Revised Bloom's Taxonomy
Also known as: Anderson and Krathwohl
Updated Bloom adding the knowledge dimension and reordering create as the top.
The Revised Bloom's Taxonomy was published by Lorin Anderson, David Krathwohl (an original 1956 committee member), and colleagues in 2001 as A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The revision made three principal changes. First, the cognitive process dimension's top two levels were swapped — Synthesis (renamed Create) moved above Evaluation (renamed Evaluate), reflecting the argument that creative production is cognitively more complex than evaluation against criteria. Second, the categories were renamed from nouns to verbs (Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create), better aligning with how learning objectives are typically written. Third, and most substantively, a separate Knowledge dimension was added, distinguishing four types of knowledge (Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, Metacognitive), creating a two-dimensional taxonomy table. This produces a 6 × 4 = 24-cell matrix that allows objectives to be classified by both cognitive process and knowledge type — a more nuanced classification than the original one-dimensional hierarchy. The Revised Taxonomy is now the standard reference in most contemporary instructional-design contexts, though both versions remain in use, with the 1956 original retaining substantial usage particularly in legacy curriculum frameworks.
Core components
- Two-dimensional structure: Cognitive Process Dimension and Knowledge Dimension
- Cognitive Process Dimension (verbs): Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create
- Knowledge Dimension: Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, Metacognitive
- 24-cell taxonomy table
- Reordering: Create above Evaluate (vs original Synthesis below Evaluation)
- Verb-form labels (vs original noun-form)
- Application to objective specification, assessment, and curriculum alignment
Primary use case
Standard contemporary reference for instructional design and curriculum development; learning objective writing using the cognitive-process-by-knowledge-type matrix; assessment design ensuring coverage across both dimensions; teacher training and professional development; foundation for many contemporary curriculum frameworks and standards.
Common criticisms
- The reordering of Create above Evaluate is empirically contested — some cognitive scientists argue evaluation often requires more sophisticated cognition than creation, particularly when creation is novelty without standards
- the four knowledge types (Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, Metacognitive) have substantial overlap and operationalization varies
- the 24-cell matrix's apparent precision obscures continuing subjectivity in classification
- coexistence of original and revised versions creates which-version-when confusion in literature and practice
- commercial alignment and curriculum-mapping industry has produced bureaucratic compliance with the matrix without substantive engagement
- like the original, hierarchical structure remains contested as cognitive processes don't always proceed in prescribed order.
Lineage
- Child of
- Bloom's Taxonomy
- Siblings
- Bloom's Taxonomy, SOLO Taxonomy, Webb's Depth of Knowledge
- Derived from
- Bloom's Taxonomy