D et al.’s (2018) reported standards are ongoing.
References
Allen, R. (2008) Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, 2nd ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Archer, L. B. (1978) Time for a Revolution in Art and Design Education, [online], London, UK, Royal College of Art,
http://researchonline.rca.ac.uk/385/1/Time_for_a_Revolution_in_Art_and_Design_Education_1978.pdf.
Atherton, J. S. (2013) Bloom's Taxonomy, James Atherton, [online],
http://web.archive.org/web/20160315163626/http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/bloomtax.htm.
Bedford, D. (2011a) 2011 KMEF Communique, Kent State University, [online],
http://web.archive.org/web/20130901050238/http:/kmef.iwiki.kent.edu/2011+Communique.
Bedford, D. (2011b) KMEF Website Webinars - Session 7, KMEF Webinar, KM Education Forum Wiki, Kent State University,
Kent, OH.
Bedford, D., Brown-Grant, J. and Georgieff, M., (2016) 'Lifewide, Lifelong Comprehensive Approach to Knowledge Management
Education: Emerging Standards', in Moffett, D. S. and Galbraith, D. B. (eds), 17th European Conference on Knowledge
Management, Ulster University, Northern Ireland, UK, pp. 62-70.
Bedford, D., Garcia-Perez, A., Georgieff, M. and Brown-Grant, J., (2018) 'Knowledge Management Education Standards:
Developing Practical Guidance', in Bolisani, D. E., Maria, D. E. D. and Scarso, D. E. (eds), 19th European Conference on
Knowledge Management., Padua, Italy, vol. 2, pp. 74-83.
Bedford, D. a. D., Georgieff, M. and Brown-Grant, J. (2017) Lifewide, Lifelong Comprehensive Approach to Knowledge
Management Education – Emerging Standards, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol.
47, No. 4, pp. 467-489.
Bixler, B. (2007) Psychomotor Domain Taxonomy, Rowan University, [online],
http://users.rowan.edu/~cone/curriculum/psychomotor.htm.
Bloom, B. S. (1956a) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive Domain, New York: McKay, Vol., pp. 20-24. Bloom,
B. S. (1956b) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives; the Classification of Educational Goals, by a Committee of College and
University Examiners., David McKay, New York, NY.
Brewer, P. D. and Brewer, K. L. (2010) Knowledge Management, Human Resource Management, and Higher Education: A
Theoretical Model, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 85, No. 6, pp. 330-335.
Buchanan, I. (2010-2016) A Dictionary of Critical Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Buckingham, D. (2003) Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
Calabrese, F. A. (2000) A Suggested Framework of Key Elements Defining Effective Enterprise Knowledge Management
Programs, D.Sc., The George Washington University.
Carey, S. (2011) A Beginner’s Guide to Scientific Method, Cengage Learning, Boston, MA.
Cervone, F., (2016) 'What Might the Curriculum in Knowledge Management Programs Tell Us About the Future of the Field?', in
Moffett, D. S. and Galbraith, D. B. (eds), 17th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Ulster University,
Northern Ireland, UK, pp. 166-173.
Chandler, D. and Munday, R. (2010-2016) A Dictionary of Media and Communication, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Chaudhry, S. A. and Higgins, S. (2003) On the Need for a Multidisciplinary Approach to Education for Knowledge Management,
Library Review, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 65-69.
Cooper, W. F. (1973) Review: A Taxonomy of the Psychomotor Domain: A Guide for Developing Behavioral Objectives,
American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 325-327.
Corbin, C. B. (1976) Becoming Physically Educated in the Elementary School, Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, PA.

20th European Conference on Knowledge Management
Academic Conferences and Publishing International
977
Dalkir, K. (2011) Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice in, Taylor and Francis, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 760.
Dave, R., (1967) 'Taxonomy of Educational Objectives and Achievement Testing', paper presented to Developments in
Educational Testing, Berlin, DE.
Fink, L. D. (2013) What Is ‘Significant Learning’?, Western Carolina University, [online],
http://www.wcu.edu/WebFiles/PDFs/facultycenter_SignificantLearning.pdf.
Gimbel, S. (2011) Exploring the Scientific Method: Cases and Questions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Gleick, J. and Shapiro, R. (2011) The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood, Vintage Books, New York, NY.
Goldberger, M. and Moyer, S. (1982) A Schema for Classifying Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain, Quest, Vol.
34, No. 2, pp. 134-142.
Haig, B. D. (2010) Scientific Method in Encyclopedia of Research Design, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1326-1330.
Handzic, M., Edwards, J. S., Moffett, S., Garcia-Perez, A., Kianto, A. and Bolisani, E. (2017) Five Ws and One H in Knowledge
Management Education, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 438453.
Harrow, A. J. (1972) A Taxonomy of the Psychomotor Domain: A Guide for Developing Behavioral Objectives, David McKay, New
York, NY.
Hershkovich, E. and Haberman, B., (2012) 'A Systematic Knowledge Pattern (Skp) for Teaching Knowledge Management', in
2012 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, pp. 1-6.
Hobbs, R. (2005) The State of Media Literacy Education, Journal of Communication, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 865-871.
Hudson, P., English, L., Dawes, L., King, D. and Baker, S. (2015) Exploring Links between Pedagogical Knowledge Practices and
Student Outcomes in Stem Education for Primary Schools, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 6.
Huyssteen, J. (2003) Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, Gale Group, Inc.
Jewett, A. E., Jones, L. S., Luneke, S. M. and Robinson, S. M. (1971) Educational Change through a Taxonomy for Writing
Physical Education Objectives, Quest, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 32-38.
Kamerer, D. (2013) Media Literacy, Communication Research Trends, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 4-25.
Kibler, R. J., Cegala, D. J., Barker, L. L. and Miles, D. T. (1974) Objectives for Instruction and Evaluation; a Revision of Behavioral
Objectives and Instruction, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
KM Institute (2019) Leadership, KM Institute, [online], https://www.kminstitute.org/content/leadership.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002) A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview, Theory into Practice, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 212-218.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S. and Masia, B. B. (1964) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook Ii: Affective Domain,
David McKay, New York, NY.
Marzano, R. J. and Kendall, J. S. (2007) The New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in 2nd ed, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. 193.
Mckinney, A. (2012) Real Ksas--Knowledge, Skills & Abilities--for Government Jobs : Improve Your Chances of Gaining Federal
Employment by Preparing Top-Notch Ksas, PREP Pub., Fayetteville, N.C.
Mosston, M. (1965) Developmental Movement, Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus, OH.
Mosston, M. and Ashworth, S. (2008) Teaching Physical Education, Sara Ashworth, [online].
Nuwer, R. (2015) Kids Can Do Better in the Crosswalk, Scientific American, Vol. 313, No. 6, pp. 18-19.
Ramsey, W. (2010) Scientific Method in Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp.
758-763.
Rees, S. J. and Lu, J. (2009) Innovation and Employability in Knowledge Management Curriculum Design, Innovation in Teaching
and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 27-38.
Rehman, S. U. and Sumait, H. (2010) KM Modules: An Analysis of Coursework, Journal of Information & Knowledge
Management, Vol. 9, No. 04, pp. 377-385.
Scheibe, C. (2007) Media Literacy, Approaches To, in Encyclopedia of Children, Adolescents, and the Media, SAGE, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Schmitt, U. (2016) Redefining Knowledge Management Education with the Support of Personal Knowledge Management
Devices, in Smart Education and E-Learning 2016, Springer.
Seaman, M. (2011) Bloom's Taxonomy: Its Evolution, Revision, and Use in the Field of Education, Curriculum and Teaching
Dialogue, Vol. 13, No. 1/2, pp. 29-131A, http://search.proquest.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/docview/1017893795.
Simpson, E. J. (1966) The Classification of Educational Objectives, Psychomotor Domain, [online], eric.ed.gov, Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED010368.pdf.
Sisson, P. W. and Mazzuchi, T. A., (2017a) 'Organic and Fundamental Functions: New Perspective on the Multidisciplinary
Nature of Knowledge Management', in Marimon, F., Mas-Machuca, M., Berbegal-Mirabent, J. and Ramon (eds), 18th
European Conference on Knowledge Management, Barcelona, ES, pp. 1296-1300.
Sisson, P. W. and Mazzuchi, T. A. (2017b) Poster: Comparing KM, Knowledge Application Disciplines, and Educational
Competencies Considering Organic and Fundamental Functions., 18th European Conference on Knowledge Management,
Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Barcelona, ES.

20th European Conference on Knowledge Management
Academic Conferences and Publishing International
978
Sisson, P. W. and Mazzuchi, T. A., (2018) 'Towards Verifying Knowledge Management’s Operationalized Functions Using Classic
Articles’ Verbs', in Bolisani, E., Di Maria, E. and Scarso, E. (eds), 19th European Conference on Knowledge Management,
University of Padua, IT, vol. 2, pp. 792-801.
Sisson, P. W. and Mazzuchi, T. A. (2019) Working Notes: Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: A Template for
Primary Knowledge Management Education, unpublished paper, Washington. DC.
Sisson, P. W. and Ryan, J., J.C.H., (2016a) 'Developing an Understanding of Knowledge Management (KM) Mediums', paper
presented to 107th Annual ECA Convention, Baltimore, MD, 31 March - 3 April,
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292970614_Developing_an_Understanding_of_Knowledge_Manageme
nt_KM_Mediums>.
Sisson, P. W. and Ryan, J., J.C.H., (2016b) 'Indications of a Justifiable Unified Theory of Knowledge Management (Ph.D.
Colloquium)', in Moffett, S. and Galbraith, B. (eds), 17th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Ulster
University, Northern Ireland, UK, pp. 1080-1089.
Sisson, P. W. and Ryan, J., J.C.H., (2016c) 'An Integrated Organizational Learning Models Perspective: Eight Ways to Learn', in
Moffett, S. and Galbraith, B. (eds), 17th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Ulster University, Northern
Ireland, UK, pp. 1143-1148.
Sisson, P. W. and Ryan, J., J.C.H. (2017a) A Knowledge Concept Map: Structured Concept Analysis from Systematic Literature
Review, Journal of ENTREPRENEURSHIP MANAGEMENT and INNOVATION, Vol., pp. 29-68.
Sisson, P. W. and Ryan, J., J.C.H. (2017b) New Rationale for the Need for Ckos Long-Term: A Systems Perspective on
Observations, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol., pp. 242-256.
Sisson, P. W. and Ryan, J., J.C.H. (2017c) Rationale for KM Education and Training Beginning in Primary School, Electronic
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 213-256.
Sisson, P. W. and Ryan, J., J.C.H., (2016d) 'Towards a Unified Theory of Knowledge Management (KM)', in 49th Hawaii
International Conference on Systems Sciences, Kauai, HI, pp. 4313-4322.
Sisson, P. W. and Ryan, J., J.C.H., (2015) 'What Do We Know? - Building a Knowledge Concept Map', in Massaro, M. and
Garlatti, A. (eds), 16th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Udine, IT, pp. 1028-1033.
Standards of Learning (Sol) and Testing (2012-2014) Standards of Learning (Sol) and Testing, [online], Online, Commonwealth
of Virginia, pp. n/a, http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/.
Stankosky, M. (2005) Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management: The Latest in University Research, Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam, NL; Boston, MA.
Weidner, D. (2011) KMEF Website Webinars - Session 6, KMEF Webinar, KM Education Forum Wiki, Kent State University, Kent,
OH.
Wheeler, J. A. (1990) Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links, Complexity, entropy, and the physics of information,
Vol. 8, pp. 309-336, https://philpapers.org/archive/WHEIPQ.pdf.
Wiig, K. M. (1993) Knowledge Management Foundations: Thinking About Thinking-How People and Organizations Create,
Represent, and Use Knowledge, Schema Press, Arlington, TX.
Wilkinson, A. (1970) The Concept of Oracy, English Journal, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 71-77,
http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/811736.