A couple of posts ago I wrote about game walk-throughs after a conversation with a fellow MSc-er suggested that they thought they constituted cheating. I'm quite a fan of them and it got me thinking about the true value of these documents in a learning context.
So, Bloom. He and his committee mates wrote themselves a taxonomy. This is the revised 2001 version which most of us are familiar with, it is worth going back and looking at the original too. As always wikipedia a good start point.

And, this is the WOWwiki. It's a community created guide to the game spanning over 90,000 pages, after Wikipedia it's the 2nd largest community authored document on the Internet. There are loads of examples of game walkthroughs out there, but the really interesting ones are those that involve this level of collaboration.
Here are some ideas about how each of the skill levels in the diagram are demonstrated by the wiki users:
Knowledge: Do I need to explain this one? I've been to the wiki and read up on a particular quest, remembered what I needed to do, job done.
Understand: At a basic level of ability in the game I can read the wiki to fill in any blanks, and have successfully broken down complex tasks into simple individual stages I can share with others.
Apply: I can take something I read in one quest, and see where a particular skill would work in another. This is also where the benefits of writing the walkthrough rather than just reading it start to come in. I take something I discovered in the game, write it down to share for others.
Analyse: Writing the walkthrough forces this. Look back at how you got through a particular stage, was it similar to something else you have done? Are there other possible outcomes? As an individual player you may do some of this in passing naturally, but the act of authorship brings it to the foreground.
Evaluate: This is the real high order part of the walkthrough. If you look in any detail at a quest page in the WOWWiki it's really obvious. This page is discussing a single task in a huge game, but it looks at the best method to complete with each particular race, strategies for approaching it in a group, and places it in context with other things Warcraft related both past and present.
Create: Beyond the obvious here, how the users structure and link throughout the wiki is an interesting aspect of the creation process.
So, what is interesting here is that while we can apply these skills to gameplay itself (I probably should have written a post on that too..), what the walkthrough achieves is to extend these. The cognitive abilities involved in this process are certainly something that justify it more attention from educators than simply labeling it as cheating.
Image source- Signpost by JMC Photos

Comments
Hi Tim
I really like the way you've looked at walkthroughs through using Bloom's taxonomy. And I like the idea that playing games leads you to possibly get involved with developing walkthoughs (and therefore the highest levels of Bloom) - I was thinking something similar- that when people get involved with 'modding', or even designing their own games they are invovled with knowledge creation. But I wonder if simply by playing games it is ever possible to reach this highest level - or whether in a learning design this has to be brought in in some other way?
Interesting... I guess it depends about what we label as 'creating' during gameplay. Certainly with something like say, Minecraft it would be hard to argue that it isn't about creating.