Revised Bloom's Taxonomy
Overview
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)
Remember
recognizing (identifying)
recalling (retrieving)
Understand
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)
Apply
executing (carrying out)
implementing (using)
Analyze
differentiating (discriminating, distinguishing, focusing, selecting)
organizing (finding, coherence, integrating, outlining, parsing, structuring)
attributing (deconstructing)
Evaluate
checking (coordinating, detecting, monitoring, testing)
critiquing (judging)
Create
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
Factual
- knowledge of terminology
- knowledge of specific details and elements
Conceptual
- knowledge of classifications and categories
- knowledge of principles and generalizations
- knowledge of theories, models, and structures
Procedural
- knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms
- knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods
- knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures
Metacognitive
- strategic knowledge
- knowledge about cognitive tasks, including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge
- self-knowledge
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
Factual
The basic elements a student must know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems in it.
The Knowledge Dimension
Conceptual
The interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together.
The Knowledge Dimension
Procedural
How to do something, methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods.
The Knowledge Dimension
Metacognitive
Knowledge of cognition in general as well as awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition
The Cognitive Process Dimension
Remember
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
Understand
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
Apply
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
Analyze
Break material into foundational parts and determine how parts relate to one another and the overall structure or purpose
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
Evaluate
Make judgments based on criteria and standards.
Evaluate + Factual
Check for consistency among sources.
Evaluate + Conceptual
Determine relevance of results.
Evaluate + Procedural
Judge efficiency of sampling techniques.
Evaluate + Metacognitive
Reflect on one's progress.
The Cognitive Process Dimension
Create
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
- Developing Student Learning Outcome Statements (Georgia Tech) page
- Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. 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
- Download the Blooms Digital Taxonomy of Verbs poster (Wasabi Learning)
- Bloom et al.’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (Dr. William G. Huitt, Valdosta State University)
- Stanny, C. J. (2016). Reevaluating Bloom’s Taxonomy: What measurable verbs can and cannot say about student learning. Education Sciences, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6040037
- 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.