Bloom’s Taxonomy is a long-held favorite among learning frameworks. And, its ability to adapt has kept it relevant in modern instructional design.
Let’s uncover what it is and why it should be part of your essential training design toolkit:
What is Bloom’s Taxonomy?
Let’s break these two words down:
- Benjamin Samuel Bloom was an American educational psychologist who made significant contributions to learning theory.
- A taxonomy is described as a scientific method used to name, describe, or classify groups of things.
With the help of his colleagues, Bloom initially developed Bloom’s Taxonomy framework in 1956. The initial point of this framework was to standardize the design of learning content so that it followed a logical path.
Consisting of six learning “levels,” each one focused on a degree of cognitive complexity:
- Knowledge: Retaining and recalling basic information.
- Comprehension: Understanding the meaning.
- Application: Knowing how to apply the information.
- Analysis: Breaking information down to explore concepts and relationships.
- Synthesis: Putting all the information together in a different way.
- Evaluation: Judging the value based on certain standards or criteria.
Arranged in a pyramid-like structure, the framework begins with learning experiences that are easy to process and retain. These are referred to as lower-level thinking skills (LOTS).
As a learner progresses upward, each level becomes more specific and increases in difficulty, eventually transforming into higher-level thinking skills (HOTS).
Each level also contained a set of verbs used to define the levels and describe the actions a learner would need to take to achieve each cognitive ability.
The evolution of Bloom’s Taxonomy: 1956 vs 2001 vs 2008
Over the years, Bloom’s Taxonomy has gone through several iterations to ensure it stays relevant to evolving training needs.
Its second evolution came to be in 2001 when some key changes were made:
- The nouns shifted to action verbs.
- Synthesis was replaced with Create and placed at the top level.
- Evaluate dropped a level.
The changes emphasize that learning and thinking are active processes, with creating new ideas and patterns considered as the highest level of human thought.
The associated verbs for each level were also updated to shift the focus from passive learning to active learning and to reflect modern practices (like scenarios and hands-on learning).
It’s important to note that the verb sets are by no means definitive and can be adapted to suit different training contexts and goals. When using Bloom’s Taxonomy for your own instructional design purposes, you can develop verb sets that match your needs.
Here are a few examples of verbs you’d expect to see at each level:
| Level | Associated Verbs |
|---|---|
| Remember | Recall, recognize, list, define, identify, name, repeat, state |
| Understand | Explain, summarize, classify, interpret, discuss, compare |
| Apply | Use, implement, solve, demonstrate, operate, execute, perform |
| Analyze | Investigate, differentiate, examine, compare, contrast, categorize, organize |
| Evaluate | Assess, justify, recommend, argue, judge, critique, defend |
| Create | Design, develop, plan, compose, produce, formulate |
Fast-forward to 2008 when e-learning was starting to become a mainstay of instructional design. Bloom’s Taxonomy went through another update courtesy of a paper published by learning expert, Andrew Churches.
This time, the levels themselves didn’t change but rather the associated verb sets evolved to incorporate ones that apply to the digital world.
For example:
- Remember: Bookmarking, Googling, Linking
- Understand: Tweeting, Boolean searching, categorizing
- Apply: Uploading, presenting, loading
- Analyze: Mind mapping, mashing, deconstructing
- Evaluate: Posting, rating, moderating
- Create: Blogging, podcasting, wiki building
Why Bloom’s Taxonomy matters for instructional design
Clearer learning objectives
One of the Taxonomy’s biggest advantages is its hierarchical structure. Since it progresses from basic to complex skills, it allows you to create objectives that align with this progression.
This is where the action verbs associated with each level become indispensable. They help you craft precise objectives with proper measurable outcomes.
Here’s an example of what the bottom and top-level objectives might look like for a leadership training course. Note the action verbs in bold text:
- Remember Objective: Learners will list the core principles of leadership and complete a quiz to successfully identify key leadership traits and terminology.
- Create Objective: Learners will design a leadership development plan tailored to their organization’s needs. They will produce a customized leadership framework and justify their chosen methods and expected outcomes by providing a rationale.
You can see these objectives are clear and measurable. Plus they give you exactly the information required to select or design the appropriate materials to support these outcomes.
Progressive learning content
Think of Bloom’s Taxonomy as a ladder. We all start at the bottom rung and progress upwards through the levels until we reach the top. This “scaffolding” makes it very easy to see how the learning path might progress.
Use this to your advantage when designing training content. Start at the Remember level and then look at how the Understand level could build on it, and so on.
This progressive approach makes it straightforward to build training content that aligns with learners’ needs at each stage.
Promotes higher-order thinking
LOTS get the job done. Remember, Understand, and Apply equip individuals with enough knowledge that they can go and perform tasks to a competent level.
But that’s where the buck stops.
Without the HOTS, there’s no innovation, no problem-solving, and no creativity.
For example, LOTS will generate decent customer service agents who can:
- Recall company policies and procedures.
- Understand how to follow a script when responding to calls.
- Know how to apply the script and policies in various scenarios.
But when you add HOTS into the mix, suddenly you get agents who:
- Can analyze interactions to identify patterns in customer queries and complaints.
- Will evaluate the current response strategies and recommend ways to improve.
- Design new ways to increase customer satisfaction such as personalized techniques or optimized workflows.
See the difference? In the first scenario, all we have are worker drones. But, in the second scenario, we have innovators who will take the business forward.
Aligns assessment with objectives
With clearer objectives come better-targeted and relevant assessment strategies.
For instance, in our leadership course example, if the objective is to evaluate team dynamics and develop collaboration strategies, a true-or-false quiz on leadership theories won’t cut it.
While it tests recall, it doesn’t show application or evaluation. Instead, having learners analyze challenges and design a conflict-resolution plan aligns with the objective and makes for a relevant assessment strategy.
Facilitates differentiated instruction
Bloom’s Taxonomy allows for differentiation because your learning objectives get neatly categorized into cognitive levels. Once categorized you can then build customized activities that cater to each of them.
Additionally, you can incorporate strategies that address those who need a lot of support (LOTS) and those who are ready for something more challenging (HOTS).
This paves the way for creating personalized learning paths that provide opportunities for students to demonstrate their skills at each of the six levels.
Uses a common language
A less obvious benefit of Bloom’s Taxonomy is its terms which provide a universal vocabulary for describing learning content.
You will work frequently with stakeholders who might not “get” typical instructional design jargon. Nor might they follow other, more complex frameworks.
In contrast, Bloom’s Taxology is probably one of the easiest learning frameworks to understand. Its use of simple action verbs allows just about anyone to see how the goals and structure of the learning experience work.
Bloom’s Taxonomy pitfalls to avoid
The assumption that lower levels can be skipped
It’s tempting to skip the lower levels of the framework and deem them unnecessary or too basic.
However, without a strong foundational knowledge or understanding, learners will undoubtedly flounder at the higher levels.
The whole point of the framework is to build upon each level and that can’t be done if the lower levels aren’t mastered first. So, don’t fall into the trap of thinking they can be skipped otherwise, you’ll lose your learners, fast.
Focusing solely on cognition
One limitation of Bloom’s Taxonomy is its overemphasis on cognitive learning. While mental processing is an integral part, it doesn’t encompass everything.
For instance, it largely ignores what’s known as affective learning and psychomotor learning.
For fully comprehensive training, you must consider these factors, too. Otherwise, your learning material becomes very one-dimensional and will fail to address the emotional, social, and physical aspects that are critical in many contexts.
Here are some examples of using affective and psychomotor learning:
| Learning type | Involves | Examples | Activities |
|---|---|---|---|
| Affective | Feelings, beliefs, and attitudes | Cultural understanding Professional ethicsImproving self-reflection | Storytelling Role-playing Evaluation |
| Psychomotor | Physical skills and tasks | Surgical procedures Learning a musical instrument Operating machinery | Hands-on practice Demonstration Presentation |
Its limitations
This leads on to the limitations of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Yes, it’s an incredibly useful tool, but it does not apply to all situations. Also, some learning scenarios, especially informal ones, don’t fit well into its structure.
The point is to use the framework as a guide, not a rigid template.
Your skills as an ID should allow you to recognize where to use it and when not to.
The resource demand for higher-level learning content
Finally, the HOTS levels (analyzing, evaluating, and creating) tend to require a lot of resources to implement because the learning content is more complex to design.
They typically also require more technology, tools, and access to industry experts.
If you find yourself in a situation where resources are thin on the ground, take a look at what is available for you to leverage. For example:
- Using peer-to-peer learning
- Adapting existing learning content
- Free, open-source technologies (Open edX for MOOCS, OBS Studio for creating video content, Twine for scenario building, etc.)
Final thoughts
I hope I’ve given you a solid insight into Bloom’s Taxonomy and how you can leverage its active verb set to create meaningful learning experiences.
Although it’s not perfect, it still provides an incredibly useful, adaptable framework for you to reference when needed. Crucially, its continual evolution means it remains relevant in modern learning environments.
By Janette Bonnet
Janette Bonnet is an experienced L&D professional who is passionate about exploring instructional design techniques, trends, and innovations.