Blog Post

Articles
3 MIN READ

An Introduction to Bloom's Taxonomy for Instructional Designers

AllisonLaMotte's avatar
10 years ago

Learning objectives are at the very core of the instructional design process, and rightly so. Without them, how would we know what content and activities to include in our courses? Unfortunately, the learning objectives are often poorly defined, making it hard to determine if learners are meeting them. Enter: Bloom’s Taxonomy!

Benjamin Bloom, the creator of Bloom’s Taxonomy, specifically designed this classification system to help instructors, and instructional designers, clearly define learning objectives—and, in turn, create courses that meet learners’ needs. Let’s take a closer look at how this instructional design principle applies to e-learning.

What Is Bloom’s Taxonomy?

In their original work, Bloom and a committee of educators identified three domains of learning: cognitive (mental), affective (emotional), and psychomotor (physical). However, when most people think of Bloom’s Taxonomy, they think only of the cognitive domain.

The cognitive domain is divided into six categories, each representing a cognitive skill level. Each category is associated with a set of verbs, or cognitive processes, that describe what learners should be capable of doing:

  1. Knowledge: recognize, recall, list, name, memorize, define, locate, identify
  2. Comprehension: interpret, illustrate, summarize, explain, match, paraphrase
  3. Application: apply, choose, organize, draw, generalize
  4. Analysis: analyze, differentiate, classify, categorize, distinguish
  5. Synthesis: create, plan, produce, construct
  6. Evaluation: evaluate, judge, criticize, compare, appraise

Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Write Learning Objectives

Once you know the expected cognitive skill level for learners to achieve and the specific knowledge or skills the course covers, you’re ready to write your learning objective.

How? Simply combine the subject (the learner), the verb (what learners must know how to do), and the object (the knowledge they need to acquire).

For example, “At the end of this course, learners will recognize the five cognitive skill levels in Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Design Activities

As you’re designing your course activities, it’s important to refer back to the learning objectives and let the expected cognitive skill level guide your choices. If your learners need to take the course content and apply it to their jobs, you could build a scenario that allows them to practice doing that. If they simply need to recognize a list of terms, a multiple choice question could be just the thing.

Let’s look at the six cognitive skill levels again, this time with an example of a suitable learning activity:

  1. Knowledge: a multiple choice question asking learners to identify the correct answer from a list of terms.
  2. Comprehension: a free-response question asking learners to explain their understanding of something.
  3. Application: a scenario in which learners need to make decisions based on the information they learned.
  4. Analysis: a sorting question where learners classify terms or concepts into the appropriate category.
  5. Synthesis: a free-response question that asks learners to outline a plan of action.
  6. Evaluation: a scenario where learners compare and contrast the options available.

As you can see, you can use certain activity types for more than one skill level. It all depends on how you design those activities. And this is only the beginning—there are many more activities that you can design to help your learners achieve each of these cognitive skill levels.

Resources

Hopefully, this article has you thinking about how you can apply Bloom’s Taxonomy to your instructional design process to create clear, concise learning objectives and design activities to support those objectives. 

Want more instructional design tips? Check out these articles:

How do you use Bloom’s Taxonomy to design e-learning? Share your ideas in a comment below!

And remember to subscribe to our newsletter to get the latest e-learning inspiration and insights directly in your inbox. You can also find us on LinkedIn and X (Formerly Twitter)

Published 10 years ago
Version 1.0
  • I'm beginning to change my mind about Bloom and his taxonomies. I find that Will Thalheimer's taxonomy is better http://www.willatworklearning.com/2006/06/new_taxonomy_fo.html . Our understanding of cognitive processes in learning has really shown Bloom to be lacking. I'm leaning more towards "Performance Objectives" where learners will practice or be assessed on performance in a representative task. This helps me understand what people need to do by the end of the course but it doesn't lock me into a this is purely mental or purely physical mode.
    Personally, I dislike listing objectives to the learner in the course. And when I see it in courses I am taking I get bored. There is nothing wrong with giving some overall goals but even that is usually redundant, most people know the subject of the course before they start. Julie Dirksen in her book, "Design for how people Learn" makes some very good arguments about this topic.
    • AllisonLaMotte's avatar
      AllisonLaMotte
      Staff
      Very interesting, Cary! Thanks so much for sharing.

      I can see where some learners may be bored by a list of learning objectives, but ideally, if you've broken up your course into a bite-sized course you'll only have one learning objective, in which case there really isn't time to get bored.
  • WagnerDestro's avatar
    WagnerDestro
    Community Member
    Hello, Allison. I am an instructional designer from Brazil and a big fan of your blog.
    I wish you better clarify two points that were not clear to me in your post.
    You said Bloom’s Taxonomy “was specifically designed to help instructors and instructional designers clearly define learning objectives—and in turn create courses that meet learners’ needs.” In my understanding, Bloom's Taxonomy not help to define learning objectives.
    If an ID do not know how to define learning objectives, then the taxonomy will have no use for him or her. Besides, a classification system, by itself, does not help to meet learners’ needs. I believe this action can only be done through direct research with learners.
    What Bloom’s Taxonomy does (and does very well IMHO) is to sort the learning objectives - after they are defined in terms of behavior of learners - in order to give coherence to the instructional endeavor, i.e., ensure consistency and balance between objectives, content, activities and evaluation.
  • I see this discussion occurred six years ago, so I'm a bit late to the party! However, I would like to point out that I believe Sandi Williams' structure is correct. The two levels above Analysis should be Evaluating and Creating, not Synthesis and Evaluation as shown in the examples in the original article. As an eLearning developer, I find it difficult to get any higher than Application. At the Analysis, Evaluation, and Creation levels, the learner should be providing the examples and the content. If they are simply reacting to choices provided, they are only performing at the Knowledge, Comprehension and Application levels. The higher levels are intended to give learners the opportunity to demonstrate initiative and original thinking, and I think this can only be achieved in the presence of a live facilitator.
    • AllisonLaMotte's avatar
      AllisonLaMotte
      Staff
      Yes, there are two versions of the taxonomy :)

      You're right, for the higher levels you really need to use free response questions, as shown here. However, you don't need to do that live. Many LMSs allow you to view the answers to free response questions, so trainers can view them and give feedback online. However if you mean that can't be automated then yes, I totally agree with you!
  • Hi Allison, maybe "live" is a poor word choice on my part. What you describe of a trainer giving feedback is certainly an important component of training and very doable, and that's what I mean by "live". However, that personal interaction steps outside the capability of an eLearning tool like Storyline, where we are limited by what we program into the module. Also, free response answers inside SL cannot be scored except for participation. Cathy Moore's Haji Kamal scenario is a great example of putting eLearning together with face-to-face (she designed the eLearning as a precursor to group discussion). This one-two combination I think is the way to get all the way up to the top of Bloom's Taxonomy.