Three Domains of Learning Cognitive, Affective,
Psychomotor
Leslie Owen Wilson all rights reserved
Contact Leslie
Three domains of learning What are the differences between the cognitive, affective,
and psychomotor taxonomies?
There are three main domains of learning and all teachers should know about them and use them to
construct lessons. These domains are cognitive (thinking), affective (emotion/feeling), and psychomotor
(physical/kinesthetic). Each domain on this page has a taxonomy associated with it. Taxonomy is simply a
word for a classification. All of the taxonomies below are arranged so that they proceed from the simplest
to more complex levels. The ones discussed here are usually attributed to their primary author, even
though the actual development may have had many authors in its formal, complete citation.
Benjamin Bloom (Cognitive Domain),
David Krathwohl (Affective Domain), and
Anita Harrow (Psychomotor Domain).
It is interesting to note that even though the taxonomy associated with cognition is commonly referred to
as Blooms Taxonomy, David Krathwohl was also one of the original authors in creating this work. This will
become important when you look at the 2001 revisions to this taxonomy.
Many veteran teachers are unaware that the cognitive/thinking domain, again commonly known as
Blooms Taxonomy and originally published in 1956, had major revisions in 2000/01. While I have included
the original cognitive one, I have also attached it to the newly revised version so that users can see the
differences. The newer version of Blooms Taxonomy of Learning has a number of added features that
are very useful to educators in constructing optimal learning experiences.
Additionally, when possible, teachers should attempt to construct more holistic lessons by using all 3
domains in learning tasks. This diversity helps to create more well-rounded learning experiences and
meets a number of learning styles and learning modalities, plus it creates more neural networks and
pathways aiding recall.
The Original Cognitive or Thinking Domain
Based on the 1956 work, The Handbook I-Cognitive Domain, behavioral objectives are divided into
subsets. These subsets were arranged into a taxonomy and listed according to the cognitive difficulty,
simpler to more complex forms. As stated earlier it has been commonly known as Blooms Taxonomy
since 1956. In 2000-01 revisions to this taxonomy were spearheaded by one of Blooms former students,
Lorin Anderson, and one of his original partners in defining the cognitive domain, David Krathwohl. Please
see my page entitled Anderson and Krathwohl Blooms Taxonomy Revised for further details.
Remember while it is good to understand the history of the older version of the domain, the newer version
has a number of strong advantages that make it a better choice for planning instruction today. One of the
major changes that has occurred between the old and newer updated version is that the two highest
forms of cognition have been reversed.
Additional Resources: A wonderfully succinct and comprehensive overview of both taxonomies is
provided by Mary Forehand at the University of Georgia in a Wikipedia type format, see Blooms
taxonomy. Plus, there are many different types of graphics cleverly depicting the new versions that can
be printed and readily used as everyday references during instructional planning. In a search engine like
Google enter revised Blooms taxonomy and view the images portion of the search to find many
different types of colorful and useful graphics on this topic.
Taxonomies of the Cognitive Domain
Blooms Taxonomy 1956
1. Knowledge: Remembering or retrieving previously
learned material. Examples of verbs that relate to this function
are:
know identify
relate list
define recall
memorize
repeat
record name
recognize
acquire
2. Comprehension: The ability to grasp or construct meaning
from material. Examples of verbs that relate to this function
are:
restate locate
report recognize
explain express
identify discuss
describe discuss
review infer
illustrate
interpret draw
represent
differentiate
conclude
3. Application: The ability to use learned material, or to
implement material in new and concrete situations. Examples
Anderson and Krathwohls Taxonomy 2001
1. Remembering: Recognizing or recalling knowledge
from memory. Remembering is when memory is used to
produce definitions, facts, or lists, or recite or retrieve
material.
2. Understanding: Constructing meaning from different
types of functions be they written or graphic messages
activities like interpreting, exemplifying, classifying,
summarizing, inferring, comparing, and explaining.
3. Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure through
executing, or implementing. Applying related and refers
of verbs that relate to this function are:
apply relate
develop
translate use
operate
organize employ
restructure
interpret
demonstrate
illustrate
practice
calculate show
exhibit
dramatize
4. Analysis: The ability to break down or distinguish the parts
of material into its components so that its organizational
structure may be better understood.Examples of verbs that
relate to this function are:
analyze compare
probe inquire
examine contrast
categorize
differentiate
contrast
investigate detect
survey classify
deduce
experiment
scrutinize
discover inspect
dissect
discriminate
separate
5. Synthesis: The ability to put parts together to form a
coherent or unique new whole. Examples of verbs that relate
to this function are:
compose produce
design assemble
create prepare
predict modify
tell
plan invent
formulate collect
set up generalize
document
combine relate
propose develop
arrange construct
organize
originate derive
write propose
6. Evaluation: The ability to judge, check, and even critique
the value of material for a given purpose. Examples of verbs
that relate to this function are:
judge assess
compare evaluate
conclude
measure deduce
argue decide
choose rate select
estimate
validate consider
appraise value
criticize infer
to situations where learned material is used through
products like models, presentations, interviews or
simulations.
4. Analyzing: Breaking material or concepts into parts,
determining how the parts relate or interrelate to one
another or to an overall structure or purpose. Mental
actions included in this function are differentiating,
organizing, and attributing, as well as being able to
distinguish between the components or parts. When one is
analyzing he/she can illustrate this mental function by
creating spreadsheets, surveys, charts, or diagrams, or
graphic representations.
5. Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and
standards through checking and critiquing. Critiques,
recommendations, and reports are some of the products
that can be created to demonstrate the processes of
evaluation. In the newer taxonomy evaluation comes
before creating as it is often a necessary part of the
precursory behavior before creating something.
6. Creating: Putting elements together to form a
coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into
a new pattern or structure through generating, planning,
or producing. Creating requires users to put parts together
in a new way or synthesize parts into something new and
different a new form or product. This process is the most
difficult mental function in the new taxonomy.
Table 1.1 (Wilson, L.O. 2001) Bloom vs. Anderson/Krathwohl revisions
The Affective or Feeling Domain:
Like cognitive objectives, affective objectives can also be divided into a hierarchy (according to
Krathwohl). This area is concerned with feelings or emotions. Again, the taxonomy is arranged from
simpler feelings to those that are more complex.
1. Receiving
This refers to the learners sensitivity to the existence of stimuli awareness, willingness to receive, or
selected attention.
feel sense capture
experience
pursue attend
perceive
2. Responding
This refers to the learners active attention to stimuli and his/her motivation to learn acquiescence,
willing responses, or feelings of satisfaction.
conform allow cooperate
contribute enjoy satisfy
3. Valuing
This refers to the learners beliefs and attitudes of worth acceptance, preference, or commitment. An
acceptance, preference, or commitment to a value.
believe seek justify
respect search persuade
4. Organization
This refers to the learners internalization of values and beliefs involving (1) the conceptualization of
values; and (2) the organization of a value system. As values or beliefs become internalized, the leaner
organizes them according to priority.
examine clarify systematize
create integrate
5. Characterization the Internalization of values
This refers to the learners highest of internalization and relates to behavior that reflects (1) a generalized
set of values; and (2) a characterization or a philosophy about life. At this level the learner is capable of
practicing and acting on their values or beliefs.
internalize review conclude
resolve judge
Based on:
Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom,B.S. and Masia, B. B. (1964).Taxonomy of educational objectives, Book II.
Affective domain. New York, NY. David McKay Company, Inc.
Note: As with all of the taxonomies, in labeling objectives using this domain there has to be a very clear
instructional intention for growth in this area specified in the learning objective(s). Folks in the
sciences and in math often avoid including affective objectives stating that their areas are not emotional.
However, any group work or cooperative exercise where deportment, or collaborative or cooperative skills
are discussed, used, and emphasized qualifies as having the potential for affective growth. Additionally, if
students are asked to challenge themselves with independently taking risks to develop and present a
hypothesis and/or persuade others on drawn conclusions, or actively take an intellectual risk whereby they
increase in self-confidence, these types of exercises also have the potential to be affective as well as a
cognitive. Also, in areas of potential debate, where data allows students to draw conclusions about
controversial topics or express opinions and feelings on those topics, this too can be tweaked so there is
intentional affective growth. Since emotion draws both attention and channels strong residual memory, it
behooves all dedicated and artful educators to include affective objectives, no matter what their discipline
or area of study.
The Psychomotor or Kinesthetic Domain
Psychomotor objectives are those specific to discreet physical functions, reflex actions and interpretive
movements. Traditionally, these types of objectives are concerned with the physically encoding of
information, with movement and/or with activities where the gross and fine muscles are used for
expressing or interpreting information or concepts. This area also refers to natural, autonomic responses
or reflexes.
As stated earlier, to avoid confusion, if the activity is simply something that is physical which supports another
area affective or cognitive term the objective physical rather than psychomotor. Again, this goes to
instructional intent. A primary example of something physical which supports specific cognitive
development and skills might be looking through a microscope and identifying and drawing cells. Here the
instructional intent of this common scientific activity is not to develop specific skilled proficiency in
microscope viewing or in reproducing cells through drawing. Usually the key intent in this activity is that a
physical action supports or is a vehicle for cognitive growth and furthering recognition skills. The learner is
using the physical action to achieve the cognitive objectives identify, recognize, and differentiate varied
types of cells.
If you are using a physical activity to support a cognitive or affective function, simply label it as
something physical (labeling the objective as kinesthetic, haptic, or tactile is also acceptable) and avoid the term
psychomotor. Labeling something psychomotormeans there is a very clear educational intention for growth to
occur in the psychomotor domain.
Certainly more complex learning objectives can be written so that they that meld 2 or 3 domains. For instance,
students can gain appreciation (an affective objective) for the culture or country of origin through conducting
investigations or listening to stories while learning the dances from other countries. Learning dance steps would fall
under skilled movements in the psychomotor domain.
(Terms in this area based on Anita Harrows taxonomy).
Reflex movements
Objectives at this level include reflexes that involve one segmental or reflexes of the spine and
movements that may involve more than one segmented portion of the spine as intersegmental reflexes
(e.g., involuntary muscle contraction). These movements are involuntary being either present at birth or
emerging through maturation.
Fundamental movements
Objectives in this area refer to skills or movements or behaviors related to walking, running, jumping,
pushing, pulling and manipulating. They are often components for more complex actions.
Perceptual abilities
Objectives in this area should address skills related to kinesthetic (bodily movements), visual, auditory,
tactile (touch), or coordination abilities as they are related to the ability to take in information from the
environment and react.
Physical abilities
Objectives in this area should be related to endurance, flexibility, agility, strength, reaction-response time
or dexterity.
Skilled movements
Objectives in this area refer to skills and movements that must be learned for games, sports, dances,
performances, or for the arts.
Nondiscursive communication
Objectives in this area refer to expressive movements through posture, gestures, facial expressions,
and/or creative movements like those in mime or ballet. These movements refer to interpretative
movements that communicate meaning without the aid of verbal commands or help.
Remember that the trick in effectively planning lessons there has to be the
intention for growth specifically in the selected domain area! Learning takes
place in ALL 3 domains and wise teachers combine domains so that lessons and
learning are more holistic and multidimensional.
The following page and PPT AGO2 illustrate how you can use all three domains to create more holistic
learning experiences.
______________________________________________________
Sources:
Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds.) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and
Assessing: A Revision of Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA
(Pearson Education Group)
Bloom, B.S. and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of
Educational Goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive
Domain. NY, NY: Longmans, Green
Harrow, A. (1972) A Taxonomy of Psychomotor Domain: A Guide for Developing Behavioral
Objectives. New York: David McKay.
Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., Masia, B.B. (1973). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification
of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc.
