Leslie Owen Wilson 2006,  restrictions on usage

Background: In the late 1950s into the early 1970s here in the US there were attempts to dissect and classify the varied domains of human learning  - cognitive (knowing, head), affective (feeling, heart) and psychomotor (doing, hand/body). The resulting efforts yielded a series of taxonomies in each area. A taxonomy is really just a word for a form of classification. The aforementioned taxonomies deal with the varied aspects of human learning and are arranged hierarchically proceeding from the simplest functions to those that are more complex.

While all of the taxonomies above have been defined and are explained in this site via the hotlinks, the material below is a simple overview of the newer version of the cognitive domain. You can also search the Web for various references on these different taxonomies, as well as explore the active hyperlinks below. There are many valuable discussions of the development of the varied taxonomies and examples of their usefulness and application in teaching. If you find that some of my links are not working, please let me know through my e-mail link as I know how frustrating that can be. Also, if you have additional related resources that you think I might be interested in, please write sending the URL.

The Cognitive Domain: In the following table are the two primary existing taxonomies of cognition. The one on the left, entitled Bloom's, is based on the original work of Benjamin Bloom and others as they attempted in 1956 to define the functions of thought, coming to know, or cognition. This taxonomy is over 50 years old.

The taxonomy on the right is the more recent adaptation and is the redefined work of one of Bloom's former students, Lorin Anderson, working with one of Bloom's partners in the original work on cognition, David Krathwohl. That one is labeled Anderson and Krathwohl.  The new taxonomy was a larger group effort lead by Anderson and Krathwohl as they worked on this task from from 1995-2000. The group was assembled by the primary authors and included people with expertise in the areas of cognitive psychology, curriculum and instruction, and educational testing, measurement, and assessment. 

As you will see the primary differences are not just in the listings or rewordings from nouns to verbs, or in the renaming of some of the components, or even in the repositioning of the last two categories. The major differences in the updated version is in the more useful and comprehensive additions of how the taxonomy intersects and acts upon different types and levels of knowledge -- factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive.      

Taxonomies of the Cognitive Domain:

Table 1.1  Bloom vs. Anderson/Krathwohl 

Visual comparison of the two taxonomies

One of the things that clearly differentiates the new model from that of the 1956 original is that it lays out components nicely so they can be considered and used, and so cognitive processes as related to chosen instructional tasks can be easily documented and tracked. This feature has the potential to make teacher assessment, teacher self-assessment, and student assessment easier or clearer as usage patterns emerge.

Perhaps surprisingly, these levels of knowledge were indicated in Bloom's original work - factual, conceptual, and procedural - but these were never fully understood or used by teachers because most of what educators were given in training consisted of a simple chart with the listing of levels and related accompanying verbs. The full breadth of Handbook I and its recommendations on types of knowledge were rarely discussed in any instructive or useful way. Nor were teachers in training ever made aware of any of the criticisms leveled against the original model. Please note that in the updated version the term "metacognitive" has been added to the array of knowledge types.

Here are the intersections as the processes impact the levels of knowledge. Using a simple cross impact grid or table like the one below, one can match easily activities and objectives to the types of knowledge and to the cognitive processes as well. It is a very useful tool to use in assessing how instruction is actually impacting levels of learning. Teachers can also use it to track which levels of cognition they are requiring from students, as well as which dimensions of knowledge.  

Knowledge Dimensions Defined:  

Factual Knowledge is knowledge that is basic to specific disciplines. This dimension refers to essential facts, terminology, details or elements students must know or be familiar with in order to understand a discipline or solve a problem in it. 

Conceptual Knowledge is knowledge of classifications, principles, generalizations, theories, models, or structures pertinent to a particular disciplinary area.   

Procedural Knowledge refers to information or knowledge that helps students to do something specific to a discipline, subject, area of study. It also refers to methods of inquiry, very specific or finite skills, algorithms, techniques, and particular methodologies. 

Metacognitive Knowledge is the awareness of one�s own cognition and particular cognitive processes. It is strategic or reflective knowledge about how to go about solving problems, cognitive tasks, to include contextual and conditional knowledge and knowledge of self. 

A comprehensive example from the book is provided with publisher permission at http://www.scribd.com/doc/933640/Bloom-Revised

    Sources:

     Anderson, L. W. and David R. Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds..) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group) 

     Bloom, B.S. and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. NY, NY: Longmans, Green