psychomotor domain essay

Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning

Charlotte Ruhl

Research Assistant & Psychology Graduate

BA (Hons) Psychology, Harvard University

Charlotte Ruhl, a psychology graduate from Harvard College, boasts over six years of research experience in clinical and social psychology. During her tenure at Harvard, she contributed to the Decision Science Lab, administering numerous studies in behavioral economics and social psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a set of three hierarchical models used to classify educational learning objectives into levels of complexity and specificity. The three lists cover the learning objectives in cognitive, affective, and sensory domains, namely: thinking skills, emotional responses, and physical skills.

Key Takeaways

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchical model that categorizes learning objectives into varying levels of complexity, from basic knowledge and comprehension to advanced evaluation and creation.
Bloom’s Taxonomy was originally published in 1956, and the Taxonomy was modified each year for 16 years after it was first published.
After the initial cognitive domain was created, which is primarily used in the classroom setting, psychologists devised additional taxonomies to explain affective (emotional) and psychomotor (physical) learning.
In 2001, Bloom’s initial taxonomy was revised to reflect how learning is an active process and not a passive one.
Although Bloom’s Taxonomy is met with several valid criticisms, it is still widely used in the educational setting today.

Take a moment and think back to your 7th-grade humanities classroom. Or any classroom from preschool to college. As you enter the room, you glance at the whiteboard to see the class objectives.

“Students will be able to…” is written in a red expo marker. Or maybe something like “by the end of the class, you will be able to…” These learning objectives we are exposed to daily are a product of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

What is Bloom’s Taxonomy?

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a system of hierarchical models (arranged in a rank, with some elements at the bottom and some at the top) used to categorize learning objectives into varying levels of complexity (Bloom, 1956).

You might have heard the word “taxonomy” in biology class before, because it is most commonly used to denote the classification of living things from kingdom to species.

In the same way, this taxonomy classifies organisms, Bloom’s Taxonomy classifies learning objectives for students, from recalling facts to producing new and original work.

Bloom’s Taxonomy comprises three learning domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Within each domain, learning can take place at a number of levels ranging from simple to complex.

Development of the Taxonomy

Benjamin Bloom was an educational psychologist and the chair of the committee of educators at the University of Chicago.

In the mid 1950s, Benjamin Bloom worked in collaboration with Max Englehart, Edward Furst, Walter Hill, and David Krathwohl to devise a system that classified levels of cognitive functioning and provided a sense of structure for the various mental processes we experience (Armstrong, 2010).

Through conducting a series of studies that focused on student achievement, the team was able to isolate certain factors both inside and outside the school environment that affect how children learn.

One such factor was the lack of variation in teaching. In other words, teachers were not meeting each individual student’s needs and instead relied upon one universal curriculum.

To address this, Bloom and his colleagues postulated that if teachers were to provide individualized educational plans, students would learn significantly better.

This hypothesis inspired the development of Bloom’s Mastery Learning procedure in which teachers would organize specific skills and concepts into week-long units.

The completion of each unit would be followed by an assessment through which the student would reflect upon what they learned.

The assessment would identify areas in which the student needs additional support, and they would then be given corrective activities to further sharpen their mastery of the concept (Bloom, 1971).

This theory that students would be able to master subjects when teachers relied upon suitable learning conditions and clear learning objectives was guided by Bloom’s Taxonomy.

The Original Taxonomy (1956)

Bloom’s Taxonomy was originally published in 1956 in a paper titled Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom, 1956).

The taxonomy provides different levels of learning objectives, divided by complexity. Only after a student masters one level of learning goals, through formative assessments, corrective activities, and other enrichment exercises, can they move onto the next level (Guskey, 2005).

Cognitive Domain (1956)

Concerned with thinking and intellect.

The original version of the taxonomy, the cognitive domain, is the first and most common hierarchy of learning objectives (Bloom, 1956). It focuses on acquiring and applying knowledge and is widely used in the educational setting.

This initial cognitive model relies on nouns, or more passive words, to illustrate the different educational benchmarks.

Because it is hierarchical, the higher levels of the pyramid are dependent on having achieved the skills of the lower levels.

The individual tiers of the cognitive model from bottom to top, with examples included, are as follows:

Knowledge : recalling information or knowledge is the foundation of the pyramid and a precondition for all future levels → Example : Name three common types of meat. Comprehension : making sense out of information → Example : Summarize the defining characteristics of steak, pork, and chicken. Application : using knowledge in a new but similar form → Example : Does eating meat help improve longevity? Analysis : taking knowledge apart and exploring relationships → Example : Compare and contrast the different ways of serving meat and compare health benefits. Synthesis : using information to create something new → Example : Convert an “unhealthy” recipe for meat into a “healthy” recipe by replacing certain ingredients. Argue for the health benefits of using the ingredients you chose as opposed to the original ones. Evaluation : critically examining relevant and available information to make judgments → Example : Which kinds of meat are best for making a healthy meal and why?

Types of Knowledge

Although knowledge might be the most intuitive block of the cognitive model pyramid, this dimension is actually broken down into four different types of knowledge:

Factual knowledge refers to knowledge of terminology and specific details.
Conceptual knowledge describes knowledge of categories, principles, theories, and structures.
Procedural knowledge encompasses all forms of knowledge related to specific skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods.
Metacognitive knowledge defines knowledge related to thinking — knowledge about cognitive tasks and self-knowledge (“Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy,” n.d.).

However, this is not to say that this order reflects how concrete or abstract these forms of knowledge are (e.g., procedural knowledge is not always more abstract than conceptual knowledge).

Nevertheless, it is important to outline these different forms of knowledge to show how it is more dynamic than one may think and that there are multiple different types of knowledge that can be recalled before moving onto the comprehension phase.

And while the original 1956 taxonomy focused solely on a cognitive model of learning that can be applied in the classroom, an affective model of learning was published in 1964 and a psychomotor model in the 1970s.

The Affective Domain (1964)

Concerned with feelings and emotion.

The affective model came as a second handbook (with the first being the cognitive model) and an extension of Bloom’s original work (Krathwol et al., 1964).

This domain focuses on the ways in which we handle all things related to emotions, such as feelings, values, appreciation, enthusiasm, motivations, and attitudes (Clark, 2015).

From lowest to highest, with examples included, the five levels are:

Receiving : basic awareness → Example : Listening and remembering the names of your classmates when you meet them on the first day of school. Responding : active participation and reacting to stimuli, with a focus on responding → Example : Participating in a class discussion. Valuing : the value that is associated with a particular object or piece of information, ranging from basic acceptance to complex commitment; values are somehow related to prior knowledge and experience → Example : Valuing diversity and being sensitive to other people’s backgrounds and beliefs. Organizing : sorting values into priorities and creating a unique value system with an emphasis on comparing and relating previously identified values → Example : Accepting professional ethical standards. Characterizing : building abstract knowledge based on knowledge acquired from the four previous tiers; value system is now in full effect and controls the way you behave → Example : Displaying a professional commitment to ethical standards in the workplace.

The Psychomotor Domain (1972)

Concerned with skilled behavior.

The psychomotor domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy refers to the ability to physically manipulate a tool or instrument. It includes physical movement, coordination, and use of the motor-skill areas. It focuses on the development of skills and the mastery of physical and manual tasks.

Mastery of these specific skills is marked by speed, precision, and distance. These psychomotor skills range from simple tasks, such as washing a car, to more complex tasks, such as operating intricate technological equipment.

As with the cognitive domain, the psychomotor model does not come without modifications. This model was first published by Robert Armstrong and colleagues in 1970 and included five levels:

1) imitation; 2) manipulation; 3) precision; 4) articulation; 5) naturalization. These tiers represent different degrees of performing a skill from exposure to mastery.

psychomotor domain of learning and objectives

Two years later, Anita Harrow (1972) proposed a revised version with six levels:

1) reflex movements; 2) fundamental movements; 3) perceptual abilities; 4) physical abilities; 5) skilled movements; 6) non-discursive communication.

This model is concerned with developing physical fitness, dexterity, agility, and body control and focuses on varying degrees of coordination, from reflexes to highly expressive movements.

That same year, Elizabeth Simpson (1972) created a taxonomy that progressed from observation to invention.

The seven tiers, along with examples, are listed below:

Perception : basic awareness → Example : Estimating where a ball will land after it’s thrown and guiding your movements to be in a position to catch it. Set : readiness to act; the mental, physical, and emotional mindsets that make you act the way you do → Example : Desire to learn how to throw a perfect strike, recognizing one’s current inability to do so. Guided Response : the beginning stage of mastering a physical skill. It requires trial and error → Example : Throwing a ball after observing a coach do so, while paying specific attention to the movements required. Mechanism : the intermediate stage of mastering a skill. It involves converting learned responses into habitual reactions so that they can be performed with confidence and proficiency → Example : Successfully throwing a ball to the catcher. Complex Overt Response : skillfully performing complex movements automatically and without hesitation → Example : Throwing a perfect strike to the catcher’s glove. Adaptation : skills are so developed that they can be modified depending on certain requirements → Example : Throwing a perfect strike to the catcher even if a batter is standing at the plate. Origination : the ability to create new movements depending on the situation or problem. These movements are derived from an already developed skill set of physical movements → Example : Taking the skill set needed to throw the perfect fastball and learning how to throw a curveball.

The Revised Taxonomy (2001)

In 2001, the original cognitive model was modified by educational psychologists David Krathwol (with whom Bloom worked on the initial taxonomy) and Lorin Anderson (a previous student of Bloom) and published with the title A Taxonomy for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment .

This revised taxonomy emphasizes a more dynamic approach to education instead of shoehorning educational objectives into fixed, unchanging spaces.

To reflect this active model of learning, the revised version utilizes verbs to describe the active process of learning and does away with the nouns used in the original version (Armstrong, 2001).

The figure below illustrates what words were changed and a slight adjustment to the hierarchy itself (evaluation and synthesis were swapped). The cognitive, affective, and psychomotor models make up Bloom’s Taxonomy.

How Bloom’s Can Aid In Course Design

Thanks to Bloom’s Taxonomy, teachers nationwide have a tool to guide the development of assignments, assessments, and overall curricula.

This model helps teachers identify the key learning objectives they want a student to achieve for each unit because it succinctly details the learning process.

The taxonomy explains that (Shabatura, 2013):

Before you can understand a concept, you need to remember it;
To apply a concept, you need first to understand it;
To evaluate a process, you need first to analyze it;
To create something new, you need to have completed a thorough evaluation

This hierarchy takes students through a process of synthesizing information that allows them to think critically. Students start with a piece of information and are motivated to ask questions and seek out answers.

Not only does Bloom’s Taxonomy help teachers understand the process of learning, but it also provides more concrete guidance on how to create effective learning objectives.

The revised version reminds teachers that learning is an active process, stressing the importance of including measurable verbs in the objectives.

And the clear structure of the taxonomy itself emphasizes the importance of keeping learning objectives clear and concise as opposed to vague and abstract (Shabatura, 2013).

Bloom’s Taxonomy even applies at the broader course level. That is, in addition to being applied to specific classroom units, Bloom’s Taxonomy can be applied to an entire course to determine the learning goals of that course.

Specifically, lower-level introductory courses, typically geared towards freshmen, will target Bloom’s lower-order skills as students build foundational knowledge.

However, that is not to say that this is the only level incorporated, but you might only move a couple of rungs up the ladder into the applying and analyzing stages.

On the other hand, upper-level classes don’t emphasize remembering and understanding, as students in these courses have already mastered these skills.

As a result, these courses focus instead on higher-order learning objectives such as evaluating and creating (Shabatura, 2013). In this way, professors can reflect upon what type of course they are teaching and refer to Bloom’s Taxonomy to determine what they want the overall learning objectives of the course to be.

Having these clear and organized objectives allows teachers to plan and deliver appropriate instruction, design valid tasks and assessments, and ensure that such instruction and assessment actually aligns with the outlined objectives (Armstrong, 2010).

Overall, Bloom’s Taxonomy helps teachers teach and helps students learn!

Critical Evaluation

Bloom’s Taxonomy accomplishes the seemingly daunting task of taking the important and complex topic of thinking and giving it a concrete structure.

The taxonomy continues to provide teachers and educators with a framework for guiding the way they set learning goals for students and how they design their curriculum.

And by having specific questions or general assignments that align with Bloom’s principles, students are encouraged to engage in higher-order thinking.

However, even though it is still used today, this taxonomy does not come without its flaws. As mentioned before, the initial 1956 taxonomy presented learning as a static concept.

Although this was ultimately addressed by the 2001 revised version that included active verbs to emphasize the dynamic nature of learning, Bloom’s updated structure is still met with multiple criticisms.

Many psychologists take issue with the pyramid nature of the taxonomy. The shape creates the false impression that these cognitive steps are discrete and must be performed independently of one another (Anderson & Krathwol, 2001).

However, most tasks require several cognitive skills to work in tandem with each other. In other words, a task will not be only an analysis or a comprehension task. Rather, they occur simultaneously as opposed to sequentially.

The structure also makes it seem like some of these skills are more difficult and important than others. However, adopting this mindset causes less emphasis on knowledge and comprehension, which are as, if not more important, than the processes towards the top of the pyramid.

Additionally, author Doug Lemov (2017) argues that this contributes to a national trend devaluing knowledge’s importance. He goes even further to say that lower-income students who have less exposure to sources of information suffer from a knowledge gap in schools.

A third problem with the taxonomy is that the sheer order of elements is inaccurate. When we learn, we don’t always start with remembering and then move on to comprehension and creating something new. Instead, we mostly learn by applying and creating.

For example, you don’t know how to write an essay until you do it. And you might not know how to speak Spanish until you actually do it (Berger, 2020).

The act of doing is where the learning lies, as opposed to moving through a regimented, linear process. Despite these several valid criticisms of Bloom’s Taxonomy, this model is still widely used today.

What is Bloom’s taxonomy?

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchical model of cognitive skills in education, developed by Benjamin Bloom in 1956.

It categorizes learning objectives into six levels, from simpler to more complex: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. This framework aids educators in creating comprehensive learning goals and assessments.

Bloom’s taxonomy explained for students?

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a framework that helps you understand and approach learning in a structured way. Imagine it as a ladder with six steps.

1. Remembering : This is the first step, where you learn to recall or recognize facts and basic concepts.

2. Understanding : You explain ideas or concepts and make sense of the information.

3. Applying : You apply what you’ve understood to solve problems in new situations.

4. Analyzing : At this step, you break information into parts to explore understandings and relationships.

5. Evaluating : This involves judging the value of ideas or materials.

6. Creating : This is the top step where you combine information to form a new whole or propose alternative solutions.

Bloom’s Taxonomy helps you learn more effectively by building your knowledge from simple remembering to higher levels of thinking.

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives . New York: Longman.

Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching . Retrieved from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/

Armstrong, R. J. (1970). Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives .

Berger, R. (2020). Here’s what’s wrong with bloom’s taxonomy: A deeper learning perspective (opinion) . Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/education/opinion-heres-whats-wrong-with-blooms-taxonomy-a-deeper-learning-perspective/2018/03

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay , 20, 24.

Bloom, B. S. (1971). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice (pp. 47–63). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Clark, D. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy : The affective domain. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/Bloom/affective_domain.html

Guskey, T. R. (2005). Formative Classroom Assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom: Theory, Research, and Implications . Online Submission.

Harrow, A.J. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain . New York: David McKay Co.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41 (4), 212-218.

Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain . New York: David McKay Co.

Lemov, D. (2017). Bloom’s taxonomy-that pyramid is a problem . Retrieved from https://teachlikeachampion.com/blog/blooms-taxonomy-pyramid-problem/

Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy . (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/effective-teaching-practices/revised-blooms-taxonomy/

Shabatura, J. (2013). Using bloom’s taxonomy to write effective learning objectives . Retrieved from https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/

Simpson, E. J. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the Psychomotor domain , Illinois University. Urbana.

Bloom's Taxonomy

Instructional Design Models
ISD and Functional Design Layering
Design Thinking and Agile Design
Human Performance Technology for Instructional Designers
Gamification and the Way It Can be Used to Influence Learning
Designing for Creative Learning Environments
Learning Experience Design
Evaluation Methods for Learning Experience Design
How Do We Solve a Problem Like Media and Methods?
United States National Educational Technology Plan
Distance Learning
How Learning Analytics Can Inform Learning and Instructional Design
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
The Future of the Field is Not Design
Translations

Choose a Sign-in Option

Tools and Settings

Questions and Tasks

Citation and Embed Code

Is the mental effort required to recall a definition the same as the mental effort needed to write an essay—what about recalling multiplication tables versus solving an equation? In both cases the latter will involve greater mental processing than the former, right? Benjamin Bloom and his associates recognized this and developed a taxonomy of different kinds of thinking and learning, which is popularly known as Bloom’s taxonomy. In this chapter, we will address how the taxonomy was developed, how it evolved, and how educators use it for teaching purposes.

Evolution of the Taxonomy

The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives handbook (Bloom et al., 1956) is a book that explains how students learn and details the cognitive domain. It was published in 1956 (a first volume focused on cognitive objectives) after a series of conferences from 1949 to 1953 in which Benjamin S. Bloom was ably assisted by his colleagues, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walker H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl. The conferences sought to improve communication between educators about the design of curricula and educational examinations. In 1964, the second volume in the series (Krathwohl et al., 1964), focusing on affective outcomes, was published. Around eight years later in1972, Elizabeth Simpson built the taxonomy of the psychomotor domain based on the work of Bloom and others (Simpson, 1966). A revised version of the taxonomy for the cognitive domain was later created in 2001 (Krathwohl, 2002).

Timeline of the evolution of Bloom's taxonomy.

Purpose of the Taxonomy

Why was the taxonomy developed? In the handbooks, the authors explained that the taxonomy was created to

ensure precise communication when educators, administrators, and research workers communicate about educational goals;
create a common ground between schools for exchanging information about curriculum and evaluation devices;
provide teachers with a framework to identify whether the educational goals that they have identified are lower or higher-order thinking goals, and
help teachers define objectives in such a manner that it becomes easy to plan learning experiences and develop evaluation devices (Bloom et al., 1956) .

The team had been previously concerned about the presence of “nebulous” terms and a lack of common understanding amongst educators regarding educational objectives. As they stated in the handbook: “For example, some teachers believe their students should “really understand,” others want their students to internalize knowledge; still others want their students to “grasp the core or essence,” or “comprehend.” Do they all mean the same thing?” (p. 1).

Things to Consider

Bloom’s taxonomy is an excellent framework that differentiates between lower-order thinking skills and higher-order thinking skills. However, the following points must be kept in mind when we use Bloom’s taxonomy.

Bloom’s taxonomy was developed after going through many educational outcomes that existed across various schools in America (Bloom et al., 1956). In that sense, the group worked backwards, identifying existing educational outcomes and then the taxonomy based on these outcomes.

Though referred to as a taxonomy, the framework is more of a classification of student behaviors that represent the intended educational outcomes (Kompa, n.d.) . A taxonomy is evidence-based, while classification is a method to communicate ideas in a way that is useful and suggests potential actions.

The Taxonomy

The taxonomy is divided into three parts: the cognitive, affective, and the psychomotor domains. The handbook published in 1956 described the three domains but detailed only the cognitive domain.

The cognitive domain refers to knowledge attainment, and mental or intellectual processes, such as the ability to solve a mathematical problem or write an essay. Let’s consider this example from mathematics: “Students will be able to understand that perimeter and area have a relationship and recognize and apply their new knowledge in real-life situations.” To achieve this learning outcome, a student must recall the definitions of perimeter and area, understand how the two differ, recall the formula to calculate these, and use this information to find out the perimeter and area of something in real life (e.g. a playground).These are mental processes that take place in the brain; hence, they fall within the ambit of the cognitive domain.
The affective domain addresses emotional aspects reflected via learners' beliefs, values, and interests, such as the ability to appreciate and/or empathize. An example of the learning outcome in this domain for the mathematics topic on area and perimeter could be the following: “Students will value the need for learning about area and perimeter. They will demonstrate this by listening to the teacher, responding to their questions, and clarifying doubts.”
The psychomotor domain addresses skills that are cultivated through neuromuscular motor activities, such as the ability to write, or wield a scalpel with precision. In our mathematics example, the learning outcome on the topic of area and perimeter may be, “Students will be able to draw a rectangle for a given area and perimeter using geometry tools.” This task requires motor coordination and will fall in the purview of the psychomotor domain.

Cognitive Domain

In the cognitive domain, Bloom and his collaborators (Bloom et al., 1956) identified and defined six levels of cognitive complexity: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. These levels were arranged hierarchically on a continuum ranging from simple to complex and from concrete to abstract. Each category also had sub-categories, as displayed in the following table, recreated from their original work (Bloom et al., 1956):

Since the categories are arranged hierarchically, the taxonomy implies that higher levels of cognition are built upon the lower levels. Intellectual operations increase in complexity from the first level, that is “Knowledge”, to the last level, which is “Evaluation”. There’s often a misunderstanding that lower levels are less desirable than higher levels. This is not true because unless you master the lower levels, you cannot achieve the higher levels. As is stated in the handbook: “While it is recognized that knowledge is involved in the more complex major categories of the taxonomy (2.00 to 6.00), the knowledge category differs from the others in that remembering 'is the major psychological process involved here, while in the other categories the remembering is only one part of a much more complex process of relating, judging, and reorganizing” (Bloom et al., 1956, p. 62).

The higher-level thinking skills involve utilizing knowledge and understanding in new situations, or in a form that is very different from how it was learned initially. In short, the taxonomy was divided into two parts: (a) the simple behavior of remembering or recalling knowledge, and (b) the more complex behaviors of the abilities and skills.

Learning Check

A student recites the poem, "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" by Robert Frost. What is the cognitive level of this task?

A teacher gives her Grade 2 class a worksheet of multiplication tables to complete. Which domains will be involved in completing this task?

Psychomotor

Kindergarten students practice writing the English alphabet using stencils. Which domain does this task address?

A Grade 10 class is tasked with discussing the historical importance of the novel Pride and Prejudice and its importance to the development of English literature. Which cognitive level does this address?

A student is working on a presentation using presentation software. The topic of the presentation is "Sustainable Living and Reducing Carbon Footprints." Which domains will be addressed through this task?

Criticism Of the Taxonomy

The taxonomy was designed to help educators state educational objectives, develop evaluation devices, and identify instructional strategies (Bloom et al., 1956) . Thus, the taxonomy was meant to be used as a cognitive tool or job-aid for educators. However, a problem with cognitive tools is that they are representations of thought, and that is inherently problematic. While the creators of such tools may take into consideration how users will comprehend and use the tool, it is not possible to anticipate all the ways in which they will understand and use the tool. A common refrain of educators was that the taxonomy was mired in ambiguity, and a consensus on the levels was difficult to achieve ( Soozandehfar & Adeli, 2016, p. 3). For example, an educational objective may be classified into either of the two lowest levels (knowledge or comprehension) or into any of the four highest levels (application, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation) by different educators ( Soozandehfar & Adeli , 2016, p. 5). In addition, critics argued that the taxonomy was not based on research and evidence (Kompa, n.d.). The taxonomy is also criticized for the creation of a hierarchy (lower-order thinking to higher-order thinking), which according to some educationists is not how the human brain works ( Kompa , n.d.). For instance, we may analyze content in order to understand it. Lastly, there have been a number of articles, which propagate the view that the lowest level, “remember” is not important, and educators must strive to achieve the higher-order learning outcomes ( Soozandehfar & Adeli, 2016, p. 5). In other words, lower-order skills ( i.e., knowledge and comprehension) are considered less critical and invaluable, which is not true.

Revised Taxonomy

Because of some of the criticism of the taxonomy, the framework was revised 45 years later by David R. Krathwohl, professor at the Syracuse University. This work is published in the journal, Theory into Practice , Volume 41, Number 4, Autumn 2002. The main revisions included the following: (a) change in terminology and in structure, (b) emphasis on subcategories, and (c) one-dimensional to two-dimensional.

Change in Terminology and in Structure

Verbs are now used to refer to all the levels: “Remember” (in place of “Knowledge”), “Understand” (in place of “Comprehension”), “Apply,” “Analyze,” “Evaluate” and “Create.” The levels “Synthesis” and “Evaluate” have been interchanged, with “Evaluate” at level five, while “Synthesis” (Create) is at level six.

Emphasis on Subcategories

While the earlier taxonomy placed emphasis on the main categories, that is the levels, the revised taxonomy is placed on the sub-categories.

One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional

This is a major structural change that was introduced in the revised taxonomy. The new “Knowledge” dimension was reorganized, and the number of sub-categories under this was increased to four. The increase in sub-categories was a result of a better understanding of cognitive psychology. Metacognition, a fourth category, was added to the Knowledge category. The table below depicts the Knowledge dimension and the sub-categories.

Read and Reflect

In a literature class, when teaching the poem, "The Daffodils", by William Wordsworth, the following tasks are set:

After reading the poem together as a class, students are asked to recite the first stanza of the poem followed by a question prompt such as, "What is the poet comparing the daffodils with and what resemblance does he find?" This is then followed by a task where students are told to describe the scene in the poem in their own words. Next, the students are asked to analyze the mood of the poem and poet. Finally, the students are tasked with writing a poem on nature, similar to the theme of "The Daffodils."

Which levels of Bloom's taxonomy in the cognitive domain can you identify?
Is the psychomotor domain being addressed in any way in this example? If yes, how?

Applying Bloom's Taxonomy

Though it was developed in 1956, Bloom’s taxonomy is still relevant to educators. In current times, curriculum developers, teachers, and instructional designers apply the revised version of the taxonomy in the following ways:

Content Structuring: As per Bloom’s taxonomy, learners must complete the initial levels of thinking before moving to the higher ones. When designers plan to teach a concept, this framework can help them present learning materials in a simple to complex sequence. Basically, the designer will introduce simple facts, then move on to concepts, before addressing more complex thinking tasks such as application, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. For instance, if the person using the taxonomy were a teacher, they would first introduce the components of a story (plot, characters, conflict, and resolution) before asking their students to write a story. Typically, in lower grades within K-12, information recall is the focus; in the middle grades, understanding and application of concepts is emphasized; and in the higher grades, students work on analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing concepts and principles.
Teaching and reinforcing: An understanding of the different levels in Bloom’s taxonomy helps instructors decide whether a previously taught concept needs to be reinforced. To continue with our example, if learners can recall the components of a story but are struggling to write one, the teacher may select examples from different stories to highlight each component so that the students develop an understanding of the components. In addition, the teacher may also ask students to read a story and identify these components on their own, and then provide feedback.
Assessing: A very good application of Bloom’s taxonomy is the mapping of questions to the level at which the learning outcomes are set. If the learning outcome is set at a recall level, then teachers must create questions that test learners for recall to ensure that the assessment is valid (a valid test is one that measures what it claims to measure). For example, if the learning outcome is to recall and understand the components of a story, the test should not assess students’ abilities to write a story. This would be inappropriate and a misalignment between the learning objective, the teaching, and the assessment; this may cause students to feel frustrated. But, if the learning outcome is to develop the ability to write a story, and the instruction focused on developing skills for this learning outcome, then the assessment must test if learners can write a story.

Note: It’s important to remember that it may not be possible in certain disciplines to map all the levels because different disciplines require different types of thinking. For instance, a pilot being trained is not typically expected to be “creative”; rather they are expected to follow standard operating procedures. On the other hand, the discipline of “art” will require high levels of creativity. In short, the value and priority of the levels will differ across disciplines. Further, the interpretation of levels changes across grades. For example, writing a story will be “synthesis” in the primary grades, but for a college-going student, pursuing a creative-writing course, synthesis may involve coming up with a new genre of story.

Applying the Taxonomy: Case Study

Lidt in the world: "using teaching cases for achieving bloom's high-order cognitive levels: an application in technically oriented information systems course" (tan, 2017).

This research demonstrates how case studies were used to connect theory with real-world examples in teaching a computing course. This course is taken by students pursuing the undergraduate degree program in Information Systems at the Singapore Management University. As part of this initiative, three types of case studies were used to teach how to design an Enterprise Web Portal . These case studies were used to accomplish different learning outcomes mapped to the various cognitive levels in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. This initiative was tracked over two academic years through surveys. The outcome revealed that teaching in this way helped students achieve higher-order cognitive levels, such as evaluating and creating.

In this research initiative, the three types of case studies, which were introduced by the researchers, were: a storytelling case, a design-and-problem-solving case, and a create-design-implement case as part of the course. This is how the researchers described the three cases:

Cases where problems and solutions (or options) are described within the case and do not involve technical tasks are storytelling cases. This type of case study addresses the remembering, understanding, and applying cognitive levels.
Cases where students analyze scenarios in order to design a solution to address the stated needs are problem-solving cases. These scenarios are not real, but mimic conditions in the real world. This type of case aims to address the analysis level along with remembering, understanding, and applying.
Cases in which students are provided with real-world situations and are expected to create a scenario and identify needs in order to design a solution by configuring the features of packaged software, and customizing it are create-design-implement cases. This type of case addressed the applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating cognitive levels.

Through this study, the researchers gathered empirical evidence that proved how, by using case studies, students achieved outcomes at higher cognitive levels of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. The initiative gave students an opportunity to see their solutions in action, and the implications of their design decisions. In addition, it helped to prepare students for a career in the real world.

Reflect: What role did an understanding of Bloom’s taxonomy play in helping this case-based learning to be successful?

Robert Mager

A chapter on learning outcomes is not complete without mentioning Robert Mager and his seminal work in this area. Mager came up with a format for writing learning outcomes. He referred to learning outcomes as behavioral objectives and proposed that a well-written behavioral objective has three parts (Mager, 1962, p. 41):

Terminal Behavior: what the learner will be able to do after the instruction
Condition: the situation under which the performance will be assessed
Criteria: the standards for measuring the performance

Here is an example of a learning outcome written using Mager’s format with a breakup of the three components:

Learning outcome: Write an original, compelling, and engaging story in the fantasy genre.

Terminal Behavior: Write a story

Condition: Fantasy genre

Criteria: Original, compelling, and engaging

Writing learning outcomes using this format makes the outcomes verbose and complex. Hence, most educators apply the performance part and drop the condition and criteria. The condition is stated if there are multiple ways to complete a task and only one of these is being taught and assessed. In our example above, there are many genres of story-writing, so it is important to specify which one is being taught and assessed—hence, it is useful to describe the condition. Criteria are stated as part of the learning outcome for subjective content, where a rubric is to be used to evaluate. If the learners are being assessed through objective questions, then the passing score becomes the criteria and does not need to be specifically stated in the learning outcome statement (Tucker, 2023).

Of the three components, Mager emphasized terminal behavior, which he stated must be written using specific and measurable verbs. The emphasis on verbs was placed because Mager considered that they helped to measure the success or failure of the learner in completing a learning task. He advised that the use of ambiguous verbs, such as “know” and “understand” be avoided when writing behavioral objectives (Mager, 1962, p. 11).

Similar to other teaching-learning frameworks, Bloom’s taxonomy has advantages and disadvantages. The strength in the taxonomy lies in how it structures the thinking process and connects it with learning. Educators who use the taxonomy thoughtfully can make informed decisions while teaching and ensure that they plan and design learning events that will help develop different thinking skills. However, there is also the possibility that teachers may select learning outcomes that they think are desirable without much thinking or planning. This will do more harm than good. To summarize, it is important to understand that Bloom’s taxonomy is a descriptive framework that illustrates the complex nature of the thinking process and provides a structure for understanding it. It must not be used as a prescriptive framework (a template) where designers pick verbs from a readily available list without giving much thought to whether the learning outcome is applicable in the given context or not.

Learning Check Explanations

A student recites the poem, “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” by Robert Frost. What is the cognitive level of this task? This task is at the Remember level, since the student is recalling the poem from memory.
A teacher gives her Grade 2 class a worksheet of multiplication tables to complete. Which domains will be involved in completing this task? Cognitive and psychomotor, since the students will recall the times tables (cognitive) and use a pencil to complete the activity (psychomotor).
Students practice writing the English alphabet using stencils. Which domain does this task address? This task will address the psychomotor domain because the focus is on motor skills.
A Grade 10 class is tasked with discussing the historical importance of the novel Pride and Prejudice and its importance to the development of English literature. Which cognitive level does this address? This task will involve evaluating the novel on certain parameters (historical importance and importance in the development of English literature) and is thus at the Evaluate level.
A student is working on a presentation using presentation software. The topic of the presentation is “Sustainable Living and Reducing Carbon Footprints”. Which domains will be addressed through this task? Cognitive, Affective & Psychomotor domains will be involved. Knowing, understanding, analyzing and applying information on sustainable living (Cognitive); knowing how to use software (cognitive); appreciating the need to live sustainably (Affective) and using computer peripherals, such as mouse or touchpad and keyboard (Psychomotor).

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.), 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 . Longmans. https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PPP242/Benjamin%20S.%20Bloom%20-%20Taxonomy%20of%20Educational%20Objectives%2C%20Handbook%201_%20Cognitive%20Domain-Addison%20Wesley%20Publishing%20Company%20%281956%29.pdf

Tucker, C. (2023). Should we list learning objectives? Experiencing Learning . https://www.christytuckerlearning.com/should-we-list-the-learning-objectives/

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002, Autumn). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice , 41 (4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook II: Affective domain . Longmans. http://daneshnamehicsa.ir/userfiles/file/Resources/10)%20History/Intro-Taxonomy%20of%20Educational%20Objectives,%20Handbook%202,%20Affective%20Domain.pdf

Kompa, J. S. (n.d.). Why it is time to retire Bloom’s taxonomy. Lifelong Education & Change Blog . https://joanakompa.com/2017/02/07/why-it-is-time-to-retire-blooms-taxonomy/

Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives . Fearon Publishers. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015016282587&view=1up&seq=3

Simpson, E. J. (1966). The classification of educational objectives, psychomotor domain [Project, University of Illinois]. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED010368

Soozandehfar, S. M. A., & Adeli, M. R. (2016). A critical appraisal of Bloom’s taxonomy. American Research Journal of English and Literature , 2 . https://doi.org/10.21694/2378-9026.16014

Tan K. W. (2017). Using teaching cases for achieving Bloom’s higher-order cognitive levels: An application in technically-oriented information systems course. Proceedings of the 2017 AIS SIGED International Conference on Information Systems Education and Research .10. Research Collection School Of Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/siged2017/1

10 Bloom’s Taxonomy

At the end of this chapter, you will be able to:

Identify key elements of Bloom’s Taxonomy
Explain strategies utilized to implement Bloom’s Taxonomy
Summarize the criticisms of and educational implications of Bloom’s Taxonomy
Explain how equity is impacted by Bloom’s Taxonomy
Identify classroom strategies to support the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy
Select strategies to support student success utilizing Bloom’s Taxonomy
Develop a plan to implement the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy

Image 10.1

Ms. Crawley was planning her lessons for the next couple of weeks for her high school history class. Thinking back to her favorite history teacher, she remembered what made it so exciting. They had to role play and debate controversial historical issues like voting rights. Having students play different roles in the debate really got them fired up and engaged. Ms. Crawley wanted to take the learning beyond a simple recall of information. She had to start with some introductory learning of the topic so that the students would be informed as they assumed their roles. She would use a film and read-around to help students understand the issues initially. She would put them in teams so they could create the character who would participate in the debate.

As you learn about Bloom’s Taxonomy, consider the complexity of the learning tasks and where that takes the student. Consider that this is sequential, that Ms. Crawley has to first introduce the information before the students can apply their learning. Consider what students will remember from such an engaging activity!

Check out this video for an introduction:

INTRODUCTION

Benjamin Samuel Bloom (1913-1999) was born in Lansford, Pennsylvania, and received both a bachelor’s and master’s degree from Pennsylvania State University in 1935. He went on to earn a doctoral degree from the University of Chicago in 1942, where he acted as first a staff member of the Board of Examinations (1940-1943), then a University Examiner (1943-1959), as well as an instructor in the Department of Education.

Bloom’s most recognized and highly regarded initial work spawned from his collaboration with his mentor and fellow examiner Ralph W. Tyler and came to be known as Bloom’s Taxonomy. These ideas are highlighted in his third publication, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I, The Cognitive Domain . He later wrote a second handbook for the taxonomy in 1964, which focuses on the affective domain. Bloom’s research in early childhood education, published in his 1964 Stability and Change in Human Characteristics sparked widespread interest in children and learning and eventually and directly led to the formation of the Head Start program in America. Aside from his scholarly contributions to the field of education, Benjamin Bloom was an international activist and educational consultant. In 1957, he traveled to India to conduct workshops on evaluation, which led to great changes in the Indian educational system. He helped create the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, the IEA, and organized the International Seminar for Advanced Training in Curriculum Development. He developed the Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistical Analysis (MESA) program at the University of Chicago.

Bloom’s Taxonomy was created in 1956 under the leadership of educational psychologist Dr. Benjamin Bloom in order to promote higher forms of thinking in education, such as analyzing and evaluating concepts, processes, procedures, and principles, rather than just remembering facts (rote learning). It is most often used when designing lesson objectives, learning goals, and instructional activities. Bloom et al. (1956) identified three domains of educational activities or learning:

• Cognitive Domain : mental skills (knowledge)

• Psychomotor Domain : manual or physical skills (skills)

• Affective Domain : growth in feelings or emotional areas (attitude)

Since the work was produced by higher education, the words tend to be a little bigger than what would be normally used. Domains may be thought of as categories. Instructional designers, trainers, and educators often refer to these three categories as KSA (Knowledge [cognitive], Skills [psychomotor], and Attitudes [affective]). This taxonomy of learning behaviors may be thought of as “the goals of the learning process.” That is, after a learning episode, the learner should have acquired a new skill, knowledge, and/or attitude. While Bloom et al. (1956) produced an elaborate compilation for the cognitive and affective domains, they omitted the psychomotor domain. Their explanation for this oversight was that they have little experience in teaching manual skills within the college level. However, there have been at least three psychomotor models created by other researchers. Their compilation divides the three domains into subdivisions, starting from the simplest cognitive process or behavior to the most complex. The divisions outlined are not absolutes and there are other systems or hierarchies that have been devised, such as the Structure of Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO). However, Bloom’s Taxonomy is easily understood and is probably the most widely applied one in use today.

The Cognitive Domain (Clark, 2015a)

The cognitive domain involves knowledge and the development of intellectual skills (Bloom, 1956). This includes the recall or recognition of specific facts, procedural patterns, and concepts that serve in the development of intellectual abilities and skills. There are six major levels of cognitive processes, starting from the simplest to the most complex:

Comprehension
Application

The levels can be thought of as degrees of difficulties. That is, the first ones must normally be mastered before the next one can take place.

Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy

Lorin Anderson, a former student of Bloom, and David Krathwohl revisited the cognitive domain in the mid-nineties and made some changes, with perhaps the three most prominent ones being:

• Changing the names in the six levels from noun to verb forms;

• Rearranging them as shown in Figure 10.1 and Figure 10.2; and

• Creating a cognitive processes and knowledge dimension matrix (Anderson et al., 2000; Figure 10.5, Figure 10.6, & Figure 10.7).

Figure 10.1 Revised Cognitive Domain

The revised cognitive domain. The six levels, from bottom to top, are Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating.

Share This Book

https://thesecondprinciple.com

The work of leslie owen wilson, ed. d..

Three Domains of Learning – Cognitive, Affective, Psychomotor

What are the differences between the three domains of learning what are the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor taxonomies .

There are three main domains of learning and all teachers should know about them and use them to construct lessons. These domains of learning are the cognitive (thinking), the affective (social/emotional/feeling), and the psychomotor (physical/kinesthetic) domain, and each one of these has a taxonomy associated with it. Taxonomy is simply a word for a classification. All of the taxonomies below are arranged so that they proceed from the simplest to more complex levels.

The domains of learning were first developed and described between 1956-1972. The cognitive domain had a major revision in 2000-01. The ones discussed here are usually attributed to their primary author, even though the actual development may have had more authors in its formal, complete citation (see full citations below). Some web references attribute all of the domains to Benjamin Bloom which is simply not true . While Bloom was involved in describing both the cognitive and the affective domains, he appeared as first author on the cognitive domain. As a result this bore his name for years and was commonly known among educators as Bloom’s Taxonomy even though his colleague David Krathwohl also a partner on the 1956 publication. When publishing the description of the affective domain in 1964 Krathwohl was named as first author, but Bloom also worked on developing this work. Krathwohl’s involvement in the development of the cognitive domain will be become important when you look at the authors of the 2001 revisions to this taxonomy.

Benjamin Bloom (Cognitive Domain),
David Krathwohl (Affective Domain), and
Anita Harrow (Psychomotor Domain).

Many veteran teachers are totally unaware that the cognitive/thinking domain had major revisions in 2000-01. If you are searching the internet for more information on domains of learning, please be sure the sources you find are offering readers information that includes the most recent revisions. Here I have included both the original cognitive domain, and I have also attached it to the newer, revised version so that users can see the differences. The newer version of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning has a number of added features that can be very useful to educators as they try to construct optimal learning experiences. I hope readers will explore the differences and additions through the links provided on this page.

Also, when possible, I believe teachers should attempt to construct more holistic lessons by using all 3 domains of learning in constructing educational tasks. This diversity helps create more well-rounded learning experiences and meets a number of learning styles and learning modalities. Mixing domains of learning and using more diversity in delivering lessons also helps students create more neural networks and pathways thus aiding their retention and recall.

The Original Cognitive or Thinking Domain –

Based on the 1956 work, The Handbook I-Cognitive Domain , behavioral objectives that dealt with cognition could be divided into subsets. These subsets were arranged into a taxonomy and listed according to the cognitive difficulty — simpler to more complex forms. In 2000-01 revisions to the cognitive taxonomy were spearheaded by one of Bloom’s former students, Lorin Anderson, and Bloom’s original partner in defining and publishing the cognitive domain, David Krathwohl. Please see my page entitled Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised for further details.

Remember while it is good to understand the history of the older version of this domain, the newer version has a number of strong advantages that make it a better choice for planning instruction today. One of the major changes that occurred between the old and the newer updated version is that the two highest forms of cognition have been reversed. In the older version the listing from simple to most complex functions was ordered as knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation . In the newer version the steps change to verbs and are arranged as knowing, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating , and the last and highest function , creating.

Taxonomies of the Cognitive Domain

Table 1.1 – (Wilson, L.O. 2001) – Bloom vs. Anderson/Krathwohl revisions

Additional Resources: There are many different types of graphics cleverly depicting the new versions that can be printed and readily used as everyday references during instructional planning. In a search engine like Google enter “revised Bloom’s taxonomy” and view the “images” portion of the search to find many different types of colorful and useful graphics on this topic.

The Affective or Feeling Domain:

Like cognitive objectives, affective objectives can also be divided into a hierarchy (according to Krathwohl). This area is concerned with feelings or emotions (and social/emotional learning and skills). Again, the taxonomy is arranged from simpler feelings to those that are more complex. This domain was first described in 1964 and as noted before is attributed to David Krathwohl as the primary author.

1. Receiving

This refers to the learner’s sensitivity to the existence of stimuli – awareness, willingness to receive, or selected attention.

2. Responding

This refers to the learners’ active attention to stimuli and his/her motivation to learn – acquiescence, willing responses, or feelings of satisfaction.

3. Valuing

This refers to the learner’s beliefs and attitudes of worth – acceptance, preference, or commitment. An acceptance, preference, or commitment to a value.

4. Organization

This refers to the learner’s internalization of values and beliefs involving (1) the conceptualization of values; and (2) the organization of a value system. As values or beliefs become internalized, the leaner organizes them according to priority.

5. Characterization – the Internalization of values

This refers to the learner’s highest of internalization and relates to behavior that reflects (1) a generalized set of values; and (2) a characterization or a philosophy about life. At this level the learner is capable of practicing and acting on their values or beliefs.

Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom,B.S. and Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Book II. Affective domain. New York, NY. David McKay Company, Inc.

Note: As with all of the taxonomies, in labeling objectives using this domain there has to be a very clear instructional intention for growth in this area specified in the learning objective(s) . Folks in the sciences and in math often avoid including affective objectives stating that their areas are not emotional. However, any group work or cooperative exercise where deportment, or collaborative or cooperative skills are discussed, used, and emphasized qualifies as having the potential for affective growth. Additionally, if students are asked to challenge themselves with independently taking risks to develop and present a hypothesis and/or persuade others on drawn conclusions, or actively take an intellectual risk whereby they increase in self-confidence, these types of exercises also have the potential to be affective as well as a cognitive. Also, in areas of potential debate, where data allows students to draw conclusions about controversial topics or express opinions and feelings on those topics, this too can be tweaked so there is intentional affective growth. Since emotion draws both attention and channels strong residual memory , it behooves all dedicated and artful educators to include affective objectives, no matter what their discipline or area of study.

The Psychomotor or Kinesthetic Domain

Psychomotor objectives are those specific to discreet physical functions, reflex actions and interpretive movements. Traditionally, these types of objectives are concerned with the physically encoding of information, with movement and/or with activities where the gross and fine muscles are used for expressing or interpreting information or concepts. This area also refers to natural, autonomic responses or reflexes.

In examining the three domains of learning it is interesting to note that while the cognitive taxonomy was described in 1956, and the affective in 1964, the psychomotor domain was not fully described until the 1970s. And while I have chosen to use the work of Anita Harrow here, there are actually two other psychomotor taxonomies to choose from — one from E. J. Simpson (1972) and the other from R.H. Dave (1970). See full citations and hyperlink below.

As stated earlier, to avoid confusion, if the activity is simply something that is physical which supports another area — affective or cognitive — term the objective physical rather than psychomotor. Again, this goes to instructional intent. A primary example of something physical which supports specific cognitive development and skills might be looking through a microscope, and then identifying and drawing cells. Here the instructional intent of this common scientific activity is not to develop specific skilled proficiency in microscope viewing or in reproducing cells through drawing. Usually the key intent in this activity is that a physical action supports or is a vehicle for cognitive growth and furthering recognition skills. The learner is using the physical action to achieve the cognitive objectives — identify, recognize, and differentiate varied types of cells.

If you are using a physical activity to support a cognitive or affective function, simply label it as something physical (labeling the objective as kinesthetic, haptic, or tactile is also acceptable) and avoid the term psychomotor. Rather labeling something psychomotor means there is a very clear educational intention for growth to occur in the psychomotor/kinesthetic domain.

Certainly more complex learning objectives can be written so that they that meld 2 or 3 domains. For instance, students can gain appreciation (an affective objective) for the culture or country of origin through conducting investigations or listening to stories while learning the dances from other countries. Learning dance steps would fall under “skilled movements” in the psychomotor domain.

(Terms in this area based on Anita Harrow’s taxonomy).

Reflex movements

Objectives at this level include reflexes that involve one segmental or reflexes of the spine and movements that may involve more than one segmented portion of the spine as intersegmental reflexes (e.g., involuntary muscle contraction). These movements are involuntary being either present at birth or emerging through maturation.

Fundamental movements

Objectives in this area refer to skills or movements or behaviors related to walking, running, jumping, pushing, pulling and manipulating. They are often components for more complex actions.

Perceptual abilities

Objectives in this area should address skills related to kinesthetic (bodily movements), visual, auditory, tactile (touch), or coordination abilities as they are related to the ability to take in information from the environment and react.

Physical abilities

Objectives in this area should be related to endurance, flexibility, agility, strength, reaction-response time or dexterity.

Skilled movements

Objectives in this area refer to skills and movements that must be learned for games, sports, dances, performances, or for the arts.

Nondiscursive communication

Objectives in this area refer to expressive movements through posture, gestures, facial expressions, and/or creative movements like those in mime or ballet. These movements refer to interpretative movements that communicate meaning without the aid of verbal commands or help.

**Remember that the trick in effectively planning lessons — there has to be the intention for growth specifically in the selected domain area! Learning takes place in ALL three domains of learning and wise teachers combine domains so that lessons and learning are more holistic and multidimensional.

The following page and PPT AGO2 illustrate how you can use all three domains to create more holistic learning experiences.

Holistic Lesson Plans using all 3 Domains

The following plans were created by my undergraduate students between 2002-2008. Even if they are not in a subject area you are interested in, the format can serve as a prototype.

Holistic Plan 1
Holistic Plan 2
Holistic Plan 3
Holistic Plan 4
Holistic Plan 5

Related page: Writing good curriculum

**New: Learning Taxonomies – A comprehensive listing of the 3 traditional domains of learning, plus additions in the psychomotor domain, and examples of newer taxonomies.

End Note: As we learn more about how the brain learns and retains information, today’s educators are realizing that targeted physical movement has the potential to enhance memory and recall and can aid in accelerating longterm memory. Intentionally adding movement to enhance learning is often called “ embodied learning .” With the aid of technology this field is growing rapidly.

Additional resources:

SmallLAB Learning – Stellar explanation and examples of this concept
David Birchfield on YouTube explaining embodied learning/cognition
Description of all 3 psychomotor taxonomies – The work is erroneously titled Bloom’s Psychomotor Domain!
Lara Schenck – Provides an excellent definition of this new type of learning in comparison to other types of learning.

Giving = Continued Sharing

I created the Second Principle to share information about the educational ideas at the heart of all good teaching. I am dedicated to the ideal that most of materials on this site remain free to individuals, and free of advertising. If you have found value in the information offered here, please consider becoming a patron through a PayPal donation to help defray hosting and operating costs. Thanks for your consideration, and blessings on your own journey.

(As these hotlinks take readers to Amazon, the FTC requires me to indicate that they qualify as ads)

There are 3 editions of the revisions of Bloom’s from Anderson and Krathwohl and others, or from Anderson.

1. Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds.) (2000) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (complete edition) . Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group)

2. Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds.) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (abridged edition) . Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group)

3.* There is a newer, less expensive, abridged version of this book. See Anderson, L. W. (2013) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Abridged Edition .

Bloom, B.S. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al.(1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. NY, NY: Longmans, Green (This is the original work. It is unavailable for purchase, however there are later editions available.)

Dave, R.H. (1970). Psychomotor lev els in Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives, pp.20-21. R.J. Armstrong, ed. Tucson, Arizona: Educational Innovators Press. (Unavailable for purchase)

Harrow, A. (1972) A Taxonomy of Psychomotor Domain: A Guide for Developing Behavioral Objectives . New York: David McKay.

Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., Masia, B.B. (1964 ). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain . New York: David McKay Co., Inc.

Simpson E.J. (1972). The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House.

** FTC Notice: For readers’ convenience throughout this site I have placed hotlinks to Amazon for a wide variety of books that relate to the topics discussed. Many of these books I have read, while others I not only read but purchased for my own professional collection. Other entries were recommended by folks I respect. In compliance with the United States FTC, I am required to tell readers that if they use the provided hotlinks to purchase linked materials, then I receive a very, very, very small commission from Amazon. These monies I use to help offset my website hosting fees.

Newer Pages –

Remembering Mr. Rogers – A return to caring and civility–Remembering lessons learned from Mr. Rogers.
The Flipped Classroom
Making Instructional Decisions – A guide for both novice and veteran teachers and
A dozen important brain based learning concepts – Things every teacher (and parent) should know

Creating Learning Outcomes

Main navigation.

A learning outcome is a concise description of what students will learn and how that learning will be assessed. Having clearly articulated learning outcomes can make designing a course, assessing student learning progress, and facilitating learning activities easier and more effective. Learning outcomes can also help students regulate their learning and develop effective study strategies.

Defining the terms

Educational research uses a number of terms for this concept, including learning goals, student learning objectives, session outcomes, and more.

In alignment with other Stanford resources, we will use learning outcomes as a general term for what students will learn and how that learning will be assessed. This includes both goals and objectives. We will use learning goals to describe general outcomes for an entire course or program. We will use learning objectives when discussing more focused outcomes for specific lessons or activities.

For example, a learning goal might be “By the end of the course, students will be able to develop coherent literary arguments.”

Whereas a learning objective might be, “By the end of Week 5, students will be able to write a coherent thesis statement supported by at least two pieces of evidence.”

Learning outcomes benefit instructors

Learning outcomes can help instructors in a number of ways by:

Providing a framework and rationale for making course design decisions about the sequence of topics and instruction, content selection, and so on.
Communicating to students what they must do to make progress in learning in your course.
Clarifying your intentions to the teaching team, course guests, and other colleagues.
Providing a framework for transparent and equitable assessment of student learning.
Making outcomes concerning values and beliefs, such as dedication to discipline-specific values, more concrete and assessable.
Making inclusion and belonging explicit and integral to the course design.

Learning outcomes benefit students

Clearly, articulated learning outcomes can also help guide and support students in their own learning by:

Clearly communicating the range of learning students will be expected to acquire and demonstrate.
Helping learners concentrate on the areas that they need to develop to progress in the course.
Helping learners monitor their own progress, reflect on the efficacy of their study strategies, and seek out support or better strategies. (See Promoting Student Metacognition for more on this topic.)

Choosing learning outcomes

When writing learning outcomes to represent the aims and practices of a course or even a discipline, consider:

What is the big idea that you hope students will still retain from the course even years later?
What are the most important concepts, ideas, methods, theories, approaches, and perspectives of your field that students should learn?
What are the most important skills that students should develop and be able to apply in and after your course?
What would students need to have mastered earlier in the course or program in order to make progress later or in subsequent courses?
What skills and knowledge would students need if they were to pursue a career in this field or contribute to communities impacted by this field?
What values, attitudes, and habits of mind and affect would students need if they are to pursue a career in this field or contribute to communities impacted by this field?
How can the learning outcomes span a wide range of skills that serve students with differing levels of preparation?
How can learning outcomes offer a range of assessment types to serve a diverse student population?

Use learning taxonomies to inform learning outcomes

Learning taxonomies describe how a learner’s understanding develops from simple to complex when learning different subjects or tasks. They are useful here for identifying any foundational skills or knowledge needed for more complex learning, and for matching observable behaviors to different types of learning.

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchical model and includes three domains of learning: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective. In this model, learning occurs hierarchically, as each skill builds on previous skills towards increasingly sophisticated learning. For example, in the cognitive domain, learning begins with remembering, then understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and lastly creating.

Taxonomy of Significant Learning

The Taxonomy of Significant Learning is a non-hierarchical and integral model of learning. It describes learning as a meaningful, holistic, and integral network. This model has six intersecting domains: knowledge, application, integration, human dimension, caring, and learning how to learn.

See our resource on Learning Taxonomies and Verbs for a summary of these two learning taxonomies.

How to write learning outcomes

Writing learning outcomes can be made easier by using the ABCD approach. This strategy identifies four key elements of an effective learning outcome:

Consider the following example: Students (audience) , will be able to label and describe (behavior) , given a diagram of the eye at the end of this lesson (condition) , all seven extraocular muscles, and at least two of their actions (degree) .

Audience

Define who will achieve the outcome. Outcomes commonly include phrases such as “After completing this course, students will be able to...” or “After completing this activity, workshop participants will be able to...”

Keeping your audience in mind as you develop your learning outcomes helps ensure that they are relevant and centered on what learners must achieve. Make sure the learning outcome is focused on the student’s behavior, not the instructor’s. If the outcome describes an instructional activity or topic, then it is too focused on the instructor’s intentions and not the students.

Try to understand your audience so that you can better align your learning goals or objectives to meet their needs. While every group of students is different, certain generalizations about their prior knowledge, goals, motivation, and so on might be made based on course prerequisites, their year-level, or majors.

Use action verbs to describe observable behavior that demonstrates mastery of the goal or objective. Depending on the skill, knowledge, or domain of the behavior, you might select a different action verb. Particularly for learning objectives which are more specific, avoid verbs that are vague or difficult to assess, such as “understand”, “appreciate”, or “know”.

The behavior usually completes the audience phrase “students will be able to…” with a specific action verb that learners can interpret without ambiguity. We recommend beginning learning goals with a phrase that makes it clear that students are expected to actively contribute to progressing towards a learning goal. For example, “through active engagement and completion of course activities, students will be able to…”

Example action verbs

Consider the following examples of verbs from different learning domains of Bloom’s Taxonomy . Generally speaking, items listed at the top under each domain are more suitable for advanced students, and items listed at the bottom are more suitable for novice or beginning students. Using verbs and associated skills from all three domains, regardless of your discipline area, can benefit students by diversifying the learning experience.

For the cognitive domain:

Create, investigate, design
Evaluate, argue, support
Analyze, compare, examine
Solve, operate, demonstrate
Describe, locate, translate
Remember, define, duplicate, list

For the psychomotor domain:

Invent, create, manage
Articulate, construct, solve
Complete, calibrate, control
Build, perform, execute
Copy, repeat, follow

For the affective domain:

Internalize, propose, conclude
Organize, systematize, integrate
Justify, share, persuade
Respond, contribute, cooperate
Capture, pursue, consume

Often we develop broad goals first, then break them down into specific objectives. For example, if a goal is for learners to be able to compose an essay, break it down into several objectives, such as forming a clear thesis statement, coherently ordering points, following a salient argument, gathering and quoting evidence effectively, and so on.

State the conditions, if any, under which the behavior is to be performed. Consider the following conditions:

Equipment or tools, such as using a laboratory device or a specified software application.
Situation or environment, such as in a clinical setting, or during a performance.
Materials or format, such as written text, a slide presentation, or using specified materials.

The level of specificity for conditions within an objective may vary and should be appropriate to the broader goals. If the conditions are implicit or understood as part of the classroom or assessment situation, it may not be necessary to state them.

When articulating the conditions in learning outcomes, ensure that they are sensorily and financially accessible to all students.

Degree

Degree states the standard or criterion for acceptable performance. The degree should be related to real-world expectations: what standard should the learner meet to be judged proficient? For example:

With 90% accuracy
Within 10 minutes
Suitable for submission to an edited journal
Obtain a valid solution
In a 100-word paragraph

The specificity of the degree will vary. You might take into consideration professional standards, what a student would need to succeed in subsequent courses in a series, or what is required by you as the instructor to accurately assess learning when determining the degree. Where the degree is easy to measure (such as pass or fail) or accuracy is not required, it may be omitted.

Characteristics of effective learning outcomes

The acronym SMART is useful for remembering the characteristics of an effective learning outcome.

Specific : clear and distinct from others.
Measurable : identifies observable student action.
Attainable : suitably challenging for students in the course.
Related : connected to other objectives and student interests.
Time-bound : likely to be achieved and keep students on task within the given time frame.

Examples of effective learning outcomes

These examples generally follow the ABCD and SMART guidelines.

Arts and Humanities

Learning goals.

Upon completion of this course, students will be able to apply critical terms and methodology in completing a written literary analysis of a selected literary work.

At the end of the course, students will be able to demonstrate oral competence with the French language in pronunciation, vocabulary, and language fluency in a 10 minute in-person interview with a member of the teaching team.

Learning objectives

After completing lessons 1 through 5, given images of specific works of art, students will be able to identify the artist, artistic period, and describe their historical, social, and philosophical contexts in a two-page written essay.

By the end of this course, students will be able to describe the steps in planning a research study, including identifying and formulating relevant theories, generating alternative solutions and strategies, and application to a hypothetical case in a written research proposal.

At the end of this lesson, given a diagram of the eye, students will be able to label all of the extraocular muscles and describe at least two of their actions.

Using chemical datasets gathered at the end of the first lab unit, students will be able to create plots and trend lines of that data in Excel and make quantitative predictions about future experiments.

How to Write Learning Goals , Evaluation and Research, Student Affairs (2021).
SMART Guidelines , Center for Teaching and Learning (2020).
Learning Taxonomies and Verbs , Center for Teaching and Learning (2021).

Psychomotor Domain

Cite this chapter.

1032 Accesses

Psychomotor learning has been characterized as relating to organismic and situational factors necessary for the acquisition and performance of behaviors that are generally reflected by movement (Singer, 1975, 1980). Psychomotor skills include actions such as contacting, manipulating, or moving an object and controlling the body or parts of the body. These types of motor skills require a great deal of information processing (see Ackerman & Cianciolo, 2000; Adams, 1987 discussed in Section II). Adams (1987) preferred to use “skill” to encompass “motor,” “perceptual-motor,” or any other term to cover the broadest behavioral definition of learning involving the use of movement. Rosenbaum et al. (2001) go further, and propose that there is virtually no difference between “intellectual” “psychomotor” implies that the “domain” is more a convenient heuristic rather than an independent entity. Regardless of the ambiguity in definition, there seems to be some consensus on the skills we examine for clues concerning how to instruct the learner.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

(2007). Psychomotor Domain. In: From Principles of Learning to Strategies for Instruction with Workbook Companion. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71086-0_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71086-0_3

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-71085-3

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-71086-0

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

THE PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAIN

Developed by: W. Huitt Last modified: April, 2003

Citation: Huitt, W. (2003). The psychomotor domain. Educational Psychology Interactive . Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved [date], from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/behavior/psymtr.html

Return to | Behavioral Approach | EdPsycInteractive: Courses |

There are three primary taxonomies of the psychomotor domain:

Dave, R. (1967). Psychomotor domain . Berlin: International Conference of Educational Testing.
Simpson , E. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain: The psychomotor domain . Vol. 3. Washington, DC: Gryphon House.

Level Definition Possible Verbs 1. Perception T he ability to use sensory cues to guide physical activity D istinguish, identify, select 2 . Set The readiness to act ; requires the learner to demonstrate an awareness or knowledge of the behaviors needed to carry out the skill A ssume a position, d emonstrate, s how 3 . Guided response T he early stage of learning a complex skill ; includes imitation ; can complete the steps involved in the skill as directed A ttempt, i mitate, t ry 4 . Mechanism T he ability to perform a complex motor skill ; the intermediate stage of learning a complex skill 5 . Complex overt response T he ability to perform the complete psychomotor skill correctly C arry out, o perate, p erform 6 . Adaptation C an modify motor skills to fit a new situatio n A dapt, c hange, modify, r evise 7 . Origination The ability to develop an original skill that replaces the skill as initially learned C reate, d esign, o riginate. Modification of Simpson by the University of Mississippi School of Education

EdPsycInteractive: Courses

All materials on this website [http://www.edpsycinteractive.org] are, unless otherwise stated, the property of William G. Huitt. Copyright and other intellectual property laws protect these materials. Reproduction or retransmission of the materials, in whole or in part, in any manner, without the prior written consent of the copyright holder, is a violation of copyright law.

Bloom's Taxonomy Learning Activities and Assessments

For more information related to Bloom's Taxonomy, refer to the Bloom's Taxonomy Teaching Tip .

COGNITIVE DOMAIN

Bloom's Taxonomy: Cognitive Domain (PDF)

Cognitive Domain : intellectual skills and abilities required for learning, thinking critically and problem solving

Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. A. (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives . New York: Longman.
IUPUI Center of Teaching and Learning. (2006). Bloom’s Taxonomy “Revised” Key Words, Model Questions, & Instructional Strategies .

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN

Bloom's Taxonomy: Affective Domain (PDF)

Affective Domain : emotional response concerning one's attitudes, values and appreciation for motivation in learning

Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., and Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Company Inc.
University of Mississippi School of Education. (2007). Bloom’s Taxonomy: Affective Domain. Retrieved from: http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/educ_school2/docs/stai_manual/manual9.htm

PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAIN

Bloom's Taxonomy: Psychomotor Domain (PDF)

Psychomotor Domain: ability to use motor skills that includes physical movement, reflex and coordination to develop techniques in execution, in accuracy and time.

Clark, D.R. (1999). Bloom’s Taxonomy: The Psychomotor Domain.
Simpson, E.J. (1966). The Classifications of Educational Objectives, Psychomotor Domain. University of Illinois. Urbana, Illinois.

This resource was developed by Sarah Vu Nguyen, a CTE co-op student in the Winter 2019 term.

If you would like support applying these tips to your own teaching, CTE staff members are here to help. View the CTE Support page to find the most relevant staff member to contact.

Assessment and feedback ,
Course Design ,
Learning activities

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s taxonomy is the specific classification aimed at giving teachers an opportunity to set the correct goals and achieve them by means of structured objectives. Cognitive domain with six levels, affective domain with five levels and originally psychomotor domain without any levels have suffered particular changes.

Many scholars have created their personal classification of the psychomotor domain that has created structured items there. Additionally, the emergence of the Web 2.0 and other specific software has created the necessity to revise the classification to meet the new requirements.

Thus, the Bloom’s taxonomy has suffered some particular changes, however, the main idea of three domains and the classification of the levels has remained. The learning of the three domains, the levels and the characteristics of those levels helps teachers create the structured learning objectives based on the scientific theories. Using knowledge, feelings and the ability to apply those in doing is exactly the classification of Bloom.

Bloom’s taxonomy is the specific classification which was developed by Benjamin Bloom and is aimed at classifying learning objectives. Bloom was sure that to achieve particular purposes and set goals it is important to classify the learning objectives.

There are a lot of purposes of the Bloom’s classification, however one of the main of them is to make teachers and other people who apply to this classification to refer to three main domains, Cognitive, affective, and Psychomotor.

To make sure that the notions are understood, it is possible to state that Cognitive domain refers to knowing something (the connection to the head is noticed), the Affective domain is connected with the feelings where heart is involved and Psychomotor domain is about doing something using ones hands.

Thus, each of these domains has some particular levels which are to be described in this article. Bloom’s taxonomy is the perfect tool which may help people navigate through the myriad items and may be helpful in making choices based on experience. Therefore, applying to the Bloom’s taxonomy, many people are guaranteed to be offered particular purposes to be achieved by means of applying to the necessary domains.

As it has already been mentioned, there are three main domains which have specific levels. Cognitive domain is connected with human head and should be associated with knowledge, thinking, and comprehension. At the lowest level of this domain is knowledge which should be applied for exhibiting the knowledge learnt before.

This is usually the basic knowledge which is used for further considerations. The understanding of those knowledge and other facts and ideas is usually conducted by means of the comprehension level of cognitive domain. Three main idea of this level is to translate, to interpret and to understand. Application of that knowledge and its understanding is the next level.

The analysis of the elements, relationships and organizational principles is can be applied to the next level of cognitive domain of Bloom’s taxonomy. The synthesis of the analyzed information is the fifth level of the classification and the final one is the evaluation of the data on the basis of the previous five levels of skills (Krathwohl, & Bloom, 2002).

The emotional reaction of people on some particular facts and events as well as human attitude, emotion and feelings are classified in the affective domain of Blooms taxonomy. This domain contains five levels. The lowest level is the receiving which is characterized by the passive attention of people to the situation, knowledge or event. Being a passive item, it is important to remember that no particular learning may occur without this level.

The next level is characterized by the responding to the perceived information and students’ interest in it. Further there is the valuing of the objects, information, or situation. Organizing and Characterizing are the final levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. It is important to understand that all the levels of the affective domain are important (Savickienė, 2010). Having not much in common with learning, people cannot achieve any results if affective domain is not followed precisely.

Psychomotor domain is characterized by human ability to use and physically manipulate students’ hands. Even though Bloom has never created the levels to this domain, some scholars thought about their own levels of taxonomy. Perception, set, guided response, mechanism, complex overt response, adaptation, and origination are the seven levels of the psychomotor domain which may be considered (Lightle, 2011).

Therefore, returning to the cognitive and affective domains, it is important to understand that the lowest levels are as important as the highest ones. The classification is based on the application of different skills and the basis for them. Thus, not much is necessary for getting the knowledge, however, students are to come through a number of stages to make an evaluation.

The same is with the affective domain. Bloom/s taxonomy has been revised as the creation of the innovative technologies and Web 2.0 some particular changes were necessary. However, the main idea of the taxonomy has remained the same.

Reference List

Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2002). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. London: Longman.

Lightle, K. (2011, May). More than just the technology. Science Scope, 34 (9), 6-9.

Savickienė, I. (2010). Conception of learning outcomes in the bloom’s taxonomy affective domain. Quality of Higher Education, 7 , 37-57.

Bloom's Taxonomy and Critical Thinking
Impact of Values and Bloom’s Taxonomy on Learning
Reading Comprehension Development and Assessment
Tips on How to Make the First Day of Class Productive for New Teachers
The Importance of Action Research
A Good Teacher: Teaching Is More Than Just Lecturing
Staff Manual to Guide the Early Childhood Education Worker
The Manufactured Crisis Myths, Fraud and the Attack on America's Public Schools
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 31). Bloom’s Taxonomy. https://ivypanda.com/essays/blooms-taxonomy/

"Bloom’s Taxonomy." IvyPanda , 31 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/blooms-taxonomy/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Bloom’s Taxonomy'. 31 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Bloom’s Taxonomy." October 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/blooms-taxonomy/.

1. IvyPanda . "Bloom’s Taxonomy." October 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/blooms-taxonomy/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Bloom’s Taxonomy." October 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/blooms-taxonomy/.

How do I write cognitive, affective and psychomotor learning objectives?

What is a learning objective?

A learning objective states what a student will learn by the end of a lesson or module. It should include a measurable verb from the designated domain cognitive, affective, or psychomotor) and focus on the student.

What should I keep in mind when writing a learning objective?

A learning objective is not a list of what will be covered during a lesson. If the lesson is one to two hours, you will want to write at least three learning objectives. Three or more hours should have at least three to five objectives.

What do you mean by domain?

Learning can be divided into three domains:

Cognitive: This is the most commonly used domain. It deals with the intellectual side of learning.
Affective: This domain includes objectives relating to interest, attitude, and values relating to learning the information.
Psychomotor: This domain focuses on motor skills and actions that require physical coordination.

What verbs should I use for each domain?

Kretchmar, J. (2019). Affective domain. Salem Press Encyclopedia.

Indiana University Bloomington. (n.d.). Learning taxonomy: Krathwohl's affective domain. https://global.indiana.edu/documents/Learning-Taxonomy-Affective.pdf

National Association of School Psychologists. (2016). Tips for writing effective learning objectives. Communique , 44 (7), 23.

University of Washington. (n.d.). Cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains grading. http://courses.washington.edu/pharm439/Bloomstax.htm

Last Updated Feb 27, 2024
Views 600913
Answered By Kerry Louvier

FAQ Actions

Share on Facebook

Comments (10)

Your presentation is simple yet concise, easy to use and understand. Thank you very much this will be very helpful to us in school in LCC-Daet. by Elmer Milan on Dec 16, 2019
Thank You! I am writing my first lesson plan for a graduate level elementary education class. Your article has me going in the right direction. by Cathy on Mar 27, 2020
You answered my questions too! I am completing my BS in ECE and my current paper is on the Affective Domain. This sums it up beautifully! Thank you! by Yolanda Gordon on Jul 22, 2020
Thank you. This more than what I have asked. by Chezer Dela Cruz on Sep 29, 2020
Excellent answer. Thank you very much for taking the time to do that research and explain it so well. by Marcela on Aug 17, 2021
Your explanation was clear and easy to use. It has been helping me a lot. Thanks by Chulu chishimba Kampemba on Sep 16, 2021
Am delighted to see this unique response by Adejoh success iliasu on Jan 31, 2022
A very good explanation by Kevin on Mar 12, 2023
That's really helpful. Thanks a lot. by Mohamed Mabrouk on May 27, 2023
Very helpful 👍👍👍👍 by Zoey Matthews on May 12, 2024

Hello! We're here to help! Please log in to ask your question.

Need an answer now? Search our FAQs !

How can I find my course textbook?

You can expect a prompt response, Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM-4:00 PM Central Time (by the next business day on weekends and holidays).

Questions may be answered by a Librarian, Learning Services Coordinator, Instructor, or Tutor.

IMAGES

Psychomotor Domain
Psychomotor Domain
Psychomotor Domain
What are Psychomotor Skills?
Psychomotor domain
Psychomotor Domain

VIDEO

Psychomotor Domain of Bloom's Taxonomy
Psychomotor performance
Dave's Psychomotor Domain || #education #ugcnet #bed
Psychomotor domain and rubrics
Psychomotor Domain
Psychomotor Domain of Blooms Taxonomy

COMMENTS

Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning
The psychomotor domain of Bloom's Taxonomy refers to the ability to physically manipulate a tool or instrument. It includes physical movement, coordination, and use of the motor-skill areas. It focuses on the development of skills and the mastery of physical and manual tasks. ... For example, you don't know how to write an essay until you ...
Bloom's Taxonomy
The taxonomy is divided into three parts: the cognitive, affective, and the psychomotor domains. In this chapter, we will address how the taxonomy was developed, how it evolved, and how educators use it for teaching purposes. ... Is the mental effort required to recall a definition the same as the mental effort needed to write an essay—what ...
Importance and Implications of Theory of Bloom's Taxonomy in ...
The cognitive domain contains mental abilities for knowledge production; the affective domain involves continuous emotional development of mindset; and the psychomotor domain involves physical skills. In 2001, a subsequent edition of the taxonomy adjusts the original version's vocabulary and order of cognitive processes in light of domain findings.
Psychomotor learning
psychomotor learning, development of organized patterns of muscular activities guided by signals from the environment. Behavioral examples include driving a car and eye-hand coordination tasks such as sewing, throwing a ball, typing, operating a lathe, and playing a trombone. Also called sensorimotor and perceptual-motor skills, they are ...
Bloom's Taxonomy
This taxonomy of learning behaviors may be thought of as "the goals of the learning process." That is, after a learning episode, the learner should have acquired a new skill, knowledge, and/or attitude. While Bloom et al. (1956) produced an elaborate compilation for the cognitive and affective domains, they omitted the psychomotor domain ...
Bloom's taxonomy
Bloom's taxonomy is a set of three hierarchical models used for classification of educational learning objectives into levels of complexity and specificity. The three lists cover the learning objectives in cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. The cognitive domain list has been the primary focus of most traditional education and is frequently used to structure curriculum learning ...
Three Domains of Learning: Cognitive, Affective and Psychomotor
It is a process. It is the continual growth and change in the brain's architecture that results. from the many ways we take in information, process it, connect it, catalogue it, and use it. (and ...
Psychomotor Domain
Psychomotor Domain. The psychomotor domain definition involves physical movement and the use of motor skills. This includes coordination and posture. The psychomotor aspect of body movement ...
PDF The Three domains of learning: Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor
There are three main domains of learning and all teachers should know about them and use them to construct lessons. These domains are cognitive (thinking), affective (emotion/feeling), and psychomotor (physical/kinesthetic). Each domain on this page has a taxonomy associated with it. Taxonomy is simply a word for a classification.
Three Domains of Learning
These domains of learning are the cognitive (thinking), the affective (social/emotional/feeling), and the psychomotor (physical/kinesthetic) domain, and each one of these has a taxonomy associated with it. Taxonomy is simply a word for a classification. All of the taxonomies below are arranged so that they proceed from the simplest to more ...
Creating Learning Outcomes
For the psychomotor domain: Invent, create, manage; Articulate, construct, solve; Complete, calibrate, control; Build, perform, execute ... if a goal is for learners to be able to compose an essay, break it down into several objectives, such as forming a clear thesis statement, coherently ordering points, following a salient argument, gathering ...
PDF CHAPTER 3 PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAIN
domain (e.g., acquiring nomenclature). Automaticity Integrating and applying elements and procedures through extensive repetition (i.e., automating skills) Transfer: Near term Developing ability to generalize- apply principles and strategies (e.g., heuristics) within a domain Transfer: Far term Learning to discover new principles in a domain (e.g.,
Psychomotor Learning
Write an essay using correct grammar and formatting conventions ; ... The psychomotor domain is a widely-recognized learning theory that describes seven levels of human learning. Levels include ...
Educational Psychology Interactive: Psychomotor Domain
The ability to develop an original skill that replaces the skill as initially learned. C reate, d esign, o riginate. Modification of Simpson by the University of Mississippi School of Education. Harrow, A. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain. A guide for developing behavioral objectives. New York: McKay.
PDF Cognitive, Psychomotor, and Affective Domain in Instruction on Writing
Psychomotor domain in writing paper denotes skill aspect to master by the students. Generally, this domain is developed by Dave (1975), Simpsons (1966(, and Dyers (2011). Likewise,
Psychomotor Domain
1314 Words6 Pages. The psychomotor domain (Simpson, 1972) involves physical movement, harmonization, and utilization of the motor-skill. Development of such skills demands practice and are measured in speed, precision, distance, procedures, or techniques in execution. Thus, psychomotor skills includes from manual tasks, like (digging or washing ...
Learning Domains
The psychomotor domain focuses on performing sequences of motor activities to a specified level of accuracy, smoothness, rapidity, or force. Underlying the motor activity is cognitive understanding. In the higher education environment, we see psychomotor learning in content including the following: ... Short answer essay Project or problem ...
Bloom's Taxonomy Learning Activities and Assessments
CTE's face-to-face workshops typically involve a mix of presentation and discussion-based activities, and we encourage a scent-free environment. We welcome accompanying assistants, interpreters, and note-takers. If you have questions concerning access, such as parking, building layouts, or obtaining workshop content in alternative formats, or ...
(PDF) Importance and Implications of Theory of Bloom's Taxonomy in
Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Malaysia. [email protected]. Abstract. The theory of Bloom's taxonomy has offered a set of three hierarchi-. cal models for cognitive, affecti ve, and ...
Bloom's taxonomy
Bloom's taxonomy is the specific classification aimed at giving teachers an opportunity to set the correct goals and achieve them by means of structured objectives. Cognitive domain with six levels, affective domain with five levels and originally psychomotor domain without any levels have suffered particular changes. We will write a custom ...
How do I write cognitive, affective and psychomotor learning objectives
Learning can be divided into three domains: Cognitive: This is the most commonly used domain. It deals with the intellectual side of learning. Affective: This domain includes objectives relating to interest, attitude, and values relating to learning the information. Psychomotor: This domain focuses on motor skills and actions that require ...
(PDF) Cognitive, Psychomotor, and Affective Domain in ...
This competence, referring to Bloom's taxonomy, involves cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domain. Cognitive domain is developed by Anderson-Krathwohl, Gagne, Ausubel, Merrill, Reigeluth, and ...
The Three Learning Domains
The Three Learning Domains_Cognitive, Affective, Psychomotor - Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free.

Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning

Key Takeaways

What is Bloom’s Taxonomy?

Development of the Taxonomy

The Original Taxonomy (1956)

Cognitive Domain (1956)

Types of Knowledge

The Affective Domain (1964)

The Psychomotor Domain (1972)

The Revised Taxonomy (2001)

How Bloom’s Can Aid In Course Design

The taxonomy explains that (Shabatura, 2013):

Critical Evaluation

What is Bloom’s taxonomy?

Bloom’s taxonomy explained for students?

Further Reading

Bloom's Taxonomy

Choose a Sign-in Option

Citation and Embed Code

Evolution of the Taxonomy

Purpose of the Taxonomy

Things to Consider

The Taxonomy

Cognitive Domain

Learning Check

Criticism Of the Taxonomy

Revised Taxonomy

Change in Terminology and in Structure

Emphasis on Subcategories

One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional

Read and Reflect

Applying Bloom's Taxonomy

Applying the Taxonomy: Case Study

Robert Mager

Learning Check Explanations

Suggested Readings

10 Bloom’s Taxonomy

Image 10.1

INTRODUCTION

Figure 10.1 Revised Cognitive Domain

Share This Book

https://thesecondprinciple.com

Three Domains of Learning – Cognitive, Affective, Psychomotor

The Original Cognitive or Thinking Domain –

Taxonomies of the Cognitive Domain

The Affective or Feeling Domain:

The Psychomotor or Kinesthetic Domain

Holistic Lesson Plans using all 3 Domains

Newer Pages –

Creating Learning Outcomes

Defining the terms

Learning outcomes benefit instructors

Learning outcomes benefit students

Choosing learning outcomes

Use learning taxonomies to inform learning outcomes

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Taxonomy of Significant Learning

How to write learning outcomes

Audience

Example action verbs

For the cognitive domain:

For the psychomotor domain:

For the affective domain:

Degree

Characteristics of effective learning outcomes

Examples of effective learning outcomes

Arts and Humanities

Learning objectives

Psychomotor Domain

Access this chapter

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

THE PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAIN

Bloom's Taxonomy Learning Activities and Assessments

COGNITIVE DOMAIN

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN

PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAIN