A Model of Learning Objectives

Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching

A Model of Learning Objectives

based on

A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing:
A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives*

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 descibes 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, subsuming) 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. 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, subsuming)

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 procedual 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. 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

*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.