Bloom's Taxonomy: The Six Levels Explained for Teachers

Bloom's taxonomy is a hierarchical framework that educators use to group learning objectives by cognitive process (Bloom et al., 1956). The wider taxonomy covers three domains: cognitive, affective and psychomotor. The revised cognitive domain has six categories and adds a knowledge dimension (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001; Krathwohl, 2002). Used with care, it helps a teacher align an objective, a task and acceptable evidence without viewing learning as a fixed climb.

‍

Bloom's taxonomy in brief

The framework classifies intended learning across six levels, not learners or lesson stages. Teachers can use it to sharpen learning objectives, select tasks and plan assessment evidence. The revised version combines a cognitive process with a type of knowledge. That combination is more precise than choosing a verb from a pyramid.

In a water-cycle lesson, the teacher says, “Explain why water changes location and state.” A learner describes evaporation, condensation and precipitation as a connected process. The teacher checks for causal links, then models one missing link instead of simply marking the answer as “Understand”.

A short taxonomy label is therefore a planning hypothesis, or an idea to test. The learner's response shows whether the intended thinking took place. Airasian and Miranda (2002) argued that the revised taxonomy can help teachers align objectives with assessment. However, it cannot create that alignment by itself.

Start with the end in view. Ask what good work will show. Then plan a task that can draw out that proof. This keeps the label tied to what takes place in class.

‍

The six revised cognitive-process categories

Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) named the revised categories Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyse, Evaluate and Create. Each label describes a different cognitive process. People often arrange the categories as a hierarchy. However, a thoughtful lesson can move between them as learners develop their knowledge.

The examples below keep the topic constant. This makes the changing demand easier to see. Each example also states what the teacher does after hearing the response.

Do not force all six into one plan. Pick the process that best fits the aim. Move back to facts when a gap blocks the next task. Move on when the work shows that the class is ready.

‍

Remember

Remember means retrieving relevant knowledge from long-term memory (Krathwohl, 2002). It includes recognising and recalling facts, terms or steps. Secure recall gives learners material to think with, so it is not a disposable “low” skill.

The teacher asks, “Name the four main processes in the water cycle.” The learner names evaporation, condensation, precipitation and collection. The teacher notices that transpiration is absent, adds it to the class model and schedules a later retrieval practice check.

‍

Understand

Understand means making meaning from explanations, diagrams or demonstrations. Learners may interpret, give examples, classify, summarise, infer, compare or explain. A correct list is not enough. The links between the ideas must also be clear.

The teacher says, “Explain why clouds form after water evaporates.” The learner connects cooling water vapour with condensation into droplets. The teacher asks for a labelled particle sketch, then corrects any suggestion that clouds contain invisible water vapour.

‍

Apply

Apply means carrying out or using a procedure in a given situation. The task may be familiar or have a changed context. The procedure and conditions must be specified before the response can be judged.

The teacher gives temperature and rainfall data for a coastal town. “Use the water-cycle model to predict where condensation is most likely.” The learner applies the model to the data and marks a location. The teacher asks which data justified that choice.

‍

Analyse

Analyse means breaking material into parts and working out how those parts relate. Learners may separate relevant evidence, organise parts or link a claim to an underlying idea. Analysis requires suitable knowledge. Simply using the word “analyse” does not produce it.

The teacher shows two water-cycle diagrams and asks, “Which relationships differ?” The learner identifies that one diagram omits surface run-off and misdirects groundwater flow. The teacher asks how each difference would change the model's explanation of collection.

‍

Evaluate

Evaluate means making a judgement against clear criteria. Learners check for consistency or critique a product, method or claim. Personal preference alone is not evaluation. The task must provide standards and relevant evidence.

The teacher asks, “Which diagram best explains flooding, using completeness and scientific accuracy as your criteria?” The learner selects one and cites its surface run-off and saturated-ground features. The teacher challenges the weaker criterion, then asks for a revised judgement.

‍

Create

Create means combining elements to make a coherent or original product. Learners may suggest possibilities, plan a response or produce an outcome. Creation still relies on knowledge, constraints and criteria. Being new or unusual does not by itself show understanding.

The teacher says, “Design a water-cycle model that explains drought after several hot weeks.” The learner combines evaporation, reduced precipitation and depleted collection stores in an annotated model. The teacher tests it with one changed condition and asks the learner to revise it.

‍

Higher-order thinking is not a separate tier

Analyse, Evaluate and Create are often grouped as higher-order thinking skills, with Remember, Understand and Apply as the lower order. The grouping is a convenience, not a finding. Critical thinking runs through all six levels: deciding which fact is relevant is a judgement, and so is noticing that a recalled definition does not fit the case in front of you.

Plan for the thinking you want to see rather than for a tier. A retrieval task that asks learners to find the one wrong statement in a list demands careful judgement. A Create task that fills in a template demands very little. The six levels describe kinds of process, not a ranking of worth.

‍

Original and revised versions

The 1956 cognitive handbook had five editors. They were Benjamin Bloom, Max Engelhart, Edward Furst, Walker Hill and David Krathwohl. It grouped objectives as Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation (Bloom et al., 1956). A committee produced the work to create a shared language for educational goals.

Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl edited the 2001 revision. They changed the category nouns into process verbs. Synthesis became Create and moved above Evaluate. The revision also separated the cognitive-process dimension from a knowledge dimension (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001; Krathwohl, 2002).

A teacher comparing the versions can rewrite “knowledge of the water cycle” as “explain the conceptual relationships in the water cycle”. The learner then draws and narrates those relationships. The teacher checks both the process, explaining, and the knowledge, concepts, rather than accepting a vague topic label.

The original project also distinguished cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. The 1956 handbook addressed only the cognitive one, and that is the domain most teachers mean when they say Bloom's. The next section sets out all three, because the other two are being taught in every lesson whether or not they are planned for.

The move from nouns to verbs shifts the focus towards what learners do. Yet a verb still needs a clear object. “Analyse” means little until the plan states what is being analysed and why.

For a fuller account of the changes, see the guide to Anderson and Krathwohl. Their table is best read as a way to describe intended learning. It is not evidence that one category always has greater value.

‍

Three domains: cognitive, affective and psychomotor

Bloom's committee set out to classify three kinds of educational objective, not one. The 1956 handbook covered the cognitive domain. A second handbook covered the affective domain (Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia, 1964). The committee never finished a psychomotor handbook, and later authors filled the gap (Dave, 1970; Simpson, 1972; Harrow, 1972).

‍

‍

The affective domain describes how learners attend to, respond to and come to value what they meet. Its five categories run from receiving and responding, through valuing and organising values, to acting consistently from a value system (Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia, 1964). In a water-cycle unit, an affective objective might be that learners are willing to change a prediction when the evidence goes against it, and can say why.

The psychomotor domain covers physical skills. These include watching a demonstration, copying it and practising until the movement becomes fluent. Learners can then adapt the movement to a new case (Dave, 1970; Simpson, 1972). In the same lesson, a psychomotor objective might involve setting up a condensation demonstration safely and adjusting it if the first attempt fails.

Domain	What it classifies	Water-cycle example	Source
Cognitive	Thinking with knowledge, from recall to creating	Explain why condensation forms on a cold window	Bloom et al. (1956); Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)
Affective	Attending, responding, valuing, organising values, acting from them	Revise a prediction when the evidence goes against it, and say why	Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia (1964)
Psychomotor	Physical skill, from imitation to fluent, adapted movement	Set up the condensation demonstration safely, then adjust it	Dave (1970); Simpson (1972); Harrow (1972)

‍

‍

Teachers rarely need three parallel ladders. The point is narrower. When a lesson has only cognitive objectives on paper, the willingness to revise an idea and the hands-on skill are still being learned, and they go unassessed. Naming them once, in plain words, is enough to plan for them and to notice when they are missing.

‍

The knowledge dimension

The revised taxonomy asks what type of knowledge a task involves. It groups knowledge into four categories: factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. Pintrich (2002) described metacognitive knowledge as knowledge about cognition in general. It also includes awareness of one's own cognition.

Knowledge type	What it covers	Water-cycle example
Factual	Terms and specific details	Name evaporation, condensation and precipitation.
Conceptual	Relationships among ideas	Explain how energy and temperature link phase changes.
Procedural	Methods and when to use them	Use weather data to estimate likely evaporation.
Metacognitive	Knowledge of strategies, tasks and self	Choose a diagram because it exposes missing causal links.

Suppose a learner remembers each process but cannot explain the cycle. The teacher says, “Show which arrows need energy, then explain your choices.” The learner uses factual terms to build a conceptual account. The teacher can now see that the gap concerns relationships, not vocabulary.

The grid helps name that gap. It can also show why two tasks with the same process are not the same. One may draw on facts, while one calls for a method or a choice of plan.

The knowledge dimension links Bloom's taxonomy with metacognition and cognition. Ask learners which strategy fits the task and why. Guidance on developing metacognition can help them explain this choice without making reflection a general add-on.

‍

One topic, different thinking demands

A strong plan states the task and the evidence that will count. The following sequence keeps the water cycle constant while changing the cognitive process. It does not prescribe one route through a lesson.

‍

‍

Category	Task	Evidence the teacher accepts
Remember	Label five processes on a blank diagram.	Accurate labels placed on the correct changes.
Understand	Explain why condensation follows cooling.	A causal account linking cooling with droplets.
Apply	Predict condensation from unfamiliar weather data.	A prediction justified with relevant values.
Analyse	Compare two models and trace their differences.	Relevant differences linked to explanatory effects.
Evaluate	Judge which flood model is stronger.	A judgement supported by agreed criteria.
Create	Design a model explaining a drought.	A coherent product that survives a changed condition.

During formative assessment, the teacher can compare the response with the stated evidence. If a learner labels every process but gives no causal link, the response demonstrates recall rather than explanation. The teacher then models one link and asks for a second attempt.

This alignment also stops activity labels from replacing judgement. For example, drawing a diagram may involve copying, explaining or designing. The product, limits and accepted evidence determine the thinking required from the learner.

Share the proof with the class before they start. A short model can show what counts. If the work misses the mark, the teacher can point to a clear gap and set the next step.

‍

Writing learning objectives with both dimensions

The revised taxonomy gives a learning objective two parts: a cognitive process and a type of knowledge (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). Add a third part yourself, the evidence that will show the objective was met. Process, knowledge, evidence.

‍

‍

"Understand the water cycle" names a process and a topic, but no knowledge type and no evidence. Compare: "Explain how energy drives evaporation and condensation, in an annotated diagram that shows the direction of energy transfer." That objective can be planned, taught and checked. The process is Understand, the knowledge is conceptual, and the evidence is the diagram.

Three more learning objectives on the same topic, at different demands:

1. Remember, factual knowledge: name the four main processes of the water cycle unaided, in under a minute.
2. Apply, procedural knowledge: use rainfall and temperature data to estimate which of two sites loses more water to evaporation, and show the working.
3. Evaluate, metacognitive knowledge: judge which of your two explanations you trust more, and state what evidence would change your mind.

Write learning objectives for the learner to read, not for the planning file. If a learner cannot tell what would count as done, the objective is still a topic label. The guide to learning objectives has a fuller routine, and the study of alignment by Airasian and Miranda (2002) explains why the evidence column matters as much as the verb.

‍

Verbs help, but context decides

A printable Bloom's verb guide can prompt useful planning questions. However, verbs do not classify a task on their own. The content, conditions and evidence can make the same verb represent different demands.

Consider “explain”. One task says, “Explain the labelled water-cycle diagram we rehearsed.” Another says, “Explain why two cities with similar rainfall face different water shortages, using new data.” The first may check a familiar conceptual account. The second requires selecting evidence and relating several causes.

The teacher hears a learner repeat the memorised diagram for the second task. Instead of awarding the “Understand” label, the teacher asks, “Which new data changed your explanation?” That prompt exposes whether the learner has analysed the case. A bank of classroom questioning approaches can support such follow-up.

When a task imposes many unfamiliar elements, reduce avoidable cognitive load. Give the data in a clear table and keep the criteria visible. The intellectual demand should come from the reasoning, not from searching a crowded page.

Try the task as if you were in the class. Mark the facts that are given and those that must be recalled. Then check if the prompt asks for the thought you want to see.

‍

Review a lesson objective

Paste a question or objective into the tool, then read its suggested category as a prompt for review. Check the content, conditions and expected evidence yourself. The tool suggests; the teacher confirms.

For “Explain the water cycle”, add what learners must explain and what evidence will count. A stronger version is, “Explain how energy drives three water-cycle changes in an annotated model.” If the tool's label conflicts with the intended evidence, revise the wording and keep your professional judgement.

After using the tool, ask a learner to respond to the objective. If the learner lists stages without connecting energy to change, the teacher models one causal sentence. The teacher then requests a revised annotation and records the evidence, not merely the category.

Airasian and Miranda (2002) stressed the role of assessment in the revised taxonomy. Wiliam (2011) also described assessment for learning as information that teachers use to adapt their teaching. A category is useful only if it helps improve the next decision.

Keep the first draft of the aim. Set it next to the new one and test both with the same work. The best aim is the one that helps you judge the work and act on it.

‍

Bloom's, SOLO and depth of knowledge

Bloom's revised taxonomy groups the cognitive processes and knowledge that learners are expected to use. Biggs and Collis (1982) developed the SOLO taxonomy to describe the structure of an observed learning outcome. It shows how learning can move from disconnected elements towards an integrated understanding. The two frameworks answer different planning questions.

Webb (1997) proposed depth of knowledge as a way to consider the complexity needed to meet an expectation or assessment task. It directs attention to what a task demands over time and across its conditions. A familiar procedure and a strategic investigation can use the same verb while requiring different depth.

The teacher asks learners to “analyse” two water-cycle models. One learner lists three unconnected differences. Another explains how each difference changes the model's account of flooding. Bloom's label describes the intended process, while SOLO helps describe the structure visible in each response.

The teacher then checks the task's depth. If every difference is highlighted in advance, the learner mainly identifies supplied features. Removing that cue and adding conflicting evidence changes the complexity. The teacher adjusts support without pretending the frameworks have matching levels.

Use each frame for the job it does best. Bloom can help name the aim. SOLO can help read the shape of the response. Depth of knowledge can help test the load of the task.

‍

Where Bloom's taxonomy falls short

Bloom's taxonomy is a classification, not a tested law of how learning must proceed. Case (2013) criticised the common ladder reading because it can separate knowledge from thinking. A lesson does not need to visit all six categories, and learners need not complete them in a fixed order.

Create is not always the right goal. The curriculum may call instead for a precise explanation, a fluent procedure or a well-supported evaluation. The categories are not a ranking of value.

Hattie (2009) brought together evidence on many influences that affect achievement. This warns us not to treat one taxonomy as a complete account of effective learning. Hattie and Donoghue (2016) found that useful learning strategies depend partly on the phase of learning. Both the strategy and its timing therefore matter.

Recall is also essential. Learners need relevant knowledge to understand evidence, spot errors and give a clear response. Recall itself is not the problem. The problem is stopping at recall when the objective requires learners to see relationships, use knowledge or make a judgement.

The taxonomy can also hide differences between tasks in the same category. “Evaluate” may mean choosing between two familiar answers. It may also mean weighing uncertain evidence against several criteria. Teachers must examine the task, the subject knowledge and the accepted response, as the verb alone cannot do this work.

Nor does a high label make a task good. A vague “create” task may reveal less than a sharp recall check. Value comes from fit with the aim and from what the work lets the teacher see.

In the water-cycle lesson, the teacher asks learners to create a drought model before checking their explanation of evaporation. Several products look polished but contain broken causal links. The teacher pauses creation, retrieves key knowledge and asks learners to repair one link. Returning to recall strengthens the later creation task.

Try one change next lesson: choose a current objective, write the evidence you would accept, then check whether the task can actually produce it.

‍

References

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H. and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). New York: David McKay.

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

Psychomotor levels. Dave, R. H. (1970). In R. J. Armstrong (ed.), Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives. Tucson, AZ: Educational Innovators Press.

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

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

A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R. (eds) (2001). New York: Longman.

A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219-225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3

The Role of Assessment in the Revised Taxonomy. Airasian, P. W. and Miranda, H. (2002). Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 249-254. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_8

The Unfortunate Consequences of Bloom's Taxonomy. Case, R. (2013). Social Education, 77(4), 196-200. https://doi.org/10.66392/003777213814722303

Learning strategies: a synthesis and conceptual model. Hattie, J. A. C. and Donoghue, G. M. (2016). npj Science of Learning, 1, 16013. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.13

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

Criteria for Alignment of Expectations and Assessments in Mathematics and Science Education. Webb, N. L. (1997). Research Monograph No. 6. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

What is assessment for learning?. Wiliam, D. (2011). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001