in Bloom's revised taxonomy of thinking skills, "understanding" is a lower order thinking skill. But in UbD, Wiggins and McTyghe define it like a higher-order thinking skill by including elements of "analyzing" and "evaluating" and distinguishes it further with the word "context"...is there a conflict somewhere? How can we integrate or synthesize?

1. I like to look at the taxonomy of thinking skills both as a ladder (hierarchy) and/or as a spectrum of colors that smoothly blend into one another.
By including context (which means you had to analyze your situation) and knowledge and skill (the level of mastery in applying your knowledge) into such a big
word “understanding” Wiggins &McTighe created a curious problem for me as student of learning and instructional design. By using words like, “wisely and
effectively” as well as “context” means there was some analyzing and evaluating already involved. And yet they distinguished “knowledge” from “skill”.
So, to clarify: Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy1 and refers specifically to thinking skills while UbD refers to Attitude, Skills and Knowledge (ASK)2 finding relevance
and application in a specific situation.
1 Please see: http://ww2.odu.edu/educ/roverbau/Bloom/blooms_taxonomy.htm to compare the original taxonomy and the revision
2 Some educators prefer KSAV (knowledge, skills, attitudes, values)

2. Let’s represent this:
From my Math lesson, I learned that the shortest distance from one point to another is a straight line. Can I use this in real life? From the map, I traced
the various routes with a ruler, I know that the shortest travel time from Point A to Point B is through route X.
Per Bloom’s revised taxonomy, I remember that and I understand as well. Applying this, I should take my car and use route X to get to my meeting.
However, today is Friday, where the traffic “color-coding” rule is that vehicles with plate numbers ending in zero (like mine) cannot pass through route X
from 8:00 am to 10:00am and then 2:00-7:00 pm. I analyzed that route X is not good for me in my current context or situation. I now need to evaluate
other options and create a decision. I need to go to Point B for a meeting.
Per UbD, I had to understand that it’s not enough to know that the shortest travel time from Point A to Point B was route X, and apply this knowledge to
determine my route. I had to be able to wisely and effectively apply this knowledge, in a real world context of it being a Friday and the color-coding rule
in effect on route X. This is my real setting. I had to connect and relate the principle of Math that the shortest distance from one point to another is a
straight line (route X may have more straight lines rather than circuitous turns) to a real world setting of other rules and limits that I learned in Civics
(ethics/respect of rules for the good of society such as obeying traffic rules). I had to have this “big picture” of other options and the ability to create a
solution. Options like, I can travel between 10:01 am and 1:59 pm or after 7:00 pm. I can also travel before 8:00 am and park somewhere and take public
transportation to my meeting place. I can reset my meeting time to after 7:00 pm or even just cancel my meeting today. Now I have to analyze the
consequences of each option such as losing credibility or losing the deal I need to make. I have both knowledge and skill (I can drive my car very well
through traffic in a way that no one should notice my plate number), how about attitude? Do I care about traffic rules? Can I just bribe the traffic officer
if I get caught? Do I even care about this person I want to meet?
So far, no conflict between Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy of thinking skills and the UbD except in the definition of “understanding”. Both are very useful in
determining learning strategy and tactics or designing a “learning path” for my students and helping me determine core subject matter content that my fellow
teachers can emphasize so that my school comes up among “the best”. We want to work as a team so that while we teach our own subject specialties we are
conscious of our end-product: the best and the brightest.
To make more sense to me I needed the help of another, big English
word called: COMPETENCE (sets of knowledge, skills and attitudes
required to successfully perform a particular task stated in specific
terms) which seems to be what the two are referring to when they
mention “understanding”. Thus, using SCAMPER technique, where I
“substitute” the word “understanding” with the word “competency”--
dare we say that UbD then is also actually ”Competency building by
design”—?
“Some scholars see "competence" as a combination of
practical and theoretical knowledge, cognitive skills,
behavior and values used to improve performance; or as the
state or quality of being adequately or well qualified,

3. having the ability to perform a specific role. For instance, life, management competency might include systems thinking and emotional
intelligence, and skills in influence and negotiation.
Competency is also used as a more general description of the requirements of human beings in organizations and communities.
Competency is sometimes thought of as being shown in action in a situation and context that might be different the next time a person has
to act. In emergencies, competent people may react to a situation following behaviors they have previously found to succeed. To be
competent a person would need to be able to interpret the situation in the context and to have a repertoire of possible actions to take and
have trained in the possible actions in the repertoire, if this is relevant. Regardless of training, competency would grow through experience
and the extent of an individual to learn and adapt.”—wikipedia
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competence_%28human_resources%29