bloom's taxonomy - learning

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

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 of bloom's taxonomy

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.

bloom's taxonomy 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).

bloom's taxonomy 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 1. Imitation

(awareness) (copy)
2. Understand
2. Respond 2. Manipulation
3. Apply (use) (react) (follow
instructions)
4. Analyse 3. Value
(structure/elements (understand 3. Develop
) and act) Precision

5. Synthesize 4. Organise 4. Articulation

(create/build) personal (combine,
value integrate related
system skills)

5. 5. Naturalization
Internalize (automate,
6. Evaluate (assess, value become expert)
judge in relational system
terms) (adopt
behaviour)
(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.

bloom's taxonomy learning

domains - detailed structures
 1. bloom's taxonomy - 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

'key
words'
(verbs
examples of
which
activity to be
describe
behaviour trained, or
category or the
level description demonstratio
'level' activity to
s n and
be trained
evidence to
or
be measured
measured
at each
level)

1 Knowledge recall or multiple-choice arrange,

recognise test, recount define,
information facts or statistics, describe,
 label, list,
recall a process, memorise,
rules, definitions; recognise,
quote law or relate,
procedure reproduce,
select, state

explain,
reiterate,
reword,
explain or critique,
interpret classify,
understand meaning from a summarise,
meaning, re- given scenario or illustrate,
state data in statement, translate,
Comprehensio one's own suggest review,
2
n words, treatment, report,
interpret, reaction or discuss, re-
extrapolate, solution to given write,
translate problem, create estimate,
examples or interpret,
metaphors theorise,
paraphrase,
reference,
example

use, apply,
discover,
manage,
execute,
use or apply
solve,
knowledge, put a theory into
produce,
put theory into practical effect,
implement,
practice, use demonstrate,
3 Application construct,
knowledge in solve a problem,
change,
response to manage an
prepare,
real activity
conduct,
circumstances
perform,
react,
respond,
role-play

4 Analysis interpret identify analyse,

elements, constituent parts break down,
 and functions of a
process or catalogue,
organizational concept, or de- compare,
principles, construct a quantify,
structure, methodology or measure,
construction, process, making test,
internal qualitative examine,
relationships; assessment of experiment,
quality, elements, relate, graph,
reliability of relationships, diagram,
individual values and plot,
components effects; measure extrapolate,
requirements or value, divide
needs

develop,
develop plans or plan, build,
develop new procedures, create,
unique design solutions, design,
structures, integrate organise,
systems, methods, revise,
Synthesis
5 models, resources, ideas, formulate,
(create/build)
approaches, parts; create propose,
ideas; creative teams or new establish,
thinking, approaches, write assemble,
operations protocols or integrate, re-
contingencies arrange,
modify

6 Evaluation assess review strategic review,

effectiveness options or plans justify,
of whole in terms of assess,
concepts, in efficacy, return present a
relation to on investment or case for,
values, cost- defend,
outputs, effectiveness, report on,
efficacy, practicability; investigate,
viability; assess direct,
critical sustainability; appraise,
thinking, perform a SWOT argue,
strategic analysis in project-
comparison relation to manage
and review; alternatives;
judgement produce a
 financial
justification for a
proposition or
venture, calculate
the effects of a
relating to plan or strategy;
external perform a
criteria detailed and
costed risk
analysis with
recommendation
s 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:

cognitive domain - order ranking of

'synthesis' and '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.

2. bloom's taxonomy - 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
examples of
which
experience,
describe
behaviour or
category or the activity
level description demonstratio
'level' to be
s n and
trained or
evidence to
measured
be measured
at each
level)

listen to teacher
or trainer, take ask, listen,
interest in focus, attend,
session or take part,
learning discuss,
open to
experience, take acknowledge,
1 Receive experience,
notes, turn up, hear, be open
willing to hear
make time for to, retain,
learning follow,
experience, concentrate,
participate read, do, feel
passively

react,
respond, seek
clarification,
participate interpret,
actively in group clarify,
discussion, active provide other
participation in references
react and activity, interest and
2 Respond participate in outcomes, examples,
actively enthusiasm for contribute,
action, question question,
and probe ideas, present, cite,
suggest become
interpretation animated or
excited, help
team, write,
perform
 argue,
decide worth and
challenge,
relevance of
attach values debate,
ideas,
and express refute,
3 Value experiences;
personal confront,
accept or commit
opinions justify,
to particular
persuade,
stance or action
criticise,

build,
develop,
qualify and formulate,
reconcile
quantify personal defend,
Organise or internal
views, state modify, relate,
4 Conceptualiz conflicts;
personal position prioritise,
e values develop value
and reasons, reconcile,
system
state beliefs contrast,
arrange,
compare

self-reliant;
act, display,
Internalize or adopt belief behave
influence,
5 characterise system and consistently with
solve,
values philosophy personal value
practice,
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.
 3. bloom's taxonomy - 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
describe
activity or
behaviour the
category or demonstratio
level description activity to
'level' n and
s be trained
evidence to
or
be measured
measured
at each
level)

1 Imitation copy action of watch teacher or copy, follow,

another; trainer and replicate,
observe and repeat action, repeat,
replicate process or adhere
 activity

re-create,
reproduce
carry out task build,
activity from
2 Manipulation from written or perform,
instruction or
verbal instruction execute,
memory
implement

perform a task or
activity with
expertise and to
demonstrate,
execute skill high quality
complete,
reliably, without
3 Precision show, perfect,
independent of assistance or
calibrate,
help instruction; able
control,
to demonstrate
an activity to
other learners

construct,
relate and solve,
adapt and combine combine,
integrate associated coordinate,
expertise to activities to integrate,
4 Articulation
satisfy a non- develop methods adapt,
standard to meet varying, develop,
objective novel formulate,
requirements modify,
master

automated, define aim, design,

unconscious approach and specify,
Naturalizatio mastery of strategy for use manage,
5
n activity and of activities to invent,
related skills at meet strategic project-
strategic level need manage

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

taxonomy versions
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)

level category descriptio examples of 'key

or 'level' n activity or words'
demonstratio (verbs
n and which
evidence to describe
be measured the
activity to
be trained
 or
measured
at each
level)

use and/or recognise,

selection of distinguish,
1 Perception awareness senses to absorb notice, touch
data for guiding , hear, feel,
movement etc

mental, physical
or emotional
arrange,
preparation
2 Set readiness prepare, get
before
set
experience or
task

imitate or follow
Guided imitate, copy,
3 attempt instruction, trial
Response follow, try
and error

competently make,
basic respond to perform,
4 Mechanism
proficiency stimulus for shape,
action complete

Complex execute a coordinate,

expert
5 Overt complex process fix,
proficiency
Response with expertise demonstrate

alter response to
adjust,
adaptable reliably meet
6 Adaptation integrate,
proficiency varying
solve
challenges

develop and design,

execute new formulate,
creative
7 Origination integrated modify, re-
proficiency
responses and design,
activities trouble-shoot
 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)

level category or descriptio examples of 'key

'level' n activity or words'
demonstratio (verbs
n and which
evidence to describe
be measured the
activity to
be trained
or
measured
at each
 level)

respond
Reflex involuntary react,
1 physically
Movement reaction respond
instinctively

Basic alter position,

basic simple grasp, walk,
2 Fundamental move, perform
movement stand, throw
Movements simple action

use than one

catch, write,
ability in
Perceptual basic explore,
3 response to
Abilities response distinguish
different sensory
using senses
perceptions

endure,
maintain,
develop strength,
Physical repeat,
4 fitness endurance,
Abilities increase,
agility, control
improve,
exceed

drive, build,
execute and
juggle, play a
Skilled complex adapt advanced,
5 musical
Movements operations integrated
instrument,
movements
craft

express and
convey
meaningfully
Non-discursive activity expresses feeling and
expressive
6 Communicatio meaningful meaning
activity or
n interpretation through
output
movement
and actions

Adapted and simplified representation of Harrow's Psychomotor

Domain (1972). (Non-discursive means intuitively direct and well
expressed.)
in conclusion
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.

bloom taxonomy and educational

objectives 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