Bloom's Taxonomy

#pedagogy #🪴

Bloom’s Taxonomy has been around since the 1950s, giving teachers a structured way to think about learning objectives. Originally, Bloom and his colleagues created this taxonomy to help educators classify educational goals and build clear, measurable objectives. The taxonomy has since been updated, most notably by Krathwohl (2002) and others, to better fit modern teaching, emphasizing verbs to describe learning actions more clearly.

At its core, Bloom’s Taxonomy organizes cognitive tasks into levels, from basic recall to complex analysis and creation. The revised version is particularly focused on action-oriented verbs—words like “describe,” “analyze,” and “create”—because they give teachers clarity in what they want students to achieve. Why verbs? Verbs make the learning outcomes observable and measurable, which is crucial for gauging whether students actually “get it” or are just nodding along. The intent is to shift the focus from static knowledge to dynamic skills, creating active, deep learning experiences (Ramsden, 2003).

Dimensions

Krathwohl’s revision brings in two key dimensions: the Knowledge Dimension and the Cognitive Process Dimension. The Knowledge Dimension breaks down into four types:

Factual: Basic bits of information, like terminology or specific details.
Conceptual: Knowing about categories, theories, and models.
Procedural: Understanding methods, techniques, or processes.
Metacognitive: Reflecting on one’s own learning and thought processes (think of this as “thinking about thinking”).

Then we have the Cognitive Process Dimension, which ranks actions from lower-order thinking skills (like remembering) to higher-order skills (like creating). The idea is to build learning objectives that help students not just remember facts, but actually use and transform knowledge; where students progress from basic knowing to higher-order thinking by practicing increasingly complex skills (Erickson, Peters, & Strommer, 2009).

Why Bloom’s Taxonomy Still Matters

Bloom’s Taxonomy remains a foundational tool because it doesn’t just focus on what to teach, but on how to help students engage with material on different cognitive levels. Incorporating Bloom’s Taxonomy into course design is more than just ticking boxes—it’s about ensuring that every objective, activity, and assessment aligns with the intended learning outcomes. It’s a tool to help teachers take students on a journey from basic recall to insightful, constructive learning.

References

Erickson, B. L., Peters, C. B., & Strommer, D. W. (2009). Knowing, Understanding, Thinking, and Learning How to Learn: The Goals of First-Year Instruction. In Teaching First-Year College Students. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Ramsden, P. (2003). Approaches to Learning. In Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd ed., pp. 39–61). Routledge.