As educators, we’re always searching for tools and resources to enhance learning. Bloom’s Taxonomy has long been a foundational framework for this, guiding teachers in creating lessons that encourage higher-order thinking. However, despite its significance, many teachers find it challenging to apply Bloom’s Taxonomy in a practical, straightforward way.

After searching for a user-friendly guide to support teachers in effectively using Bloom’s Taxonomy, I realised that there wasn’t much out there that fit the bill. Most resources were either too complex or too simple, leaving teachers without a clear path to implement these strategies in the classroom.

That’s why I’ve created the “Bloom’s Taxonomy Simplified: The Ultimate Quick-Reference Guide for Teachers & Students”. This handbook is designed to be exactly what its name suggests: a clear, concise, and easy-to-use resource for teachers and students alike.

In this free guide, each level of Bloom’s Taxonomy is broken down with specific examples and action verbs, from Remembering and Understanding to Creating. Whether you’re looking to frame questions, design lesson plans, or craft assessments, this handbook provides ready-to-use prompts and suggestions, saving you time and helping you engage students in deeper learning.

The aim was to simplify this well-known framework so it could be more accessible to busy teachers. Whether you’re new to Bloom’s Taxonomy or a seasoned educator, this resource is here to support your efforts in fostering critical thinking and problem-solving in your classroom.

You can explore and download the Bloom’s Taxonomy Simplified guide below.

Bloom’s Taxonomy has long been a foundational model for categorising educational goals, objectives, and outcomes. The beauty of Bloom’s Taxonomy, both in its original and revised forms, lies in its versatility. The framework is relevant across different subject areas, adaptable for learners of varying age groups and abilities, and applicable to a multitude of educational settings, whether it’s a traditional classroom, a virtual learning environment, or a homeschooling scenario.

However, the original taxonomy, proposed by Benjamin Bloom in 1956, underwent a significant revision in 2001. This blog post aims to explore the reasons behind this revision and its implications for modern educational practices.

The Original Bloom’s Taxonomy

Before delving into the reasons for the revision, it’s crucial to understand the original taxonomy. Bloom’s initial model was a hierarchical categorisation of cognitive skills, consisting of six levels: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. This hierarchy aimed to encourage educators to foster higher-order thinking skills in students, moving beyond mere rote memorisation.

The Need for Revision

Shift from Static to Dynamic:

The original taxonomy, established by Bloom in 1956, was perceived as static and linear. It presented a sequence of cognitive skills in a hierarchical order, typically visualized as a pyramid. The levels were:

1. Knowledge: Recalling facts and basic concepts.
2. Comprehension: Understanding the meaning of instructions and problems.
3. Application: Using new knowledge in different ways.
4. Analysis: Breaking down information into parts to understand its structure.
5. Synthesis: Putting information together in a novel way.
6. Evaluation: Judging the value of information or ideas.

Example: History Class Using Original Bloom’s Taxonomy

In a history class, a student first memorises facts about World War II (Knowledge), understands their significance (Comprehension), applies this knowledge in a discussion (Application), examines causes and effects (Analysis), writes an essay combining this with knowledge from another topic (Synthesis), and finally forms an opinion on the outcomes of the war (Evaluation).

This approach suggests a fixed progression where a student cannot engage in higher-order thinking (like Evaluation) without mastering the lower levels (like Knowledge and Comprehension). It was somewhat limiting, assuming that cognitive development followed a strict, linear path.

The 2001 revision, on the other hand, spearheaded by Anderson and Krathwohl, introduced a more dynamic model. This model recognises that cognitive processes are interrelated and fluid, not always following a linear progression. The revised levels are:

1. Remembering: Retrieving knowledge from long-term memory.
2. Understanding: Constructing meaning from messages.
3. Applying: Using knowledge in new situations.
4. Analysing: Breaking material into parts to explore understandings and relationships.
5. Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards.
6. Creating: Putting elements together to form a coherent whole or make something new.

Adapted Example: History Class Using Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

1. Creating: The students start by engaging in a creative exercise. They are asked to imagine an alternative history where key events of World War II had different outcomes. This task requires them to draw upon their understanding of the actual events (Understanding) and their significance (Remembering), but it places the emphasis on creativity right from the beginning.
2. Evaluating: Next, students critically evaluate the impact of these changes. They debate how different outcomes of key battles or diplomatic decisions could have reshaped the post-war world. This evaluation involves analysing the factual events of the war (Analysing) but does it in a manner that integrates higher-order thinking early in the learning process.
3. Analysing: Students are then asked to break down the actual causes and effects of the war. This might involve examining the economic, political, and social factors that led to the war and its global consequences. This step, while traditionally higher in the original taxonomy, is interwoven with other cognitive processes in the revised model.
4. Applying: The class applies this analysis to understand current world events. They might discuss how the outcomes of World War II continue to influence global politics today. This step integrates both lower and higher-order thinking skills, as students apply their knowledge in a new, real-world context.
5. Understanding: Throughout these activities, students are continuously interpreting and constructing meaning from the historical facts of World War II. They engage with primary and secondary sources, extracting and discussing the underlying themes and ideas.
6. Remembering: In tandem with these higher-order activities, students are also recalling and recounting specific facts and details about World War II. However, this is done in a way that is integrated with other cognitive processes, rather than as a standalone step.

As we can see, in this adapted example, the cognitive processes are not treated as a linear progression but rather as interconnected and often occurring simultaneously. This approach reflects the dynamic nature of learning and thinking as outlined in the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. It encourages students to engage in creative and critical thinking early on, while also building and applying their knowledge of the subject matter in varied and meaningful ways.

This approach is more reflective of real-world learning, where cognitive processes are often nonlinear and interconnected. A student might engage in higher-order thinking (like Creating or Evaluating) without sequentially moving through each lower level. It’s more adaptable to different learning styles and acknowledges that learning can begin at any point in the cognitive process, depending on the context and learner’s prior knowledge.

The Shift Towards Constructivist Approach

The revised taxonomy elevates skills such as analysing, evaluating, and creating to more prominent roles. These skills align well with the ideals of constructivist learning, encouraging students to think critically, engage in problem-solving, and develop original ideas.

The revision acknowledges that cognitive processes are fluid and overlapping, mirroring the constructivist view that learning is not a linear process but a complex, iterative one. Students may jump between different levels of cognitive skills as they engage with material, reflecting the natural flow of thought and understanding.

The revised taxonomy encourages the application of knowledge in diverse and real-world contexts, resonating with the constructivist emphasis on experiential learning. Students are not just recalling facts but are using their knowledge in practical, often unpredictable, situations.

The addition of the Knowledge Dimension (factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive) in the revised taxonomy supports the constructivist learning approach by recognising the varied types of knowledge students interact with. This dimension emphasises that understanding extends beyond mere facts to include concepts, processes, and self-awareness about one’s own understanding and learning strategies.

Incorporation of New Research & Theories

Cognitive Psychology Advances

1. Understanding of Memory and Learning: Research in cognitive psychology significantly expanded our understanding of how memory works and how learning occurs. The revised taxonomy takes into account the complexity of memory processes (encoding, storage, retrieval) and recognises that remembering is more than just recall; it involves a deep interaction with the material.
2. Cognitive Development Theories: Theories such as those proposed by Piaget and Vygotsky, which emphasise the stages of cognitive development and the social context of learning, influenced the revised taxonomy. These theories advocate that learning is not just a linear process of acquiring more complex skills but involves qualitative changes in thinking, problem-solving, and understanding.
3. Metacognition: The growing emphasis on metacognition – thinking about one’s own thinking – is reflected in the revised taxonomy. It recognises that effective learning involves not just acquiring knowledge but also understanding how to use that knowledge and evaluating one’s own understanding and learning strategies.

Educational Research Contributions

1. Differentiated Learning: Research on differentiated learning, which suggests that students have varied ways of learning and processing information, influenced the revision. The revised taxonomy acknowledges this diversity and is more adaptable to different learning styles and abilities.
2. Constructivist Learning Theories: The influence of constructivist theories, which suggest that learners construct knowledge actively rather than passively receiving it, is evident in the revised taxonomy. It emphasises active engagement with material, critical thinking, and the application of knowledge in new and diverse contexts.
3. Assessment Strategies: Advancements in understanding effective assessment strategies are integrated into the revised taxonomy. It supports a broader range of assessment techniques, moving beyond traditional tests to include projects, portfolios, and real-world problem-solving scenarios, reflecting a more comprehensive evaluation of student learning.

Implications for Teaching

The revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy has significantly influenced modern educational practices through three key shifts: from static to dynamic cognitive processes, towards a constructivist approach, and by incorporating new research and theories.

Firstly, the shift from a static to a dynamic model in the revised taxonomy has led to more flexible and integrated learning paths. Unlike the original linear progression, the revised taxonomy acknowledges the fluid and interconnected nature of cognitive processes, allowing educators to design lessons that engage multiple cognitive skills simultaneously. This approach has enhanced student engagement and led to more adaptive curriculum design, accommodating diverse learning styles and pathways.

Secondly, the move towards a constructivist approach has transformed classrooms into learner-centred environments. This shift has emphasised active learning, where students are encouraged to explore, inquire, and construct their own understanding. Teachers, acting as facilitators, encourage collaborative and social learning, focusing on critical thinking and problem-solving skills. This approach aligns well with the revised taxonomy’s emphasis on higher-order thinking skills, leading to a deeper understanding and retention of knowledge.

Lastly, the incorporation of new research and theories has led to significant changes in teaching strategies. Differentiated instruction, catering to diverse learning needs, has become more prevalent. The integration of technology in education, encouraged by recent research, has become essential, preparing students for a digital world. Additionally, there is a greater focus on metacognition, helping students to reflect on and regulate their learning processes. Assessment strategies have also diversified, moving beyond traditional tests to include projects, portfolios, and real-world tasks that assess a range of cognitive skills.

Concluding thoughts…

The revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy represents a pivotal evolution in the field of education, addressing the dynamic and ever-evolving landscapes of teaching and learning. This revision was necessitated by several key factors that collectively demanded a more nuanced and adaptive framework for understanding cognitive development and educational objectives.

One of the primary reasons for revising Bloom’s Taxonomy was the recognition that the original model, with its linear and hierarchical structure, did not adequately reflect the complexity and fluidity of the learning process. Cognitive processes are not strictly sequential but often occur simultaneously and interactively. The revised taxonomy, with its shift from a static to a dynamic model, acknowledges this interconnectedness and variability, offering educators a more realistic and effective tool for facilitating learning.

Furthermore, the shift towards a constructivist approach in education significantly influenced the revision. Modern educational practices emphasise student-centred learning, active engagement, and critical thinking. The revised taxonomy aligns with these principles by elevating higher-order thinking skills and promoting an active, inquiry-based learning environment. This approach encourages students to construct knowledge through exploration and interaction, fostering deeper understanding and retention.

The incorporation of new research and theories in cognitive psychology and educational research also played a critical role. Advances in understanding how memory works, the stages of cognitive development, and the importance of metacognition necessitated a taxonomy that could encapsulate these insights. The revised model integrates these advancements, accommodating varied learning styles, emphasising the role of technology in learning, and supporting differentiated instruction.

The impact of these changes on teaching has been profound and far-reaching. Educators now approach curriculum design with greater flexibility, creating learning experiences that are not bound by a strict order of cognitive skills but are more innovative and responsive to student needs. Classrooms have become more learner-centered, with a greater focus on collaboration, critical thinking, and problem-solving. Assessment strategies have evolved to include diverse and comprehensive methods, reflecting a broader range of cognitive abilities and skills.

In conclusion, the revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy was not merely an academic exercise but a response to the changing demands and understandings in the field of education. It offers a more flexible, detailed, and comprehensive framework for understanding and fostering the cognitive development of students. For educators, staying abreast of such revisions is imperative to align teaching practices with the latest educational research and theories. This alignment ensures that education remains relevant, effective, and capable of preparing students for the complexities of the modern world.

[1] The original Bloom’s taxonomy was revised in 2001 Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl.  Among several changes made, the revision uses verbs (Remembering, Understanding, etc.) instead of nouns, providing learners with clearer objectives for what is expected of them.  ‘Synthesis’ was replaced with ‘Creating’, and the new version also swaps the final two levels, Synthesis/Evaluation, making ‘Creating’ the ultimate level achievable.  Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl were well placed to make these revisions; Lorin Anderson was Benjamin Bloom’s former student, and David Krathwohl was one of Bloom’s partners who helped to devise the classic cognitive taxonomy.  I refer here only to the new version.

References

Anderson, L. W & Krathwohl, D. R., eds. 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn and Bacon.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., Krathwohl, D. R. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.

Gershon, M. 2015. How to use Bloom’s Taxonomy in the Classroom – The Complete Guide.

The fact that Bloom’s taxonomy can be applied to any (cognitive) content intended for students to learn, is what makes this framework so powerful.  It can be seen, to a greater or lesser extent, in all mark schemes and assessment objectives provided by all examining bodies in almost any curriculum subject.  For teachers, Bloom’s taxonomy is a practical tool to use, providing a framework in which to plan challenging lessons that help to ensure students’ progress is maximised – a fundamental tenet of successful teaching.  Among its many uses, Bloom’s taxonomy provides an excellent foundation for lessons, as it can be used as a framework in which to deliver appropriate activities, assessment, questioning, objectives and outcomes.

It is worth taking the time therefore, to become familiar with the categories of the taxonomy, their order and their meaning.  I illustrate Bloom’s taxonomy[1] here, including some examples of keywords associated with each level (shown in italics).

Level 1, Remembering, is the most basic, requiring the least amount of cognitive rigour.  This is about students recalling key information, for example, the meaning of a word.

Level 2, Understanding, is to do with students demonstrating an understanding of the facts remembered.  At this level, the student who recalls the definition of a word, for example, would also be able to show understanding of the word by using it in the context of different sentences.

Level 3, Applying, is concerned with how students can take their knowledge and understanding, applying it to different situations.  This usually involves students answering questions or solving problems.

Level 4, Analysing, is about students being able to draw connections between ideas, thinking critically, to break down information into the sum of its parts.

Level 5, Evaluating, is reached when students can make accurate assessments or judgements about different concepts.  Students can make inferences, find effective solutions to problems and justify conclusions, while drawing on their knowledge and understanding.

Level 6, Creating, is the ultimate aim of students’ learning journey.  At this final level of Bloom’s taxonomy, students demonstrate what they have learnt by creating something new, either tangible or conceptual.  This might include, for example, writing a report, creating a computer program, or revising a process to improve its results.

As Bloom’s taxonomy is a hierarchy of progressive processes ranging from the simple to the complex, in which it is necessary to first master those lower down the pyramid before being able to master those higher up, the framework promotes what Bloom termed ‘mastery learning’.  In other words, by moving up the taxonomy, students become more knowledgeable, more skilled and develop an improved understanding of the content they are learning.  Thus, by creating lesson plans and tasks, using the examples of verbs (in italics) provided, teachers can align with the different levels of the taxonomy.

By simply moving to the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, these verbs can serve as the basis for learning objectives, questions or activities. They describe what we want students to be able to do, cognitively, with the content about which the students are learning.  The higher up the pyramid of course, the more complex are the cognitive processes involved and, as such, ask students to engage in more challenging cognitive work connected to their lesson’s content. As part of successful teaching practice, it may be necessary to adjust the level of challenge based on student responses, moving down the taxonomy as needed.

A lesson could be planned about the benefits of renewable resources, the Roman empire, building a website or one of Shakespeare’s sonnets.  In all these examples, Bloom’s taxonomy can be applied.  An important point to consider, however, is that there can be occasions, particularly when first introducing a topic, where it is necessary to spend longer on the lower levels of the taxonomy.  On such occasions, we do not seek to scale multiple levels of the taxonomy in a single lesson, instead choosing to do this over the course of a few lessons, due to the nature of the content (Gershon, 2015, pp. 103).

For example, for a series of Computing lessons that teach students how to build a webpage, the first lesson could explain to them about HTML, leading to a discussion about an example of HTML script and how it translates into a webpage (Level 1 – Remembering), before asking them to explain the purpose of different parts of the HTML script (Level 2 – Understanding).  Students would move on to applying their knowledge and understanding of HTML, to begin building their own basic webpage, requiring them to solve any problems in their script (Level 3 – Applying), and then investigating additional features that could be added to their webpage (Level 4 – Analysing).  As the lessons continue, students could be challenged further to critique their website, assessing its strengths and how it could be improved (Level 5 – Understanding).  At the pinnacle of Bloom’s taxonomy, it would be expected for students to create something completely new or original, producing a website that fulfils a particular purpose (Level 6 – Creating).

Similarly, for a series of literacy lessons looking at John Yeats’ poem, ‘The Lake Isle of Innisfree’, the following tasks could be set according to each category of Bloom’s taxonomy.  After reading the poem together as a class, students could be asked to recite the first stanza of this poem (Level 1 – Remembering), before being asked where Yeats would like to be, London or the Lake Isle of Innisfree (Level 2 – Understanding).  Afterwards, students could move on by describing the structure of Yeats’ poem, explaining his use of rhythm and rhyme (Level 3 – Applying).  In the subsequent lesson, students might be asked to analyse the mood of this poem, exploring how mood is created (Level 4 – Analysing).  Later on, students could be asked to pick one of the images from the poem, evaluating its effectiveness (Level 5 – Evaluating).  Finally, an appropriate activity to this finish off the topic might be to get the students to write their own poem on a similar theme (Level 6 – Creating).

Another point to make clear is that the separate processes of the taxonomy can be adapted according to the age-group and ability of students, enabling them to access the different levels of taxonomy according to the overall depth of their cognition.  Level 6, Creating, for example, is obviously not going to be the same for a five-year old as it would be for a sixteen-year old.  Nevertheless, the hierarchy of the different levels of the taxonomy remains the same.

In this way, Bloom’s taxonomy is related to Bruner’s notion of the spiral curriculum.  This idea posits that students should return to key concepts and ideas at different points on their learning journey, each time meeting them at a more advanced stage of development.  At whatever depth of cognition students access their lesson’s content then, Bloom’s taxonomy can help teachers to ensure that students are challenged.

Activities & Questioning

Activities and questioning are the fundamental tools all teachers use daily.  Both activities and questioning require students to use different cognitive processes to interact with lesson content.  The quality of activities set and questions asked has a direct impact on the progress that students make.  By aligning these with Bloom’s taxonomy, cognitive demands are made on students, which can facilitate more challenge and help ensure rapid learning.

In the tables that follow, I provide exemplar question stems and sample activities for each level of Bloom’s taxonomy.  Having made several minor changes, I have assembled these tables using ideas from Dalton & Smith (1986), adapting their work according to the revised taxonomy.  Although these lists are not exhaustive, they do provide an excellent starting point for how to use Bloom’s taxonomy in the classroom.

As a final example, let’s take a look at a stepped questioning activity, in which a series of questions are asked (written down or verbally) that gradually move up the levels of Bloom’s taxonomy.  Such an activity could be carried out during one single lesson:

1. What can you remember about the story? (Remembering)
2. Summarise the story in your own words. (Understanding)
3. Suggest how the main lessons in this story could help other young people. (Applying)
4. Why did the different characters in the story behave the way that they did? (Analysing)
5. Evaluate the strength of the main character’s decision to leave. (Evaluating)
6. Rewrite the ending of this story, to show a different outcome. (Creating)

The framework is logical: each question becomes increasingly more challenging in terms of the cognitive demand placed on students.  Stepped questions like these can be set as a single activity, with students working individually or in pairs.  There is differentiation by outcome, as some students will get further than others, depending on their prior knowledge and understanding.

As all these examples highlight, Bloom’s taxonomy provides a strong basis for tailored questioning and bespoke activities, in which we adapt and modify questions and activities in order to more closely meet the needs of the students.  For instance, the teacher could start with a series of ‘remembering’ (knowledge) questions or activities before moving onto a set that focus on comprehension.  It may well become apparent at this stage that the students are getting stuck at this level.  The point is, depending on the answers elicited, the teacher can move up the taxonomy more quickly or more slowly until the appropriate level of challenge is reached.  Having arrived at the appropriate level of challenge, successful teaching would pursue question stems and relevant activities such as those listed, to help push students’ cognition, or to help them become unstuck in areas that were previously too challenging.         

[1] The original Bloom’s taxonomy was revised in 2001 Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl.  Among several changes made, the revision uses verbs (Remembering, Understanding, etc.) instead of nouns, providing learners with clearer objectives for what is expected of them.  ‘Synthesis’ was replaced with ‘Creating’, and the new version also swaps the final two levels, Synthesis/Evaluation, making ‘Creating’ the ultimate level achievable.  Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl were well placed to make these revisions; Lorin Anderson was Benjamin Bloom’s former student, and David Krathwohl was one of Bloom’s partners who helped to devise the classic cognitive taxonomy.  I refer here only to the new version.

References

Anderson, L. W & Krathwohl, D. R., eds. 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn and Bacon.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., Krathwohl, D. R. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.

Gershon, M. 2015. How to use Bloom’s Taxonomy in the Classroom – The Complete Guide.