The same content is available via the following formats:
- Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy Model [Responsive Design Version] page
- Download the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (PDF)
- Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy Model [Text-Only Version] page
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 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 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)
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 |
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-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.