Anderson and Krathwohl – Bloom’s

Taxonomy Revised
Anderson and Krathwohl – Understanding the New Version
of Bloom’s Taxonomy
A succinct discussion of the revisions to Bloom’s classic
cognitive taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl and how to use
them effectively
©Leslie Owen Wilson (2013, 2005, 2001) Contact Leslie

Background:

Although revisions were published in 2001, surprisingly there are still

educators who have never heard of Anderson and Krathwohl or their
important revisions to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Here in the United States, from
the late 1950s into the early 1970s, there were attempts to dissect and
classify the varied domains of human learning – cognitive (knowing, or
head), affective (feelings, or heart) and psychomotor (doing, or kinesthetic,
tactile, haptic or hand/body). The resulting efforts yielded a series of
taxonomies for each area. (A taxonomy is really just a word for a form of
classification.) The aforementioned taxonomies deal with the varied aspects
of human learning and were arranged hierarchically, proceeding from the
simplest functions to those that are more complex. In 2000-01 one of the
original authors, David Krathwohl, and a student of Bloom’s, Lorin
Anderson, spearheaded an effort to revise the original cognitive taxonomy.
Here is an overview of the changes.

While all of the taxonomies above have been defined and used for many
years, there came about at the beginning of the 21st century in a new
version of the cognitive taxonomy, known commonly before as Bloom’s
Taxonomy. You can also search the Web for various references on the
different taxonomies. There are many valuable discussions on the
development of these hierarchies, as well as examples of their usefulness
and applications in teaching. (There are PDFs of this page and an
example of use at the bottom.)

The Cognitive Domain:

The following chart includes the two primary existing taxonomies of
cognition – the original one from 1965 and the 2001 revision. Learning
about the old taxonomy has been a teaching essential for years, however
 learning about the revisions and how to use them effectively seems to be
gradually taking over. Please note in the table below, the one on the left,
entitled Bloom’s, is based on the original work of Benjamin Bloom and
others as they attempted in 1956 to define the functions of thought, coming
to know, or cognition. This taxonomy is almost 60 years old. The taxonomy
on the right is the more recent adaptation and is the redefined work of
Bloom in 2000-01. That one is labeled Anderson and Krathwohl. The
group redefining Bloom’s original concepts, worked from 1995-2000. This
group was assembled by Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl and included
people with expertise in the areas of cognitive psychology, curriculum and
instruction, and educational testing, measurement, and assessment. The
new adaptation also took into consideration many of Bloom’s own concerns
and criticisms of his original taxonomy.

As you will see the primary differences are not in the listings or rewordings
from nouns to verbs, or in the renaming of some of the components, or
even in the re-positioning of the last two categories. The major differences
lie in the more useful and comprehensive additions of how the taxonomy
intersects and acts upon different types and levels of knowledge —
factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. This melding can
be charted to see how one is teaching at both knowledge and cognitive
process levels. Please remember the chart goes from simple to more
complex and challenging types of thinking.

Taxonomies of the Cognitive Domain

Bloom’s Taxonomy 1956 Anderson and Krathwohl’s Taxonomy 2001

1. Knowledge: Remembering or retrieving 1. Remembering:

previously learned material. Examples of verbs that Recognizing or recalling knowledge from
relate to this function are: memory. Remembering is when memory is
used to produce definitions, facts, or lists,
know define recall record or recite or retrieve material.
identify memorize name
relate list repeat recognize
acquire

2. Comprehension: The ability to grasp or 2. Understanding: Constructing meaning

construct meaning from material. Examples of from different types of functions be they
verbs that relate to this function are: written or graphic messages activities like
interpreting, exemplifying, classifying,
restate locate identify illustrate summarizing, inferring, comparing, and
explaining.
 report discuss interpret draw
recognize describe represent
explain discuss review differentiate
express infer conclude

3. Application: The ability to use learned 3. Applying: Carrying out or using a

material, or to implement material in new and procedure through executing, or
concrete situations. Examples of verbs that implementing. Applying related and refers
relate to this function are: to situations where learned material is
used through products like models,
apply relate organize practice presentations, interviews or simulations.
develop employ calculate
translate use restructure show exhibit
operate interpret dramatize
demonstrate
illustrate

4. Analysis: The ability to break down or 4. Analyzing: Breaking material or

distinguish the parts of material into its concepts into parts, determining how the
components so that its organizational parts relate or interrelate to one another
structure may be better understood.Examples or to an overall structure or purpose.
of verbs that relate to this function are: Mental actions included in this function
are differentiating, organizing, and
analyze differentiate experiment attributing, as well as being able to
compare contrast scrutinize distinguish between the components or
probe inquire investigate discover parts. When one is analyzing he/she can
examine detect survey inspect illustrate this mental function by creating
contrast classify dissect spreadsheets, surveys, charts, or
categorize deduce discriminate diagrams, or graphic representations.
separate

5. Synthesis: The ability to put parts together 5. Evaluating: Making judgments based
to form a coherent or unique new whole. on criteria and standards through
Examples of verbs that relate to this function checking and critiquing. Critiques,
are: recommendations, and reports are some
of the products that can be created to
compose plan invent propose demonstrate the processes of evaluation.
produce formulate develop In the newer taxonomy evaluation comes
design collect set up arrange before creating as it is often a necessary
assemble generalize construct part of the precursory behavior before
 creating something.
create document organize
prepare combine originate
predict modify relate derive write
tell propose

6. Evaluation: The ability to judge, check, and 6. Creating: Putting elements together to
even critique the value of material for a given form a coherent or functional whole;
purpose. Examples of verbs that relate to this reorganizing elements into a new pattern
function are: or structure through generating, planning,
or producing. Creating requires users to
judge assess argue decide validate put parts together in a new way or
compare choose rate consider synthesize parts into something new and
evaluate select appraise value different a new form or product. This
conclude estimate criticize infer process is the most difficult mental
measure function in the new taxonomy.
deduce

Table 1.1 – Bloom vs. Anderson/Krathwohl

____________________________________________________________________________
__

(Diagram
1.1, Wilson, Leslie O. 2001)
Note: After creating the cognitive taxonomy one of the weaknesses noted
by Bloom himself was that there is was a fundamental difference between
his “knowledge” category and the other 5 levels of his model as those
levels dealt with intellectual abilities and skills in relation to interactions
with types of knowledge. Bloom was very aware that there was an acute
difference between knowledge and the mental and intellectual operations
performed on, or with, that knowledge. He identified specific types of
knowledge as:

 Terminology
 Specific facts
 Conventions
 Trends and sequences
 Classifications and categories
 Criteria
 Methodology
 Principles and generalizations
 Theories and structures

Levels of Knowledge – The first three of these levels were identified in

the original work, but rarely discussed or introduced when initially
discussing uses for the taxonomy. Metacognition was added in the
revised version.

 Factual Knowledge – The basic elements students must know to be

acquainted with a discipline or solve problems.
 Conceptual Knowledge – The interrelationships among the basic
elements within a larger structure that enable them to function
together.
 Procedural Knowledge – How to do something, methods of inquiry,
and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods.
 Metacognitive Knowledge – Knowledge of cognition in general, as
well as awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition. (29)

(Summarized from: Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D.R., et al (2001) A

taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s
taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.)

One of the things that clearly differentiates the new model from that of the
1956 original is that it lays out components nicely so they can be
considered and used. Cognitive processes, as related to chosen
instructional tasks, can be easily documented and tracked. This feature has
the potential to make teacher assessment, teacher self-assessment, and
student assessment easier or clearer as usage patterns emerge. (See PDF
link below for a sample.)
As stated before, perhaps surprisingly, these levels of knowledge were
indicated in Bloom’s original work – factual, conceptual, and
procedural – but these were never fully understood or used by teachers
because most of what educators were given in training consisted of a
simple chart with the listing of levels and related accompanying verbs. The
full breadth of Handbook I, and its recommendations on types of
knowledge, were rarely discussed in any instructive or useful way. Another
rather gross lapse in common teacher training over the past 50+ years is
teachers-in-training are rarely made aware of any of the criticisms leveled
against Bloom’s original model.

Please note that in the updated version the term “metacognitive” has
been added to the array of knowledge types. For readers not familiar with
this term, it means thinking about ones thinking in a purposeful way so that
one knows about cognition and also knows how to regulate one’s cognition.

Knowledge Dimensions Defined:

Factual Knowledge is knowledge that is basic to specific disciplines. This

dimension refers to essential facts, terminology, details or elements
students must know or be familiar with in order to understand a discipline
or solve a problem in it.

Conceptual Knowledge is knowledge of classifications, principles,

generalizations, theories, models, or structures pertinent to a particular
disciplinary area.

Procedural Knowledge refers to information or knowledge that helps

students to do something specific to a discipline, subject, or area of study. It
also refers to methods of inquiry, very specific or finite skills, algorithms,
techniques, and particular methodologies.

Metacognitive Knowledge is the awareness of one’s own cognition and

particular cognitive processes. It is strategic or reflective knowledge about
how to go about solving problems, cognitive tasks, to include contextual
and conditional knowledge and knowledge of self.
*A comprehensive example from the book is provided with
publisher permission at http://www.scribd.com/doc/933640/Bloom-
Revised

Sources:
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. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson Education
Group)

Bloom, B.S. and Krathwohl, D. R. (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

 PDF Anderson and Krathwohl

 PDF Example of using revised taxonomy
The Anderson/Krathwohl text has numerous examples of how these
concepts can be used for K-12 teachers. Since I have used this material in
my teaching (a special topics graduate course on taxonomies and their uses
entitled Beyond Bloom’s,) and have also presented on this topic in several
national conferences, I have artifacts and examples of how these
revisions can be used effectively in college teaching. While I have a
link above to an artifact, to be fully understood you might need to
view the original assignment and the supportive documents. I
would be happy to provide those and discuss them more fully. I am
always happy to share information with other educators.

Originally published in ED 721 (2001) course handbook, and at:

http://www4.uwsp.edu/education/lwilson/curric/newtaxonomy.htm (2001,
2005), revised 2013