Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

Revised Bloom's Taxonomy

A group of cognitive psychologists, curriculum theorists and instructional researchers, and testing and assessment specialists published in 2001 a revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy with the title A Taxonomy for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. This title draws attention away from the somewhat static notion of “educational objectives” (in Bloom’s original title) and points to a more dynamic conception of classification.



The authors of the revised taxonomy underscore this dynamism, using verbs and gerunds to label their categories and subcategories (rather than the nouns of the original taxonomy). These “action words” describe the cognitive processes by which thinkers encounter and work with knowledge.

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 Process Dimension – categories, cognitive processes (and alternative names)


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)

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


  • 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

Bloom's Revised Taxonomy Model

Note: These are learning objectives – not learning activities. It may be useful to think of preceding each objective with something like, “students will be able to…:

The Knowledge Dimension


The basic elements a student must know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems in it.

The Knowledge Dimension


The interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together.

The Knowledge Dimension


How to do something, methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods.

The Knowledge Dimension


Knowledge of cognition in general as well as awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition

The Cognitive Process Dimension


Retrieve relevant knowledge from long-term memory.

Remember + Factual

List primary and secondary colors.

Remember + Conceptual

Recognize symptoms of exhaustion.

Remember + Procedural

Recall how to perform CPR.

Remember + Metacognitive

Identify strategies for retaining information.

The Cognitive Process Dimension


Construct meaning from instructional messages, including oral, written and graphic communication.

Understand + Factual

Summarize features of a new product.

Understand + Conceptual

Classify adhesives by toxicity.

Understand + Procedural

Clarify assembly instructions.

Understand + Metacognitive

Predict one’s response to culture shock.

The Cognitive Process Dimension


Carry out or use a procedure in a given situation.

Apply + Factual

Respond to frequently asked questions.

Apply + Conceptual

Provide advice to novices.

Apply + Procedural

Carry out pH tests of water samples.

Apply + Metacognitive

Use techniques that match one's strengths.

The Cognitive Process Dimension


Carry out or use a procedure in a given situation.

Analyze + Factual

Select the most complete list of activities.

Analyze + Conceptual

Differentiate high and low culture.

Analyze + Procedural

Integrate compliance with regulations.

Analyze + Metacognitive

Deconstruct one's biases.

The Cognitive Process Dimension


Make judgments based on criteria and standards.

Evaluate + Factual

Select the most complete list of activities.

Evaluate + Conceptual

Determine relevance of results.

Evaluate + Procedural

Judge efficiency of sampling techniques.

Evaluate + Metacognitive

Reflect on one's progress.

The Cognitive Process Dimension


Put elements together to form a coherent whole; reorganize into a new pattern or structure.

Create + Factual

Generate a log of daily activities.

Create + Conceptual

Assemble a team of experts.

Create + Procedural

Design efficient project workflow.

Create + Metacognitive

Create a learning portfolio.

Recommended resources

*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.