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).
|Lower order thinking skills Higher order thinking skills|
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).
|Concrete knowledge Abstract knowledge|
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)
Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), Autumn 2002. 212-264. This issue of Theory Into Practice includes the following articles:
|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|
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.