Bloom's Taxonomy

framework · education · structured-empirical

Hierarchy of cognitive learning objectives from remembering through evaluating and creating.

Bloom's Taxonomy was developed by a committee of educators chaired by Benjamin Bloom at the University of Chicago, presented in the 1956 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. The committee — also including Max Englehart, Edward Furst, Walter Hill, and David Krathwohl — emerged from work at the American Psychological Association's 1948 convention seeking a common vocabulary for examination and curriculum specialists. The original taxonomy articulates six hierarchical levels of cognitive complexity: Knowledge (recall of facts), Comprehension (understanding meaning), Application (using knowledge in new situations), Analysis (breaking down information into parts and identifying relationships), Synthesis (combining elements to create something new), and Evaluation (judging value and quality). Each level subsumes the lower levels. Bloom's two further volumes addressed the Affective Domain (Krathwohl, Bloom, Masia, 1964 — receiving, responding, valuing, organizing, characterizing) and the Psychomotor Domain (handled by other authors including Simpson 1972 and Harrow 1972). The cognitive taxonomy became the most widely-used framework in instructional design and curriculum development globally, with its action-verb hierarchy ('list,' 'describe,' 'apply,' 'analyze,' 'create') becoming the standard vocabulary for writing learning objectives. Anderson and Krathwohl's 2001 Revised Taxonomy substantially updated the framework.

Originators

Benjamin S. Bloom (committee chair); Max Englehart, Edward Furst, Walter Hill, David Krathwohl (committee members) high

Year / Decade

1956 (Cognitive Domain handbook); 1964 (Affective Domain) high

Primary sources

Bloom, B.S. (ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S. & Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain high

Core components

Six hierarchical cognitive levels: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation
Each level subsumes lower levels
Action-verb hierarchy for objective-writing
Three domains: Cognitive (1956), Affective (1964, Krathwohl), Psychomotor (subsequent authors)
Foundation for instructional design and curriculum standards
Distinction between lower-order and higher-order thinking skills

Primary use case

Curriculum and instructional design; learning objective specification; assessment design; teacher training and professional development; foundation for state and national curriculum standards globally; widely-used framework for distinguishing depths of learning; pedagogical reference across K-12, higher education, and corporate training.

Common criticisms

Strict hierarchical structure has been challenged — empirical research suggests cognitive processes don't always proceed in the prescribed order, and 'higher' levels often invoke 'lower' levels recursively rather than building on completed lower-level work
the cognitive/affective/psychomotor separation underweights interactions among domains
the taxonomy's apparent rigor obscures the substantial subjectivity in classifying objectives — the same activity can be coded at different levels depending on context
cross-cultural validity has been contested
commercial certification and curriculum-mapping industry has produced bureaucratic compliance with verb-list checklists rather than substantive engagement with cognitive depth
the original Synthesis-Evaluation ordering was substantially revised by Anderson-Krathwohl 2001 (placing Create at top), suggesting the hierarchy was less settled than its widespread adoption suggested.

Lineage

Parent of: Revised Bloom's Taxonomy
Siblings: Revised Bloom's Taxonomy, SOLO Taxonomy, Webb's Depth of Knowledge