Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
To cite this article: David R. Krathwohl (2002): A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview, Theory Into
Practice, 41:4, 212-218
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the
contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and
drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Autumn 2002
Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy
David R. Krathwohl
213
THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Autumn 2002
Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy
214
Krathwohl
An Overview
2.2 Exemplifying
the original framework, some cognitive processes 2.3 Classifying
associated with Understand (e.g., Explaining) are 2.4 Summarizing
more cognitively complex than at least one of the 2.5 Inferring
cognitive processes associated with Apply (e.g., 2.6 Comparing
Executing). If, however, one were to locate the 2.7 Explaining
“center point” of each of the six major categories 3.0 Apply – Carrying out or using a procedure in a given
on a scale of judged complexity, they would likely situation.
form a scale from simple to complex. In this sense, 3.1 Executing
the Cognitive Process dimension is a hierarchy, 3.2 Implementing
and probably one that would be supported as well 4.0 Analyze – Breaking material into its constituent parts
as was the original Taxonomy in terms of empiri- and detecting how the parts relate to one another and
cal evidence (see Anderson, Krathwohl, et al., 2001, to an overall structure or purpose.
chap. 16). 4.1 Differentiating
4.2 Organizing
The Taxonomy Table 4.3 Attributing
In the revised Taxonomy, the fact that any 5.0 Evaluate – Making judgments based on criteria and
objective would be represented in two dimensions standards.
5.1 Checking
immediately suggested the possibility of construct-
5.2 Critiquing
ing a two-dimensional table, which we termed the
Taxonomy Table. The Knowledge dimension would 6.0 Create – Putting elements together to form a novel,
form the vertical axis of the table, whereas the coherent whole or make an original product.
6.1 Generating
Cognitive Process dimension would form the hori-
6.2 Planning
zontal axis. The intersections of the knowledge and 6.3 Producing
cognitive process categories would form the cells.
Consequently, any objective could be classified in academic purposes and situations by writing original
the Taxonomy Table in one or more cells that cor- compositions that analyze patterns and relationships
respond with the intersection of the column(s) ap- of ideas, topics, or themes. (State of Minnesota, 1998)
propriate for categorizing the verb(s) and the row(s) We begin by simplifying the standard (i.e., objec-
appropriate for categorizing the noun(s) or noun tive) by ignoring certain parts, particularly restric-
phrase(s). To see how this placement of objectives tions such as “using grammar, language mechanics,
is accomplished, consider the following example and other conventions of standard written English
adapted from the State of Minnesota’s Language for a variety of academic purposes and situations.”
Arts Standards for Grade 12: (Some of these specify scoring dimensions that, if
A student shall demonstrate the ability to write us- not done correctly, would cause the student’s com-
ing grammar, language mechanics, and other con- position to be given a lower grade.) Omitting these
ventions of standard written English for a variety of restrictions leaves us with the following:
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
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,
Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:01 01 May 2013
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
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
Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:01 01 May 2013
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
218