Bloom's Taxonomy

Benjamin Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning Domains - Cognitive, Affective, Psychomotor Domains - design
and evaluation toolkit for training and learning.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1. Learning Domains

1.2. Development

1.3. Explanation

1.4. Definitions

1.5. Overview

1.6. Cognitive Domain

1.7. Affective Domain

1.8. Psychomotor Domain

1.9. Summary

1.10. References and publications

1.11. Authorship/referencing

Bloom's Taxonomy - Toolkit for Training and Learning[edit]

Learning Domains

Bloom's Taxonomy, (in full: 'Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning Domains', or strictly speaking: Bloom's
'Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives') was initially (the first part) published in 1956 under the leadership
of American academic and educational expert Dr Benjamin S Bloom. 'Bloom's Taxonomy' was originally
created in and for an academic context, (the development commencing in 1948), when Benjamin Bloom
chaired a committee of educational psychologists, based in American education, whose aim was to
develop a system of categories of learning behaviour to assist in the design and assessment of educational
learning. Bloom's Taxonomy has since been expanded over many years by Bloom and other contributors
(notably Anderson and Krathwhol as recently as 2001, whose theories extend Bloom's work to far more
complex levels than are explained here, and which are more relevant to the field of academic education
than to corporate training and development).
Where indicated Bloom's Taxonomy tables are adapted and reproduced with permission from Allyn &
Bacon, Boston USA, being the publishers and copyright owners of 'Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives'
(Bloom et al 1956).

Most corporate trainers and HR professionals, coaches and teachers, will benefit significantly by simply
understanding the basics of Bloom's Taxonomy, as featured below. (If you want to know more, there is a
vast amount of related reading and references, listed at the end of this summary explanation.)

Bloom's Taxonomy was primarily created for academic education, however it is relevant to all types
of learning.

Interestingly, at the outset, Bloom believed that education should focus on 'mastery' of subjects and the
promotion of higher forms of thinking, rather than a utilitarian approach to simply transferring facts.
Bloom demonstrated decades ago that most teaching tended to be focused on fact-transfer and
information recall - the lowest level of training - rather than true meaningful personal development, and
this remains a central challenge for educators and trainers in modern times. Much corporate training is
also limited to non-participative, unfeeling knowledge-transfer, (all those stultifyingly boring powerpoint
presentations...), which is reason alone to consider the breadth and depth approach exemplified in
Bloom's model.

You might find it helpful now to see the Bloom Taxonomy overview. Did you realise there were all these
potential dimensions to training and learning?

Development

Benjamin S Bloom (1913-99) attained degrees at Pennsylvania State University in 1935. He joined the
Department of Education at the University of Chicago in 1940 and attained a PhD in Education in 1942,
during which time he specialised in examining. Here he met his mentor Ralph Tyler with whom he first
began to develop his ideas for developing a system (or 'taxonomy') of specifications to enable educational
training and learning objectives to be planned and measured properly - improving the effectiveness of
developing 'mastery' instead of simply transferring facts for mindless recall. Bloom continued to develop
the Learning Taxonomy model through the 1960's, and was appointed Charles H Swift Distinguished
Service Professor at Chicago in 1970. He served as adviser on education to several overseas governments
including of Israel and India.

Bloom's (and his colleagues') initial attention was focused on the 'Cognitive Domain', which was the first
published part of Bloom's Taxonomy, featured in the publication: 'Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives:
Handbook 1, The Cognitive Domain' (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, Krathwohl, 1956).

The 'Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives: Handbook II, The Affective Domain' (Bloom, Masia, Krathwohl)
as the title implies, deals with the detail of the second domain, the 'Affective Domain', and was published
in 1964.

Various people suggested detail for the third 'Psychomotor Domain', which explains why this domain detail
varies in different representations of the complete Bloom Taxonomy. The three most popularly
referenced versions of the Psychomotor Domain seem to be those of RH Dave (1967/70), EJ
Simpson (1966/72), and AJ Harrow (1972).

As such 'Bloom's Taxonomy' describes the three-domain structure, within which the detail may vary,
especially for the third domain.

Bloom's Taxonomy has therefore since 1956 provided a basis for ideas which have been used (and
developed) around the world by academics, educators, teachers and trainers, for the preparation of
learning evaluation materials, and also provided the platform for the complete 'Bloom's Taxonomy'
(including the detail for the third 'Psychomotor Domain') as we see it today. Collectively these concepts
which make up the whole Bloom Taxonomy continue to be useful and very relevant to the planning and
design of: school, college and university education, adult and corporate training courses, teaching and
lesson plans, and learning materials; they also serve as a template for the evaluation of: training,
teaching, learning and development, within every aspect of education and industry.

If you are involved in the design, delivery or evaluation of teaching, training, courses, learning and lesson
plans, you should find Bloom's Taxonomy useful, as a template, framework or simple checklist to ensure
you are using the most appropriate type of training or learning in order to develop the capabilities
required or wanted.
Training or learning design and evaluation need not cover all aspects of the Taxonomy - just make
sure there is coverage of the aspects that are appropriate.

As such, if in doubt about your training aims - check what's possible, and perhaps required, by referring
to Bloom's Taxonomy.

Explanation

First, don't be put off by the language or the apparent complexity of Bloom's Taxonomy - at this basic
level it's a relatively simple and logical model.

Taxonomy means 'a set of classification principles', or 'structure', and Domain simply means 'category'.
Bloom and his colleagues were academics, looking at learning as a behavioural science, and writing for
other academics, which is why they never called it 'Bloom's Learning Structure', which would perhaps
have made more sense to people in the business world. (Interestingly this example of the use of technical
language provides a helpful lesson in learning itself, namely, if you want to get an idea across to people,
you should try to use language that your audience will easily recognise and understand.)

Bloom's Taxonomy underpins the classical 'Knowledge, Attitude, Skills' structure of learning method and
evaluation, and aside from the even simpler Kirkpatrick learning evaluation model, Bloom's Taxonomy of
Learning Domains remains the most widely used system of its kind in education particularly, and also
industry and corporate training. It's easy to see why, because it is such a simple, clear and effective
model, both for explanation and application of learning objectives, teaching and training methods, and
measurement of learning outcomes.

Bloom's Taxonomy provides an excellent structure for planning, designing, assessing and evaluating
training and learning effectiveness. The model also serves as a sort of checklist, by which you can ensure
that training is planned to deliver all the necessary development for students, trainees or learners, and
a template by which you can assess the validity and coverage of any existing training, be it a course, a
curriculum, or an entire training and development programme for a large organisation.

It is fascinating that Bloom's Taxonomy model (1956/64) and Kirkpatrick's learning evaluation
model (1959) remain classical reference models and tools into the 21st century. This is because concepts
such as Bloom's Taxonomy, Kirkpatrick's model, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Mcgregor's XY Theory,
The SWOT analysis model, and Berne's Transactional Analysis theory, to name a few other examples, are
timeless, and as such will always be relevant to the understanding and development of people and
organisations.

Definitions

Bloom's Taxonomy model is in three parts, or 'overlapping domains'. Again, Bloom used rather academic
language, but the meanings are simple to understand:

1. Cognitive domain (intellectual capability, ie., knowledge, or 'think')

2. Affective domain (feelings, emotions and behaviour, ie., attitude, or 'feel')
3. Psychomotor domain (manual and physical skills, ie., skills, or 'do')

This has given rise to the obvious short-hand variations on the theme which summarise the three domains;
for example, Skills-Knowledge-Attitude, KAS, Do-Think-Feel, etc.

Various people have since built on Bloom's work, notably in the third domain, the 'psychomotor' or skills,
which Bloom originally identified in a broad sense, but which he never fully detailed. This was apparently
because Bloom and his colleagues felt that the academic environment held insufficient expertise to
analyse and create a suitable reliable structure for the physical ability 'Psychomotor' domain. While this
might seem strange, such caution is not uncommon among expert and highly specialised academics - they
strive for accuracy as well as innovation. In Bloom's case it is as well that he left a few gaps for others to
complete the detail; the model seems to have benefited from having several different contributors fill in
the detail over the years, such as Anderson, Krathwhol, Masia, Simpson, Harrow and Dave (these last
three having each developed versions of the third 'Psychomotor' domain).

In each of the three domains Bloom's Taxonomy is based on the premise that the categories are ordered
in degree of difficulty. An important premise of Bloom's Taxonomy is that each category (or 'level')
must be mastered before progressing to the next. As such the categories within each domain are levels
of learning development, and these levels increase in difficulty.
The simple matrix structure enables a checklist or template to be constructed for the design of learning
programmes, training courses, lesson plans, etc. Effective learning - especially in organisations, where
training is to be converted into organisational results - should arguably cover all the levels of each of the
domains, where relevant to the situation and the learner.

The learner should benefit from development of knowledge and intellect (Cognitive Domain); attitude
and beliefs (Affective Domain); and the ability to put physical and bodily skills into effect - to act
(Psychomotor Domain).

Overview

Here's a really simple adapted 'at-a-glance' representation of Bloom's Taxonomy. The definitions are
intended to be simple modern day language, to assist explanation and understanding. This simple
overview can help you (and others) to understand and explain the taxonomy. Refer back to it when
considering and getting to grips with the detailed structures - this overview helps to clarify and distinguish
the levels.

For the more precise original Bloom Taxonomy terminology and definitions see the more detailed domain
structures beneath this at-a-glance model. It's helpful at this point to consider also the 'conscious
competence' learning stages model, which provides a useful perspective for all three domains, and the
concept of developing competence by stages in sequence.

Cognitive Affective Psychomotor

knowledge attitude skills
1. Recall data 1. Receive (awareness) 1. Imitation (copy)
2. Manipulation (follow
2. Understand 2. Respond (react)
instructions)
3. Value (understand and
3. Apply (use) 3. Develop Precision
act)
4. Analyse 4. Organise personal 4. Articulation (combine,
(structure/elements) value system integrate related skills)
5. Internalize value
5. Synthesize 5. Naturalization (automate,
system (adopt
(create/build) become expert)
behaviour)
6. Evaluate (assess, judge
in relational terms)

(Detail of Bloom's Taxonomy Domains: 'Cognitive Domain' - 'Affective Domain' - 'Psychomotor Domain')

N.B. In the Cognitive Domain, levels 5 and 6, Synthesis and Evaluation, were subsequently inverted by
Anderson and Krathwhol in 2001. Anderson and Krathwhol also developed a complex two-dimensional
extension of the Bloom Taxonomy, which is not explained here. If you want to learn more about the
bleeding edge of academic educational learning and evaluation there is a list of further references below.
For most mortals in teaching and training what's on this page is probably enough to make a start, and a
big difference.

Note also that the Psychomotor Domain featured above is based on the domain detail established by RH
Dave (who was a student of Bloom) in 1967 (conference paper) and 1970 (book). The Dave model is the
simplest and generally easiest to apply in the corporate development environment. Alternative
Psychomotor Domains structures have been suggested by others, notably Harrow and Simpson's models
detailed below. I urge you explore the Simpson and Harrow Psychomotor Domain alternatives - especially
for the development of children and young people, and for developing skills in adults that take people
out of their comfort zones. This is because the Simpson and Harrow models offer different emotional
perspectives and advantages, which are useful for certain learning situations, and which do not appear
so obviously in the structure of the Dave model.

(Back to the development of Bloom's Taxonomy.)

Bloom's Taxonomy in more detailed structure follows, with more formal terminology and definitions.
Refer back to the Bloom Taxonomy overview any time you need to refresh or clarify your perception of
the model. It is normal to find that the extra detail can initially cloud the basic structure - which is
actually quite simple - so it's helpful to keep the simple overview to hand.
Cognitive Domain
Intellect - knowledge - 'think'

Bloom's Taxonomy 1956 Cognitive Domain is as follows. An adjusted model was produced by Anderson
and Krathwhol in 2001 in which the levels five and six (synthesis and evaluation) were inverted (reference:
Anderson & Krathwohl, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, 2001). This is why you will see different versions of this Cognitive
Domain model. Debate continues as to the order of levels five and six, which is interesting given that
Bloom's Taxonomy states that the levels must be mastered in order.

In my humble opinion it's possible to argue either case (Synthesis then Evaluation, or vice-versa)
depending on the circumstances and the precise criteria stated or represented in the levels concerned,
plus the extent of 'creative thinking' and 'strategic authority' attributed to or expected at the 'Synthesis'
level. In short - pick the order which suits your situation. (Further comment about synthesis and
evaluation priority.)

cognitive domain
level category or 'level'
1 Knowledge
2 Comprehension
3 Application
4 Analysis
examples of activity to be 'key words' (verbs which
behaviour trained, or describe the activity to be
descriptions demonstration and trained or measured at
evidence to be measured each level)
multiple-choice test,
arrange, define, describe,
recount facts or statistics,
recall or recognise label, list, memorise,
recall a process, rules,
information recognise, relate, reproduce,
definitions; quote law or
select, state
procedure
explain or interpret explain, reiterate, reword,
meaning from a given critique, classify, summarise,
understand meaning,
scenario or statement, illustrate, translate, review,
re-state data in one's
suggest treatment, reaction report, discuss, re-write,
own words, interpret,
or solution to given estimate, interpret, theorise,
extrapolate, translate
problem, create examples paraphrase, reference,
or metaphors example
use, apply, discover,
use or apply
put a theory into practical manage, execute, solve,
knowledge, put theory
effect, demonstrate, solve a produce, implement,
into practice, use
problem, manage an construct, change, prepare,
knowledge in response
activity conduct, perform, react,
to real circumstances
respond, role-play
interpret elements, identify constituent parts analyse, break down,
organizational and functions of a process catalogue, compare,
 principles, structure, or concept, or de-construct quantify, measure, test,
construction, internal a methodology or process, examine, experiment, relate,
relationships; quality, making qualitative graph, diagram, plot,
reliability of individual assessment of elements, extrapolate, value, divide
components relationships, values and
effects; measure
requirements or needs
develop plans or
develop new unique procedures, design develop, plan, build, create,
structures, systems, solutions, integrate design, organise, revise,
Synthesis
5 models, approaches, methods, resources, ideas, formulate, propose,
(create/build)
ideas; creative parts; create teams or new establish, assemble,
thinking, operations approaches, write integrate, re-arrange, modify
protocols or contingencies
review strategic options or
plans in terms of efficacy,
return on investment or
cost-effectiveness,
assess effectiveness of
practicability; assess
whole concepts, in
sustainability; perform
relation to values,
a SWOT analysis in review, justify, assess,
outputs, efficacy,
relation to alternatives; present a case for, defend,
viability; critical
6 Evaluation produce a financial report on, investigate, direct,
thinking, strategic
justification for a appraise, argue, project-
comparison and
proposition or venture, manage
review; judgement
calculate the effects of a
relating to external
plan or strategy; perform a
criteria
detailed and costed risk
analysis with
recommendations and
justifications

Refresh your understanding of where this fits into the Bloom Taxonomy overview.

Based on the 'Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1, The Cognitive Domain' (Bloom,
Engelhart, Furst, Hill, Krathwohl) 1956. This table is adapted and reproduced with permission from Allyn
& Bacon, Boston USA, being the publishers and copyright owners of 'Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives'
(Bloom et al 1956).

Note that levels 5 and 6, Synthesis and Evaluation, were subsequently inverted by Anderson and Krathwhol
in 2001, on which point:

Synthesis - Evaluation
In my view, the question of the order of Synthesis and Evaluation is dependent upon the extent of
strategic expectation and authority that is built into each, which depends on your situation. Hence it is
possible to make a case for Bloom's original order shown above, or Anderson and Krathwhol's version of
2001 (which simply inverts levels 5 and 6).

The above version is the original, and according to the examples and assumptions presented in the above
matrix, is perfectly appropriate and logical. I also personally believe the above order to be appropriate
for corporate and industrial training and development if 'Evaluation' is taken to represent executive
or strategic assessment and decision-making, which is effectively at the pinnacle of the corporate
intellect-set.

I believe inversion of Synthesis and Evaluation carries a risk unless it is properly qualified. This is because
the highest skill level absolutely must involve strategic evaluation; effective management - especially
of large activities or organisations - relies on strategic evaluation. And clearly, strategic evaluation, is
by implication included in the 'Evaluation' category.

I would also argue that in order to evaluate properly and strategically, we need first to have learned and
experienced the execution of the strategies (ie, to have completed the synthesis step) that we intend to
evaluate.

However, you should feel free to invert levels 5 and 6 if warranted by your own particular circumstances,
particularly if your interpretation of 'Evaluation' is non-strategic, and not linked to decision-making.
Changing the order of the levels is warranted if local circumstances alter the degree of difficulty.
Remember, the taxonomy is based in the premise that the degree of difficulty increases through the
levels - people need to learn to walk before they can run - it's that simple. So, if your situation causes
'Synthesis' to be more challenging than 'Evaluation', then change the order of the levels accordingly (ie.,
invert 5 and 6 like Anderson and Krathwhol did), so that you train people in the correct order.
Affective Domain
Feeling, emotions - attitude - 'feel'

Bloom's Taxonomy second domain, the Affective Domain, was detailed by Bloom, Krathwhol and Masia in
1964 (Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Volume II, The Affective Domain. Bloom, Krathwohl and
Masia.) Bloom's theory advocates this structure and sequence for developing attitude - also now commonly
expressed in the modern field of personal development as 'beliefs'. Again, as with the other domains, the
Affective Domain detail provides a framework for teaching, training, assessing and evaluating the
effectiveness of training and lesson design and delivery, and also the retention by and affect upon the
learner or trainee.

affective domain
'key words' (verbs which
examples of experience,
behaviour describe the activity to be
level category or 'level' or demonstration and
descriptions trained or measured at each
evidence to be measured
level)
listen to teacher or trainer,
ask, listen, focus, attend, take
take interest in session or
part, discuss, acknowledge,
open to experience, learning experience, take
1 Receive hear, be open to, retain,
willing to hear notes, turn up, make time
follow, concentrate, read, do,
for learning experience,
feel
participate passively
participate actively in react, respond, seek
group discussion, active clarification, interpret, clarify,
participation in activity, provide other references and
react and participate
2 Respond interest in outcomes, examples, contribute,
actively
enthusiasm for action, question, present, cite,
question and probe ideas, become animated or excited,
suggest interpretation help team, write, perform
decide worth and
attach values and relevance of ideas, argue, challenge, debate,
3 Value express personal experiences; accept or refute, confront, justify,
opinions commit to particular persuade, criticise,
stance or action
qualify and quantify build, develop, formulate,
Organise or reconcile internal
personal views, state defend, modify, relate,
4 Conceptualize conflicts; develop
personal position and prioritise, reconcile, contrast,
values value system
reasons, state beliefs arrange, compare
Internalize or self-reliant; behave
adopt belief system act, display, influence, solve,
5 characterise consistently with personal
and philosophy practice,
values value set
Based on the 'Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives: Volume 2, The Affective Domain' (Bloom, Masia,
Krathwohl) 1964. See also 'Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1, The Cognitive Domain'
(Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, Krathwohl) 1956. This table is adapted and reproduced with permission
from Allyn & Bacon, Boston USA, being the publishers and copyright owners of 'Taxonomy Of Educational
Objectives' (Bloom et al 1956).

This domain for some people can be a little trickier to understand than the others. The differences
between the levels, especially between 3, 4, and 5, are subtle, and not so clear as the separations
elsewhere in the Taxonomy. You will find it easier to understand if you refer back to the bloom's taxonomy
learning domains at-a-glance.

Psychomotor Domain
Physical - skills - 'do'

The Psychomotor Domain was ostensibly established to address skills development relating to manual
tasks and physical movement, however it also concerns and covers modern day business and social skills
such as communications and operation IT equipment, for example telephone and keyboard skills, or public
speaking. Thus, 'motor' skills extend beyond the originally traditionally imagined manual and physical
skills, so always consider using this domain, even if you think your environment is covered adequately by
the Cognitive and Affective Domains. Whatever the training situation, it is likely that the Psychomotor
Domain is significant. The Dave version of the Psychomotor Domain is featured most prominently here
because in my view it is the most relevant and helpful for work- and life-related development, although
the Psychomotor Domains suggested by Simpson and Harrow are more relevant and helpful for certain
types of adult training and development, as well as the teaching and development of young people and
children, so do explore them all. Each has its uses and advantages.
Dave's psychomotor domain taxonomy

psychomotor domain (dave)

'key words' (verbs which
examples of activity or
behaviour describe the activity to be
level category or 'level' demonstration and
descriptions trained or measured at each
evidence to be measured
level)
watch teacher or trainer
copy action of another; copy, follow, replicate,
1 Imitation and repeat action, process
observe and replicate repeat, adhere
or activity
reproduce activity
carry out task from written re-create, build, perform,
2 Manipulation from instruction or
or verbal instruction execute, implement
memory
perform a task or activity
with expertise and to high
execute skill reliably, quality without assistance demonstrate, complete, show,
3 Precision
independent of help or instruction; able to perfect, calibrate, control,
demonstrate an activity to
other learners
relate and combine
construct, solve, combine,
adapt and integrate associated activities to
coordinate, integrate, adapt,
4 Articulation expertise to satisfy a develop methods to meet
develop, formulate, modify,
non-standard objective varying, novel
master
requirements
automated, define aim, approach and
unconscious mastery strategy for use of design, specify, manage,
5 Naturalization
of activity and related activities to meet strategic invent, project-manage
skills at strategic level need

Based on RH Dave's version of the Psychomotor Domain ('Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives',
1970. The theory was first presented at a Berlin conference 1967, hence you may see Dave's model
attributed to 1967 or 1970).

Refresh your understanding of where the Psychomotor Domain fits into the Bloom Taxonomy overview.

It is also useful to refer to the 'Conscious Competence' model, which arguably overlays, and is a
particularly helpful perspective for explaining and representing the 'Psychomotor' domain, and notably
Dave's version. (The 'Conscious Competence' model also provides a helpful perspective for the other two
domains - Cognitive and Affective, and for the alternative Psychomotor Domains suggested
by Harrow and Simpson below.)
Alternative psychomotor domain

Dave's Psychomotor Domain above is probably the most commonly referenced and used psychomotor
domain interpretation. There are certainly two others; Simpson's, and Harrow's, (if you know any others
please contact us).

It's worth exploring and understanding the differences between the three Psychomotor Domain
interpretations. Certainly each is different and has a different use.

In my view the Dave model is adequate and appropriate for most adult training in the workplace.

For young children, or for adults learning entirely new and challenging physical skills (which may require
some additional attention to awareness and perception, and mental preparation), or for anyone learning
skills which involve expression of feeling and emotion, then the Simpson or Harrow models can be more
useful because they more specifically address these issues.

Simpson's version is particularly useful if you are taking adults out of their comfort zones, because it
addresses sensory, perception (and by implication attitudinal) and preparation issues. For example
anything fearsome or threatening, like emergency routines, conflict situations, tough physical tasks or
conditions.

Harrow's version is particularly useful if you are developing skills which are intended ultimately to
express, convey and/or influence feelings, because its final level specifically addresses the translation of
bodily activities (movement, communication, body language, etc) into conveying feelings and emotion,
including the effect on others. For example, public speaking, training itself, and high-level presentation
skills.

The Harrow and Simpson models are also appropriate for other types of adult development. For example,
teaching adults to run a difficult meeting, or make a parachute jump, will almost certainly warrant
attention on sensory perception and awareness, and on preparing oneself mentally, emotionally, and
physically. In such cases therefore, Simpson's or Harrow's model would be more appropriate than Dave's.

Simpson's psychomotor domain taxonomy

Elizabeth Simpson's interpretation of the Psychomotor domain differs from Dave's chiefly because it
contains extra two levels prior to the initial imitation or copy stage. Arguably for certain situations,
Simpson's first two levels, 'Perception' and 'Set' stage are assumed or incorporated within Dave's first
'Imitation' level, assuming that you are dealing with fit and healthy people (probably adults rather than
young children), and that 'getting ready' or 'preparing oneself' is part of the routine to be taught, learned
or measured. If not, then the more comprehensive Simpson version might help ensure that these two
prerequisites for physical task development are checked and covered. As such, the Simpson model or the
Harrow version is probably preferable than the Dave model for the development of young children.

psychomotor domain (simpson)

'key words' (verbs which
examples of activity or
describe the activity to be
level category or 'level' description demonstration and
trained or measured at each
evidence to be measured
level)
use and/or selection of
recognise, distinguish, notice,
1 Perception awareness senses to absorb data for
touch , hear, feel, etc
guiding movement
mental, physical or
2 Set readiness emotional preparation arrange, prepare, get set
before experience or task
imitate or follow
3 Guided Response attempt imitate, copy, follow, try
instruction, trial and error
competently respond to make, perform, shape,
4 Mechanism basic proficiency
stimulus for action complete
Complex Overt execute a complex process
5 expert proficiency coordinate, fix, demonstrate
Response with expertise
alter response to reliably
6 Adaptation adaptable proficiency adjust, integrate, solve
meet varying challenges
develop and execute new
design, formulate, modify, re-
7 Origination creative proficiency integrated responses and
design, trouble-shoot
activities

Adapted and simplified representation of Simpson's Psychomotor Domain ('The classification of

educational objectives in the psychomotor domain', 1972). Elizabeth Simpson seems actually to have first
presented her Psychomotor Domain interpretation in 1966 in the Illinois Journal of Home Economics.
Hence you may see the theory attributed to either 1966 or 1972.

Harrow's psychomotor domain taxonomy

Harrow's interpretation of the Psychomotor domain is strongly biased towards the development of
physical fitness, dexterity and agility, and control of the physical 'body', to a considerable level of
expertise. As such the Harrow model is more appropriate to the development of young children's bodily
movement, skills, and expressive movement than, say, the development of a corporate trainee's keyboard
skills. By the same token, the Harrow model would be perhaps more useful for the development of adult
public speaking or artistic performance skills than Dave's or Simpson's, because the Harrow model focuses
on the translation of physical and bodily activity into meaningful expression. The Harrow model is the
only one of the three Psychomotor Domain versions which specifically implies emotional influence on
others within the most expert level of bodily control, which to me makes it rather special.

As ever, choose the framework that best fits your situation, and the needs and aims of the trainees or
students.

psychomotor domain (harrow)

'key words' (verbs which
examples of activity or
describe the activity to be
level category or 'level' description demonstration and
trained or measured at
evidence to be measured
each level)
respond physically
1 Reflex Movement involuntary reaction react, respond
instinctively
Basic
basic simple alter position, move,
2 Fundamental grasp, walk, stand, throw
movement perform simple action
Movements
use than one ability in
Perceptual catch, write, explore,
3 basic response response to different
Abilities distinguish using senses
sensory perceptions
develop strength, endure, maintain, repeat,
4 Physical Abilities fitness
endurance, agility, control increase, improve, exceed
execute and adapt
Skilled drive, build, juggle, play a
5 complex operations advanced, integrated
Movements musical instrument, craft
movements
meaningfully express and convey feeling
Non-discursive activity expresses
6 expressive activity or and meaning through
Communication meaningful interpretation
output movement and actions

Adapted and simplified representation of Harrow's Psychomotor Domain (1972). (Non-discursive means
intuitively direct and well expressed.)
Summary

Bloom's Taxonomy is a wonderful reference model for all involved in teaching, training, learning, coaching
- in the design, delivery and evaluation of these development methods. At its basic level (refresh your
memory of the Bloom Taxonomy overview if helpful), the Taxonomy provides a simple, quick and easy
checklist to start to plan any type of personal development. It helps to open up possibilities for all aspects
of the subject or need concerned, and suggests a variety of the methods available for delivery of teaching
and learning. As with any checklist, it also helps to reduce the risks of overlooking some vital aspects of
the development required.

The more detailed elements within each domain provide additional reference points for learning design
and evaluation, whether for a single lesson, session or activity, or training need, or for an entire course,
programme or syllabus, across a large group of trainees or students, or a whole organisation.

And at its most complex, Bloom's Taxonomy is continuously evolving, through the work of academics
following in the footsteps of Bloom's early associates, as a fundamental concept for the development of
formalised education across the world.

As with so many of the classical models involving the development of people and organisations, you
actually have a choice as to how to use Bloom's Taxonomy. It's a tool - or more aptly - a toolbox. Tools
are most useful when the user controls them; not vice-versa.

Use Bloom's Taxonomy in the ways that you find helpful for your own situation.

References and publications

Further information and detail relating to Bloom's Taxonomy follows, which includes theories developed
by others, such as Hauenstein and Marzano, who demonstrate the ongoing extension of Bloom's Taxonomy
concept:

Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I, The cognitive domain. Bloom et al. 1956

Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: The affective
domain. Bloom, Krathwhol, Masia, 1964
Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. B Bloom, 1965

The classification of educational objectives in the Psychomotor domain. EJ Simpson, 1972

Developing and writing educational objectives (Psychomotor levels pp. 33-34). RH Dave, 1970

A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives. AJ Harrow, 1972

A comprehensive framework for instructional objectives: A guide to systematic planning and evaluation.
Hannah and Michaelis, 1977

A conceptual framework for educational objectives: A holistic approach to traditional taxonomies. AD

Hauenstein, 1988

Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty-Year Retrospective. Anderson & Sosniak, 1994

Benjamin Bloom 1913-99 . A paper by Prof. Elliot W Eisner, 2000. (UNESCO: International Bureau of
Education.)

A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives. Anderson, Krathwohl et al. 2001

Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives, RJ Marzano, 2001

Referencing materials on this page

Your preferred referencing phraseology/protocol would determine how you combine the following into
an appropriate attribution.

If you do not understand referencing then search Google for 'referencing'. Look at the different methods
(eg, Harvard, Vancouver, etc) which are explained on various university websites, and if appropriate seek
guidance from your tutor or course handbook/information.

Given the different originators of the various component models (tables) on this page, the precise data
to include in the reference will depend on what content exactly you use.

Essentially the technical content (tables) should be credited according to the origination details given
below each table.

Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning Domains is my own preferred way to describe the overall concept, but
there are other over-arching headings used for the concept (usually beginning with Bloom's Taxonomy..),
and you should feel free to use an alternative heading if you want to.

The presentation of the Bloom Taxonomy models on this webpage is probably best described as an
interpretation or explanation of Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning Domains, December 2006. The retrieval
date, webpage URL (address) and website name should also be included in the reference. The URL
is https://www.businessballs.com/self-awareness/blooms-taxonomy// The website is
www.businessballs.com. My name is Alan Chapman.

The free use of these materials is for teaching and study purposes and does not extend to publication in
any form.

Allyn & Bacon, Boston USA, are publishers and copyright owners of 'Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives'
(Bloom et al 1956), and seem to be the most significant point of contact for publishing permission of the
Bloom Taxonomy tables, although their interests do not extend to all of the the precise interpretations
or the explanatory/contextual materials on this page.