Bloom’s Taxonomy: A Caveat | Learning Outcomes at Seneca | Seneca Polytechnic

Bloom’s Taxonomy, as revised by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) is a popular resource when it comes to selecting appropriate verbs. Some argue that the triangular representation of Bloom’s provides a false hierarchical vision of learning, one that does not reflect how learning happens. Author Doug Lemov (2017) comments on the framework by noting that its segmented nature gives rise to misconceptions about how teaching and learning occur in practice.

Author Dylan Wiliam has conceptualized and personalized Bloom’s, to break the hierarchical nature of the framework.

In his revised version above, Dylan Wiliam suggests that knowledge is the foundation upon which the other skills are built.

Wiliam’s suggestion is similar to what Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) suggested in their revised taxonomy, which focused on a two-dimensional arrangement, including the knowledge dimension, and the cognitive processes dimension. The table below is from their book, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Suggestions for appropriate verbs have been separately added.

Example: The Student will apply the reduce-reuse-recycle approach to conservation (example from Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, p.32). The appropriate cell has been marked with an “X” in the table above.

Definitions for the major types of the knowledge dimension are provided below, as found in Anderson and Krathwohl (2001, p.29).