A Model of Learning Objectives
based on
A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing:
A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives*
If you have trouble accessing the interactive Flash-based model below, the content is available in a text-only table.
A statement of a learning objective contains a verb (an action) and an object (usually a noun).
- The verb generally refers to [actions associated with] the intended cognitive process.
- The object generally describes the knowledge students are expected to acquire or construct.
(Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 4–5)
The cognitive process dimension represents a continuum of increasing cognitive complexity—from remember to create. Anderson and Krathwohl identify 19 specific cognitive processes that further clarify the bounds of the six categories (Table 1).
Table 1. The cognitive processes dimension — categories, cognitive processes (and alternative names) |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| remember | understand | apply | analyze | evaluate | create |
recognizing (identifying) recalling (retrieving) |
interpreting (clarifying, paraphrasing, representing, translating) exemplifying (illustrating, instantiating)
classifying (categorizing, subsuming)
summarizing (abstracting, generalizing)
inferring (concluding, extrapolating, interpolating, predicting)
comparing (contrasting, mapping, matching) explaining (constructing models) |
executing (carrying out) implementing (using) |
differentiating (discriminating, distinguishing, focusing, selecting)
organizing (finding coherence, integrating, outlining, parsing, structuring) attributing (deconstructing) |
checking (coordinating, detecting, monitoring, testing) critiquing (judging) |
generating (hypothesizing)
planning (designing) producing (construct) |
(Table 1 adapted from Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 67–68.)
The knowledge dimension represents a range from concrete (factual) to abstract (metacognitive) (Table 2). Representation of the knowledge dimension as a number of discrete steps can be a bit misleading. For example, all procedural knowledge may not be more abstract than all conceptual knowledge. And metacognitive knowledge is a special case. In this model, "metacognitive knowledge is knowledge of [one's own] cognition and about oneself in relation to various subject matters . . . " (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, p. 44).
Table 2. The knowledge dimension — major types and subtypes |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| factual | conceptual | procedural | metacognitive |
knowledge of terminology knowledge of specific details and elements |
knowledge of classifications and categories knowledge of principles and generalizations knowledge of theories, models, and structures |
knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures |
strategic knowledge knowledge about cognitive tasks, including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge self-knowledge |
(Table 2 adapted from Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, p. 46.).
Recommended resources
Bloom's Digital Taxonomy by Andrew Churches – a thorough orientation to the revised taxonomy; practical recommendations for a wide variety of ways mapping the taxonomy to the uses of current online technologies; and associated rubrics
Bloom et al.'s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (Dr. William G. Huitt, Valdosta State University)
Bloom's Taxonomy - An Overview and Bloom's Taxonomy - Designing Activities (Colorado Community College System Faculty Wiki)
Revising Bloom's Taxonomy. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), Autumn 2002. 212-264. This issue of Theory Into Practice includes the following articles:
| Author | Title | Pages |
|---|---|---|
| Krathwohl, D. R. | A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview | 212-218 |
| Pintrich, P.R. | The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and Assessing | 219-225 |
| Mayer, R.E. | Rote Versus Meaningful Learning | 226-232 |
| Raths, J. | Improving Instruction | 233-237 |
| Ferguson, C. | Using the Revised Taxonomy to Plan and Deliver Team-Taught, Integrated, Thematic Units | 238-243 |
| Byrd, P.A. | The Revised Taxonomy and Prospective Teachers | 244-248 |
| Airasian, P.W. & Miranda, H. | The Role of Assessment in the Revised Taxonomy | 249-254 |
| Anderson, L.W. | Curricular Alignment: A Re-Examination | 255-260 |
| Additional Resources for Classroom Use | 261-264 |
Learning Domains or Bloom's Taxonomy (Don Clark)
The Best Resources For Helping Teachers Use Bloom's Taxonomy In The Classroom (Larry Ferlazzo's Websites of the Day...)
*Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition). New York: Longman.
A Model of Learning Objectives–based on A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives by Rex Heer, Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, Iowa State University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.