Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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