Taxonomies, including Bloom's, can be abused in their apparent simplicity. Bloom's taxonomy was designed for assessment only, not as a prescriptive measure, which is what is recommended in the College of Education article, that you reference, Romi. As Mary Forehand states in that article:

"The cumulative hierarchical framework consisting of six categories each requiring achievement of the prior skill or ability before the next, more complex, one, remains easy to understand."

Whereas, this Carnegie Foundation article by Lee Shulman shows the weakness of such an approach:

"Quickly, then, the taxonomies moved from being a scoring rubric and vehicle for communicating about test items, to being a heuristic for instructional design."

"Another thing that happens to taxonomies, and it happened to Bloom's, is that they come to be understood as making a theoretical claim about sequentiality and hierarchy, suggesting that the only legitimate way to learn something is in this particular order. The implication of sequence and hierarchy within taxonomies obscures their true value, because taxonomies are not and should not be treated as theories."

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/sub.asp?key=452&subkey=612

I haven't seen any data that show that people actually learn in the sequence of Bloom's taxonomy, revised or not. The revised model was developed in the same manner as the original; a bunch of experts getting together and sorting it out. This does not approach the scientific validity of brain-based research using fMRI scans. I would recommend http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/