Theory Into Practice

ISSN: 0040-5841 (Print) 1543-0421 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20

A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview

David R. Krathwohl

To cite this article: David R. Krathwohl (2002) A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview,
Theory Into Practice, 41:4, 212-218, DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Published online: 24 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 30946

View related articles

Citing articles: 982 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=htip20

Download by: [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] Date: 13 November 2017, At: 10:40
 THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Autumn 2002
Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy

David R. Krathwohl

A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy:

An Overview
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 10:40 13 November 2017

T HE TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES

is a framework for classifying statements of
what we expect or intend students to learn as a
Bloom saw the original Taxonomy as more than
a measurement tool. He believed it could serve as a
• common language about learning goals to facili-
result of instruction. The framework was conceived
tate communication across persons, subject matter,
as a means of facilitating the exchange of test items
and grade levels;
among faculty at various universities in order to
• basis for determining for a particular course or
create banks of items, each measuring the same
curriculum the specific meaning of broad educa-
educational objective. Benjamin S. Bloom, then
tional goals, such as those found in the currently
Associate Director of the Board of Examinations of
prevalent national, state, and local standards;
the University of Chicago, initiated the idea, hoping
• means for determining the congruence of educa-
that it would reduce the labor of preparing annual
tional objectives, activities, and assessments in
comprehensive examinations. To aid in his effort, he
a unit, course, or curriculum; and
enlisted a group of measurement specialists from
• panorama of the range of educational possibili-
across the United States, many of whom repeatedly
ties against which the limited breadth and depth
faced the same problem. This group met about twice
of any particular educational course or curricu-
a year beginning in 1949 to consider progress, make
lum could be contrasted.
revisions, and plan the next steps. Their final draft
was published in 1956 under the title, Taxonomy of The Original Taxonomy
Educational Objectives: The Classification of Edu-
The original Taxonomy provided carefully
cational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain
developed definitions for each of the six major cat-
(Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956).1
egories in the cognitive domain. The categories
Hereafter, this is referred to as the original Taxono- were Knowledge, Comprehension, Application,
my. The revision of this framework, which is the Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation.3 With the ex-
subject of this issue of Theory Into Practice, was ception of Application, each of these was broken
developed in much the same manner 45 years later into subcategories. The complete structure of the
(Anderson, Krathwohl, et al., 2001). Hereafter, this original Taxonomy is shown in Table 1.
is referred to as the revised Taxonomy.2 The categories were ordered from simple to
complex and from concrete to abstract. Further, it
David R. Krathwohl is Hannah Hammond Professor of was assumed that the original Taxonomy repre-
Education Emeritus at Syracuse University. sented a cumulative hierarchy; that is, mastery of

THEORY INTO PRACTICE , Volume 41, Number 4, Autumn 2002

Copyright © 2002 College of Education, The Ohio State University
212
 Krathwohl
An Overview

Table 1 across the spectrum of categories. Almost always,

Structure of the Original Taxonomy these analyses have shown a heavy emphasis on
1.0 Knowledge
objectives requiring only recognition or recall of
information, objectives that fall in the Knowledge
1.10 Knowledge of specifics
1.11 Knowledge of terminology
category. But, it is objectives that involve the under-
1.12 Knowledge of specific facts standing and use of knowledge, those that would be
1.20 Knowledge of ways and means of dealing with
classified in the categories from Comprehension to
specifics Synthesis, that are usually considered the most im-
1.21 Knowledge of conventions portant goals of education. Such analyses, therefore,
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 10:40 13 November 2017

1.22 Knowledge of trends and sequences have repeatedly provided a basis for moving curricu-
1.23 Knowledge of classifications and categories la and tests toward objectives that would be classi-
1.24 Knowledge of criteria fied in the more complex categories.
1.25 Knowledge of methodology
1.30 Knowledge of universals and abstractions in a From One Dimension to Two Dimensions
field Objectives that describe intended learning
1.31 Knowledge of principles and generaliza- outcomes as the result of instruction are usually
tions framed in terms of (a) some subject matter content
1.32 Knowledge of theories and structures
and (b) a description of what is to be done with or to
2.0 Comprehension that content. Thus, statements of objectives typically
2.1 Translation consist of a noun or noun phrase—the subject matter
2.2 Interpretation content—and a verb or verb phrase—the cognitive
2.3 Extrapolation process(es). Consider, for example, the following
3.0 Application objective: The student shall be able to remember
4.0 Analysis the law of supply and demand in economics. “The
4.1 Analysis of elements student shall be able to” (or “The learner will,” or
4.2 Analysis of relationships some other similar phrase) is common to all objec-
4.3 Analysis of organizational principles tives since an objective defines what students are
5.0 Synthesis expected to learn. Statements of objectives often
5.1 Production of a unique communication omit “The student shall be able to” phrase, speci-
5.2 Production of a plan, or proposed set of operations fying just the unique part (e.g., “Remember the
5.3 Derivation of a set of abstract relations economics law of supply and demand.”). In this
6.0 Evaluation form it is clear that the noun phrase is “law of
6.1 Evaluation in terms of internal evidence supply and demand” and the verb is “remember.”
6.2 Judgments in terms of external criteria In the original Taxonomy, the Knowledge cate-
gory embodied both noun and verb aspects. The noun
each simpler category was prerequisite to mastery or subject matter aspect was specified in Knowledge’s
of the next more complex one. extensive subcategories. The verb aspect was includ-
At the time it was introduced, the term tax- ed in the definition given to Knowledge in that the
onomy was unfamiliar as an education term. Po- student was expected to be able to recall or recog-
tential users did not understand what it meant, nize knowledge. This brought unidimensionality to
therefore, little attention was given to the original the framework at the cost of a Knowledge category
Taxonomy at first. But as readers saw its poten- that was dual in nature and thus different from the
tial, the framework became widely known and cit- other Taxonomic categories. This anomaly was elim-
ed, eventually being translated into 22 languages. inated in the revised Taxonomy by allowing these
One of the most frequent uses of the original two aspects, the noun and verb, to form separate di-
Taxonomy has been to classify curricular objec- mensions, the noun providing the basis for the Knowl-
tives and test items in order to show the breadth, edge dimension and the verb forming the basis for
or lack of breadth, of the objectives and items the Cognitive Process dimension.

213
 THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Autumn 2002
Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy

The Knowledge dimension Table 2

Like the original, the knowledge categories Structure of the Knowledge Dimension
of the revised Taxonomy cut across subject matter of the Revised Taxonomy
lines. The new Knowledge dimension, however, A. Factual Knowledge – The basic elements that stu-
contains four instead of three main categories. dents must know to be acquainted with a discipline
Three of them include the substance of the subcat- or solve problems in it.
egories of Knowledge in the original framework. Aa. Knowledge of terminology
But they were reorganized to use the terminology, Ab. Knowledge of specific details and elements
and to recognize the distinctions of cognitive psy- B. Conceptual Knowledge – The interrelationships
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 10:40 13 November 2017

chology that developed since the original frame- among the basic elements within a larger structure
work was devised. A fourth, and new category, that enable them to function together.
Metacognitive Knowledge, provides a distinction Ba. Knowledge of classifications and categories
that was not widely recognized at the time the orig- Bb. Knowledge of principles and generalizations
inal scheme was developed. Metacognitive Knowl- Bc. Knowledge of theories, models, and structures
edge involves knowledge about cognition in general C. Procedural Knowledge – How to do something; meth-
as well as awareness of and knowledge about one’s ods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms,
own cognition (Pintrich, this issue). It is of in- techniques, and methods.
creasing significance as researchers continue to Ca. Knowledge of subject-specific skills and al-
demonstrate the importance of students being made gorithms
aware of their metacognitive activity, and then us- Cb. Knowledge of subject-specific techniques and
ing this knowledge to appropriately adapt the ways methods
Cc. Knowledge of criteria for determining when
in which they think and operate. The four catego-
to use appropriate procedures
ries with their subcategories are shown in Table 2.
D. Metacognitive Knowledge – Knowledge of cognition
The Cognitive Process dimension in general as well as awareness and knowledge of
The original number of categories, six, was re- one’s own cognition.
Da. Strategic knowledge
tained, but with important changes. Three categories
Db. Knowledge about cognitive tasks, including
were renamed, the order of two was interchanged,
appropriate contextual and conditional
and those category names retained were changed to knowledge
verb form to fit the way they are used in objectives. Dc. Self-knowledge
The verb aspect of the original Knowledge
category was kept as the first of the six major cat- Application, Analysis, and Evaluation were re-
egories, but was renamed Remember. Comprehen- tained, but in their verb forms as Apply, Analyze,
sion was renamed because one criterion for and Evaluate. Synthesis changed places with Evalu-
selecting category labels was the use of terms that ation and was renamed Create. All the original sub-
teachers use in talking about their work. Because categories were replaced with gerunds, and called
understand is a commonly used term in objectives, “cognitive processes.” With these changes, the cate-
its lack of inclusion was a frequent criticism of the gories and subcategories—cognitive processes—of the
original Taxonomy. Indeed, the original group con- Cognitive Process dimension are shown in Table 3.
sidered using it, but dropped the idea after further Whereas the six major categories were given
consideration showed that when teachers say they far more attention than the subcategories in the orig-
want the student to “really” understand, they mean inal Taxonomy, in the revision, the 19 specific cog-
anything from Comprehension to Synthesis. But, nitive processes within the six cognitive process
to the revising authors there seemed to be popular categories receive the major emphasis. Indeed, the
usage in which understand was a widespread syn- nature of the revision’s six major categories emerg-
onym for comprehending. So, Comprehension, the es most clearly from the descriptions given the spe-
second of the original categories, was renamed cific cognitive processes. Together, these processes
Understand. 4 characterize each category’s breadth and depth.

214
 Krathwohl
An Overview

Like the original Taxonomy, the revision is a Table 3

hierarchy in the sense that the six major categories Structure of the Cognitive Process
of the Cognitive Process dimension are believed to Dimension of the Revised Taxonomy
differ in their complexity, with remember being
less complex than understand, which is less com- 1.0 Remember – Retrieving relevant knowledge from
long-term memory.
plex than apply, and so on. However, because the
1.1 Recognizing
revision gives much greater weight to teacher us- 1.2 Recalling
age, the requirement of a strict hierarchy has been
relaxed to allow the categories to overlap one an- 2.0 Understand – Determining the meaning of instruc-
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 10:40 13 November 2017

tional messages, including oral, written, and graphic

other. This is most clearly illustrated in the case of
communication.
the category Understand. Because its scope has 2.1 Interpreting
been considerably broadened over Comprehend in 2.2 Exemplifying
the original framework, some cognitive processes 2.3 Classifying
associated with Understand (e.g., Explaining) are 2.4 Summarizing
more cognitively complex than at least one of the 2.5 Inferring
cognitive processes associated with Apply (e.g., 2.6 Comparing
Executing). If, however, one were to locate the 2.7 Explaining
“center point” of each of the six major categories 3.0 Apply – Carrying out or using a procedure in a given
on a scale of judged complexity, they would likely situation.
form a scale from simple to complex. In this sense, 3.1 Executing
the Cognitive Process dimension is a hierarchy, 3.2 Implementing
and probably one that would be supported as well 4.0 Analyze – Breaking material into its constituent parts
as was the original Taxonomy in terms of empiri- and detecting how the parts relate to one another and
cal evidence (see Anderson, Krathwohl, et al., 2001, to an overall structure or purpose.
chap. 16). 4.1 Differentiating
4.2 Organizing
The Taxonomy Table 4.3 Attributing
In the revised Taxonomy, the fact that any 5.0 Evaluate – Making judgments based on criteria and
objective would be represented in two dimensions standards.
5.1 Checking
immediately suggested the possibility of construct-
5.2 Critiquing
ing a two-dimensional table, which we termed the
Taxonomy Table. The Knowledge dimension would 6.0 Create – Putting elements together to form a novel,
form the vertical axis of the table, whereas the coherent whole or make an original product.
6.1 Generating
Cognitive Process dimension would form the hori-
6.2 Planning
zontal axis. The intersections of the knowledge and 6.3 Producing
cognitive process categories would form the cells.
Consequently, any objective could be classified in academic purposes and situations by writing original
the Taxonomy Table in one or more cells that cor- compositions that analyze patterns and relationships
respond with the intersection of the column(s) ap- of ideas, topics, or themes. (State of Minnesota, 1998)
propriate for categorizing the verb(s) and the row(s) We begin by simplifying the standard (i.e., objec-
appropriate for categorizing the noun(s) or noun tive) by ignoring certain parts, particularly restric-
phrase(s). To see how this placement of objectives tions such as “using grammar, language mechanics,
is accomplished, consider the following example and other conventions of standard written English
adapted from the State of Minnesota’s Language for a variety of academic purposes and situations.”
Arts Standards for Grade 12: (Some of these specify scoring dimensions that, if
A student shall demonstrate the ability to write us- not done correctly, would cause the student’s com-
ing grammar, language mechanics, and other con- position to be given a lower grade.) Omitting these
ventions of standard written English for a variety of restrictions leaves us with the following:

215
 THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Autumn 2002
Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy

Write original compositions that analyze patterns and Understand through Create are usually considered
relationships of ideas, topics, or themes. the most important outcomes of education, their
Placement of the objective along the Knowl- inclusion, or lack of it, is readily apparent from
edge dimension requires a consideration of the noun the Taxonomy Table. Consider this example from
phrase “patterns and relationships of ideas, topics, or one of the vignettes in the revised Taxonomy vol-
themes.” “Patterns and relationships” are associated ume in which a teacher, Ms. Gwendolyn Airasian,
with B. Conceptual Knowledge. So we would classi- describes a classroom unit in which she integrates
fy the noun component as an example of B. Concep- Pre-Revolutionary War colonial history with a per-
tual Knowledge. Concerning the placement of the suasive writing assignment. Ms. Airasian lists four
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 10:40 13 November 2017

objective along the Cognitive Process dimension, we specific objectives. She wants her students to:
note there are two verbs: write and analyze. Writ-
1. Remember the specific parts of the Parliamentary
ing compositions calls for Producing, and, as such,
Acts (e.g., the Sugar, Stamp, and Townshend
would be classified as an example of 6. Create.
Acts);
Analyze, of course, would be 4. Analyze. Since
2. Explain the consequences of the Parliamentary
both categories of cognitive processes are likely to
Acts for different colonial groups;
be involved (with students being expected to ana-
3. Choose a colonial character or group and write
lyze before they create), we would place this ob-
a persuasive editorial stating his/her/its position
jective in two cells of the Taxonomy Table: B4,
on the Acts (the editorial must include at least
Analyze Conceptual Knowledge, and B6, Create
one supporting reason not specifically taught or
[based on] Conceptual Knowledge (see Figure 1).
covered in the class); and
We use the bracketed [based on] to indicate that
4. Self- and peer edit the editorial.
the creation itself isn’t conceptual knowledge; rath-
er, the creation is primarily based on, in this case, Categorizing the first objective, 1. Remember
conceptual knowledge. is clearly the cognitive process, and “specific parts
By using the Taxonomy Table, an analysis of the Parliamentary Acts” is Ab. Knowledge of spe-
of the objectives of a unit or course provides, cific details or elements, a subcategory of A. Factu-
among other things, an indication of the extent to al Knowledge. So this objective is placed in cell
which more complex kinds of knowledge and cog- A1.5 “Explain,” the verb in the second objective,
nitive processes are involved. Since objectives from is the seventh cognitive process, 2.7 Explaining,

The Cognitive Process Dimension

The Knowledge 1. Remember 2. Understand 3. Apply 4. Analyze 5. Evaluate 6. Create
Dimension

A. Factual
Knowledge

B. Conceptual X X
Knowledge

C. Procedural
Knowledge

D. Metacognitive
Knowledge
Figure 1. The placement in the Taxonomy Table of the State of Minnesota’s Language Arts Standard for
Grade 12.

216
 Krathwohl
An Overview

under 2. Understand. Since the student is asked to more important and long-lasting fruits of educa-
explain the “consequences of the Parliamentary tion—the more complex ones.
Acts,” one can infer that “consequences” refers to In addition to showing what was included,
generalized statements about the Acts’ aftereffects the Taxonomy Table also suggests what might have
and is closest to Bc. Knowledge of theories, models, been but wasn’t. Thus, in Figure 2, the two blank
and structures. The type of knowledge, then, would bottom rows raise questions about whether there
be B. Conceptual Knowledge. This objective would might have been procedural or metacognitive
be classified in cell B2. knowledge objectives that could have been includ-
The key verb in the third objective is “write.” ed. For example, are there procedures to follow in
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 10:40 13 November 2017

Like the classification of the State of Minnesota’s editing that the teacher could explicitly teach the
standard discussed above, writing is 6.3 Produc- students? Alternatively, is knowledge of the kinds of
ing, a process within 6. Create. To describe “his/ errors common in one’s own writing and preferred
her/its position on the Acts” would require some ways of correcting them an important metacognitive
combination of A. Factual Knowledge and B. Con- outcome of self-editing that could have been em-
ceptual Knowledge, so this objective would be clas- phasized? The panorama of possibilities presented
sified in two cells: A6 and B6. Finally, the fourth by the Taxonomy Table causes one to look at blank
objective involves the verbs “self-edit” and “peer areas and reflect on missed teaching opportunities.
edit.” Editing is a type of evaluation, so the process The Taxonomy Table can also be used to clas-
involved is 5. Evaluate. The process of evaluation sify the instructional and learning activities used
will involve criteria, which are classified as B. to achieve the objectives, as well as the assess-
Conceptual Knowledge, so the fourth objective would ments employed to determine how well the objec-
fall in cell B5. The completed Taxonomy Table for tives were mastered by the students. The use of
this unit’s objectives is shown in Figure 2. the Taxonomy Table for these purposes is described
From the table, one can quickly visually de- and illustrated in the six vignettes contained in the
termine the extent to which the more complex cat- revised Taxonomy volume (Anderson, Krathwohl,
egories are represented. Ms. Airasian’s unit is quite et al., 2001, chaps. 8-13). In the last two articles
good in this respect. Only one objective deals with of this issue, Airasian discusses assessment in great-
the Remember category; the others involve cogni- er detail, and Anderson describes and illustrates
tive processes that are generally recognized as the alignment.

The Cognitive Process Dimension

The Knowledge 1. Remember 2. Understand 3. Apply 4. Analyze 5. Evaluate 6. Create
Dimension

A. Factual Objective 1 Objective 3

Knowledge

B. Conceptual Objective 2 Objective 4 Objective 3

Knowledge

C. Procedural
Knowledge

D. Metacognitive
Knowledge
Figure 2. The classification in a Taxonomy Table of the four objectives of Ms. Airasian’s unit integrat-
ing Pre-Revolutionary War colonial history with a persuasive writing assignment.

217
 THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Autumn 2002
Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy

Conclusion 2. The revised Taxonomy is published both in a hard-

The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives is cover complete edition and a paperback abridgment,
which omits Chapters 15, The Taxonomy in Rela-
a scheme for classifying educational goals, objec- tion to Alternative Frameworks; 16, Empirical Stud-
tives, and, most recently, standards. It provides an ies of the Structure of the Taxonomy; 17, Unsolved
organizational structure that gives a commonly Problems; and Appendix C, Data Used in the Meta-
understood meaning to objectives classified in one Analysis in Chapter 15.
of its categories, thereby enhancing communica- 3. Terms appearing in the original Taxonomy appear
in italics with initial caps; terms in the revised Tax-
tion. The original Taxonomy consisted of six cate- onomy add boldface to these specifications.
gories, nearly all with subcategories. They were 4. Problem solving and critical thinking were two oth-
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 10:40 13 November 2017

arranged in a cumulative hierarchical framework; er terms commonly used by teachers that were also
achievement of the next more complex skill or abil- considered for inclusion in the revision. But unlike
ity required achievement of the prior one. The orig- understand, there seemed to be no popular usage
that could be matched to a single category. There-
inal Taxonomy volume emphasized the assessment fore, to be categorized in the Taxonomy, one must
of learning with many examples of test items (large- determine the intended specific meaning of prob-
ly multiple choice) provided for each category. lem solving and critical thinking from the context
Our revision of the original Taxonomy is a in which they are being used.
two-dimensional framework: Knowledge and Cog- 5. One can use the subcategories to designate the rows
and columns; however, for the sake of simplicity, the
nitive Processes. The former most resembles the examples make use of only the major categories.
subcategories of the original Knowledge category.
The latter resembles the six categories of the orig- References
inal Taxonomy with the Knowledge category named Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), Airasian,
Remember, the Comprehension category named P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R.,
Understand, Synthesis renamed Create and made Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for
the top category, and the remaining categories learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of
changed to their verb forms: Apply, Analyze, and Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Com-
plete edition). New York: Longman.
Evaluate. They are arranged in a hierarchical struc- Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill,
ture, but not as rigidly as in the original Taxonomy. W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of
In combination, the Knowledge and Cognitive educational objectives: The classification of edu-
Process dimensions form a very useful table, the Tax- cational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain.
New York: David McKay.
onomy Table. Using the Table to classify objectives,
Dave, R.H. (1970). Psychomotor levels. In R.J. Arm-
activities, and assessments provides a clear, concise, strong (Ed.), Developing and writing educational
visual representation of a particular course or unit. objectives (pp. 33-34). Tucson AZ: Educational
Once completed, the entries in the Taxonomy Ta- Innovators Press.
ble can be used to examine relative emphasis, cur- Harrow, A.J. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor
domain: A guide for developing behavioral objec-
riculum alignment, and missed educational tives. New York: David McKay.
opportunities. Based on this examination, teachers Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B.B. (1964).
can decide where and how to improve the plan- Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classifi-
ning of curriculum and the delivery of instruction. cation of educational goals. Handbook II: The af-
fective domain. New York: David McKay.
Simpson, B.J. (1966). The classification of educational
Notes objectives: Psychomotor domain. Illinois Journal
1. The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook of Home Economics, 10(4), 110-144.
II, The Affective Domain was published later (Krath- State of Minnesota. (1998). State educational standards
wohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964). A taxonomy for the coupled to lesson plans and resources: Language Arts,
psychomotor domain was never published by the High standards (1998): Grade 12: Writing-Unit: De-
originating group, but some were published by Simp- scription, Academic. Retrieved April 20, 2001, from
son (1966), Dave (1970), and Harrow (1972). http://www.statestandards.com/showstate.asp?st=mn.

218