2  Bloom’s Taxonomy

A taxonomy of educational objectives provides a vocabulary for describing the cognitive processes required by a learning task. It supports objective writing, assessment design, and comparison of the demands stated across a curriculum (Krathwohl 2002; Anderson 2002).

This chapter introduces the revised taxonomy, provides examples for objective writing, and explains the interpretation of taxonomy-based mapping findings. The software workflow is described in Classification and consistency.

2.1 Terminology

Term	Meaning in this guide
Course objective	A statement of intended performance on completion of a course
Session objective	A statement of intended performance associated with a lecture, laboratory, seminar, or module
Assessment item	A question or task intended to elicit evidence of performance
Intended learning outcome	A statement of what a learner is expected to be able to demonstrate
Cognitive demand	The processing required to complete a task under its stated conditions
Taxonomy	A classification scheme with defined categories; an ordered taxonomy also specifies ranks
Alignment	The relationship between curricular elements under a specified rubric
Coverage	Presence of aligned candidates for a criterion at a selected threshold
Constructive alignment	Coordination of intended outcomes, teaching activities, and assessment tasks (Biggs 1996)

This guide uses objective and intended learning outcome for statements of expected performance. Their scope is identified as course or session. Curriculum mapping documents relationships among such statements and associated activities or assessments (Harden 2001).

2.2 The revised taxonomy

The original cognitive taxonomy comprised Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation (Bloom et al. 1956). The revision separates a cognitive process dimension from a knowledge dimension. Its six process categories are Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001; Krathwohl 2002).

The categories provide an ordering for classification, with overlap in their possible demands. Their ranks are ordinal: a difference of two ranks is not a calibrated amount of difficulty. The level appropriate to an objective depends on the intended task and instructional context.

2.3 The cognitive process dimension

Figure 2.1: The six cognitive process categories and their 19 specific processes. The vertical order represents taxonomy rank. Equal graphical spacing does not imply equal differences in cognitive demand.

Table 2.1: The cognitive process categories of the revised taxonomy. Definitions correspond to the built-in blooms_revised taxonomy; verbs are illustrative (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001).

Rank	Level	Definition	Specific cognitive processes	Example verbs (open list)
1	Remember	Retrieve relevant knowledge from long-term memory.	recognizing, recalling	identify, list, define, recall, match, recognize, name, state, label
2	Understand	Construct meaning from instructional messages, including oral, written, and graphic communication.	interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, explaining	summarize, classify, explain, interpret, compare, exemplify, paraphrase, predict, illustrate
3	Apply	Carry out or use a procedure in a given situation.	executing, implementing	execute, implement, solve, demonstrate, calculate, use, carry out, apply, compute
4	Analyze	Break material into constituent parts and determine how parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose.	differentiating, organizing, attributing	differentiate, organize, deconstruct, contrast, attribute, outline, distinguish, integrate, structure
5	Evaluate	Make judgments based on criteria and standards.	checking, critiquing	critique, judge, defend, justify, appraise, check, test, monitor, detect
6	Create	Put elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganize elements into a new pattern or structure.	generating, planning, producing	design, construct, generate, formulate, plan, devise, hypothesize, produce, compose

The process definitions guide interpretation of the complete objective. Verb examples help describe a performance, but an isolated verb does not determine its category. In curriculum, the model receives level definitions and verb examples together with the statement to classify.

2.4 The knowledge dimension

The revised taxonomy also distinguishes four kinds of knowledge (Krathwohl 2002):

Type	Focus	Example
Factual	Terms and specific details	Names of study designs
Conceptual	Relationships among concepts and organizing principles	Relationships among bias, confounding, and causal structure
Procedural	Methods, techniques, and criteria for choosing them	Steps and selection criteria for a statistical procedure
Metacognitive	Knowledge of cognition and one’s own learning	Selecting and monitoring a study strategy

The two dimensions form a descriptive taxonomy table. An objective can, for example, require analysis of conceptual relationships or application of procedural knowledge. curriculum’s built-in revised Bloom taxonomy classifies only the cognitive process dimension; it does not automatically assign a knowledge category.

2.5 Writing objectives

An objective can specify a performance, the subject matter on which it operates, the conditions of performance, and the criterion used to evaluate it (Mager 1997). Include enough information for another reader to infer what evidence would demonstrate the intended outcome.

2.5.1 Components of an objective

On completion of the session, the learner will be able to interpret a Kaplan–Meier survival curve presented without annotation, identifying median survival to within one month.

Figure 2.2: An objective with an explicit performance, object, condition, and criterion. The example assumes that the displayed curve permits the stated estimate.

The appropriate level depends on the task as a whole. Conditions such as a provided formula, a familiar procedure, an unfamiliar dataset, or explicit judgment criteria help clarify the required processing. A condition alone does not uniquely determine a taxonomy level.

2.5.2 Starting from evidence of performance

A useful drafting procedure is to describe an assessment task and then state the performance it is intended to elicit:

1. Specify the intended performance and a task that would provide evidence of it.
2. Identify the information, procedures, or criteria supplied to the learner.
3. Determine which cognitive process the learner must perform.
4. Write the objective using a concrete verb and a specific object.
5. Include conditions and evaluation criteria where they affect interpretation.
6. Review the wording and proposed classification against the intended task.

Separate distinct performances when they require separate interpretation or assessment criteria. Integrated tasks can involve several processes; the package asks the classifier to report the highest process genuinely required and can also flag the wording as compound.

2.5.3 The role of verb lists

The revised taxonomy specifies six categories and 19 specific cognitive processes. Lists of example verbs are drafting aids rather than exhaustive controlled vocabularies. Published applications emphasize the importance of interpreting the full task rather than assigning a level from a verb alone (Crowe et al. 2008; Larsen et al. 2022).

2.5.4 Specific cognitive processes

Table 2.2: The 19 specific cognitive processes, with illustrative verbs (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001).

Level	Specific process	What it requires of the learner	Verbs that name it
Remember	Recognizing	Match presented material against knowledge held in memory.	recognize, identify, select, match
	Recalling	Retrieve knowledge from memory when it is not presented.	recall, name, list, state, define, label
Understand	Interpreting	Convert information from one form of representation to another.	interpret, paraphrase, translate, restate, convert, represent
	Exemplifying	Supply a specific instance of a general concept or principle.	exemplify, illustrate, instantiate, give an example of
	Classifying	Assign a specific instance to the category it belongs to.	classify, categorize, group, assign, subsume
	Summarizing	State a single proposition that represents the whole.	summarize, abstract, generalize, state the main point of
	Inferring	Draw a conclusion that follows from the information presented.	infer, conclude, extrapolate, interpolate, predict
	Comparing	Detect correspondences between two objects, events, or ideas.	compare, contrast, map, match
	Explaining	Construct and use a cause-and-effect model of a system.	explain, account for, model, describe how X produces Y
Apply	Executing	Carry out a familiar procedure on a routine task.	execute, carry out, compute, calculate, perform
	Implementing	Select and carry out a procedure on an unfamiliar task.	implement, use, apply, solve, employ
Analyze	Differentiating	Distinguish relevant from irrelevant, or important from unimportant, parts.	differentiate, distinguish, discriminate, select, focus on
	Organizing	Determine how elements fit together into a coherent structure.	organize, structure, outline, integrate, parse
	Attributing	Determine the point of view, bias, values, or intent underlying material.	attribute, deconstruct, determine the perspective of
Evaluate	Checking	Detect inconsistencies or fallacies within a process or product.	check, test, detect, monitor, verify
	Critiquing	Judge a process or product against external criteria.	critique, judge, appraise, defend, justify
Create	Generating	Produce alternative hypotheses or possibilities.	generate, hypothesize, propose, formulate
	Planning	Devise a procedure for accomplishing a task.	plan, design, devise
	Producing	Construct a product meeting a given specification.	produce, construct, build, compose, author

Executing and implementing both belong to Apply. Implementing includes selecting and carrying out a procedure for an unfamiliar task; selection alone therefore does not establish an Analyze classification. Checking and critiquing both belong to Evaluate, with attention to internal consistency and external criteria, respectively.

2.5.5 Context-dependent wording

Table 2.3: Illustrative interpretations of complete tasks. The intended curriculum and assessment conditions remain relevant to classification.

Verb	Example task	Possible interpretation
Identify	Identify a named structure in a familiar diagram.	Remember, when recognition is sufficient
Identify	Identify relevant evidence among competing explanations.	Analyze, when differentiation is required
Calculate	Calculate a statistic using an established procedure.	Apply
Compare	Compare the defining properties of two study designs.	Understand, when establishing correspondences
Critique	Critique a study against explicit validity criteria.	Evaluate
Design	Complete a form using a specified template.	Apply, despite the possible use of “design” in the prompt
Design	Devise a procedure to address an open research question.	Create, when planning is required

2.5.6 Wording that requires clarification

Expressions such as “know,” “understand,” or “be familiar with” often leave the observable performance unspecified. State the performance that provides evidence of that knowledge, such as explaining a relationship, classifying a case, or executing a procedure.

A category word can also occur in an otherwise interpretable objective. Review its full wording and context. curriculum applies a category_label flag when the classifier identifies a taxonomy label used in place of a more specific performance. This is a package review convention rather than a universal ban on those verbs.

Table 2.4: Model-identified wording issues returned by objective_issues().

Issue	Package interpretation	Review action
no_verb	Topic heading or noun phrase without a stated action	Specify the intended performance
category_label	Taxonomy category used as the performance label	Clarify the specific process
unobservable	Internal state without an observable performance	State the evidence of attainment
compound	Several distinct performances in one statement	Consider separate objectives or explicit task components
vague_object	Insufficiently specified subject matter	Identify what the learner acts on

2.5.7 Worked revisions

Original	Possible revision	Intended category
Understand linear regression assumptions.	State the assumptions of the specified linear regression model.	Remember
Understand linear regression assumptions.	Explain how heteroscedasticity affects conventional standard errors.	Understand
Data visualization.	Justify a chart choice against the stated analytical question.	Evaluate
Be familiar with study designs.	Classify a described study as cross-sectional, case–control, or cohort.	Understand
Describe and critique the theories.	Summarize each theory’s central claim.	Understand
Describe and critique the theories.	Critique each theory against the assigned empirical evidence.	Evaluate

These revisions illustrate possible interpretations; they do not establish the intention of the original author. Review them with the relevant teaching material.

2.6 Reviewing alignment across a course

Constructive alignment relates intended outcomes, teaching activities, and assessment tasks (Biggs 1996; Biggs and Tang 2011). The package represents the documented curriculum through two directed mappings:

flowchart LR
  CO["Course objectives"] --> SO["Session objectives"]
  SO --> A["Assessment items"]

The two mapping directions. Candidate items are scored against their corresponding criteria.

2.6.1 Coverage

A criterion without an aligned candidate has n_aligned = 0 at the selected threshold. Review whether its supporting material is absent from the input, its wording limits recognition, or its role in the curriculum needs revision. This finding concerns the supplied statements and model scores.

2.6.2 Cognitive level

check_level_consistency() compares candidate and criterion ranks on aligned pairs. Lower-level session objectives may provide preparation for a broader course outcome. The criterion-level summary asks whether any aligned candidate has a known rank at least as high as the criterion.

For example, a course objective classified as Evaluate with aligned sessions classified as Remember, Understand, and Apply has reached = FALSE. Review whether the intended evaluative task is represented elsewhere, needs a clearer objective, or requires additional learning activities. The classification and alignment judgments themselves also warrant review.

2.6.3 Assessment demand

An assessment below an objective’s rank may provide evidence for only part of its intended performance. An assessment above that rank may require additional processes. Both cases require inspection of the assessment conditions, the objective’s wording, and the supporting instruction (Airasian and Miranda 2002; Anderson 2002).

2.6.4 Reviewing both directions

Course-to-session and session-to-assessment summaries provide complementary views. Inspect the linked items together when evaluating an outcome’s assessment coverage. The package computes each relation separately; it does not infer a validated transitive course-to-assessment score from two aligned links.

There is no prescribed distribution of taxonomy levels for every course. Appropriateness depends on the course’s scope and intended performances. A higher average rank does not, by itself, establish higher educational quality.

2.7 Alternative taxonomies

Scheme	Focus	Package support
Revised Bloom’s	Cognitive processes	taxonomy("blooms_revised")
SOLO	Structural complexity of a response (Biggs and Collis 1982)	taxonomy("solo")
Depth of Knowledge	Depth of task demands (Webb 1997)	Requires a user-defined taxonomy

create_taxonomy() defines additional schemes. Rank comparisons require an ordered scheme whose ordering is meaningful for the intended analysis. Categories without such an ordering can be used for classification with ordered = FALSE, but not for the package’s level-consistency calculation.

See Classification and consistency for configuration, repeated ratings, issue tables, and the distinction between rank tolerance and reached.

Airasian, Peter W., and Helena Miranda. 2002. “The Role of Assessment in the Revised Taxonomy.” Theory Into Practice 41 (4): 249–54. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_8.

Anderson, Lorin W. 2002. “Curricular Alignment: A Re-Examination.” Theory Into Practice 41 (4): 255–60. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_9.

Anderson, Lorin W., and David R. Krathwohl, eds. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Complete. Longman.

Biggs, John. 1996. “Enhancing Teaching Through Constructive Alignment.” Higher Education 32 (3): 347–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871.

Biggs, John B., and Kevin F. Collis. 1982. Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press.

Biggs, John, and Catherine Tang. 2011. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 4th ed. Open University Press.

Bloom, Benjamin S., Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walker H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, eds. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook i: Cognitive Domain. David McKay Company.

Crowe, Alison, Clarissa Dirks, and Mary Pat Wenderoth. 2008. “Biology in Bloom: Implementing Bloom’s Taxonomy to Enhance Student Learning in Biology.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 7 (4): 368–81. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024.

Harden, Ronald M. 2001. “AMEE Guide No. 21: Curriculum Mapping: A Tool for Transparent and Authentic Teaching and Learning.” Medical Teacher 23 (2): 123–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590120036547.

Krathwohl, David R. 2002. “A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview.” Theory Into Practice 41 (4): 212–18. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.

Larsen, Tori M., Bianca H. Endo, Alexander T. Yee, Tony Do, and Stanley M. Lo. 2022. “Probing Internal Assumptions of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 21 (4): ar66. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-08-0170.

Mager, Robert F. 1997. Preparing Instructional Objectives: A Critical Tool in the Development of Effective Instruction. 3rd ed. Center for Effective Performance.

Webb, Norman L. 1997. Criteria for Alignment of Expectations and Assessments in Mathematics and Science Education. Research Monograph No. 6. National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin–Madison.