Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy modified the original 1956 framework by updating the names of the levels to verbs, reordering the upper levels, and adding a second dimension for types of knowledge. The revision clarifies which students do cognitive and how these actions interact with factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge.
How Bloom’s Taxonomy Changed
- Nouns to verbs: levels reformulated as cognitive actions: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create.
- Top-level rearrangement: Create placed above Evaluate to reflect generative thinking.
- Two dimensions: pairing of Cognitive process with Dimension of knowledge (Factual, conceptual, procedural, metacognitive).
- Clearer alignment: objectives, instruction and assessment mapped to the taxonomy table.
- Modernized language: Understanding becomes Understanding; Knowledge becomes Remember.
- Planning impact: encourages task verbs and evidence of learning rather than category labels.
Original vs Reworked Level Names
| Original (1956) | Reworked (2001) |
|---|---|
| knowledge | Remember |
| understanding | Find out |
| Application | Apply |
| Analysis | Analyze |
| Synthesis | Create |
| Assessment | Rate it |
What has changed beyond words
The revision introduced Taxonomic table: a network that intersects six cognitive processes with four types of knowledge. This helps teachers to more accurately define outcomes and grades, e.g. Analyze x using conceptual knowledge or Apply y using procedural knowledge.
- Knowledge Dimension: Factual, conceptual, procedural, metacognitive.
- Process-Knowledge Pairing: clarifies task design and quality of evidence.
- Implications of the assessment: verb choice signals expectant thinking and a focus on scoring.
Why was it revised?
From 1995 to 2000, a team led by Lorin Anderson and David Kratvoll updated Bloom’s Taxonomy to reflect contemporary cognitive science and classroom assessment practice. The goal was to honor the original while making it more applicable to planning, instruction, and assessment.
Reference: David R. Krathwohl (2002). Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. The theory in practice41 (4), 212–218.
