1. A Model of Learning Objectives based on A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Among other modifications, Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revision of the original Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956) redefines the cognitive domain as the intersection of the Cognitive Process Dimension and the Knowledge Dimension. This document offers a three-dimensional representation of the revised taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Although the Cognitive Process and Knowledge dimensions are represented as hierarchical steps, the distinctions between categories are not always clear-cut. For example, all procedural knowledge is not necessarily more abstract than all conceptual knowledge; and an objective that involves analyzing or evaluating may require thinking skills that are no less complex than one that involves creating. It is generally understood, nonetheless, that lower order thinking skills are subsumed by, and provide the foundation for higher order thinking skills. The Knowledge Dimension classifies four types of knowledge that learners may be expected to acquire or construct— ranging from concrete to abstract (Table 1). Table 1. The Knowledge Dimension – major types and subtypes concrete knowledge abstract knowledge factual conceptual procedural metacognitive* knowledge of terminology knowledge of classifications and categories knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms strategic knowledge knowledge of principles and generalizations knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods knowledge of theories, models, and structures knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures knowledge of specific details and elements (Table 1 adapted from Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, p. 46.) *Metacognitive knowledge is a special case. In this model, “metacognitive knowledge is knowledge of [one’s own] cognition and about oneself in relation to various subject matters . . . ” (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, p. 44). knowledge about cognitive tasks, including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge self-knowledge

2. This taxonomy provides a framework for determining and clarifying learning objectives. Learning activities often involve both lower order and higher order thinking skills as well as a mix of concrete and abstract knowledge. The Cognitive Process Dimension represents a continuum of increasing cognitive complexity—from lower order thinking skills to higher order thinking skills. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) identify nineteen specific cognitive processes that further clarify the scope of the six categories (Table 2). Table 2. The Cognitive Processes dimension — categories & cognitive processes and alternative names lower order thinking skills higher order thinking skills remember understand apply analyze evaluate create recognizing interpreting executing differentiating checking generating • identifying recalling • retrieving • clarifying • paraphrasing • representing • translating • carrying out implementing • using exemplifying • illustrating • instantiating classifying • categorizing • subsuming summarizing • abstracting • generalizing inferring • concluding • extrapolating • interpolating • predicting comparing • contrasting • mapping • matching explaining • constructing models (Table 2 adapted from Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 67–68.) • discriminating • distinguishing • focusing • selecting organizing • finding coherence • integrating • outlining • parsing • structuring attributing • deconstructing • coordinating • detecting • monitoring • testing critiquing • judging • hypothesizing planning • designing producing • constructing

3. A statement of a learning objective contains a verb (an action) and an object (usually a noun). Create • The verb generally refers to [actions associated with] the intended cognitive process. an innovative learning portfolio. • The object generally describes the knowledge students are expected to acquire or construct. (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 4–5) *Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition). New York: Longman. Use Integrate techniques that match one’s strengths. Predict Identify Carryout Recall advice to novices. Classify how toperform CPR. Recognize features of a new product. List primary and secondary colors. Check for consistencyamong sources. Select to frequentlyasked questions. Summarize symptoms of exhaustion. a log of daily activities. the most complete list of activities. Respond adhesivesby toxicity. A Model of Learning Objectives–based on A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives by Rex Heer, Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, Iowa State University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. high and low culture. Provide assembly instructions. Generate relevanceof results. Differentiate pH tests of water samples. a team of experts. Determine compliancewith regulations. Clarify strategies forretaining information. Assemble efficiency of sampling techniques. one’s biases. one’s responseto culture shock. Design an efficientproject workflow. Judge Deconstruct In this model, each of the colored blocks shows an example of a learning objective that generally corresponds with each of the various combinations of the cognitive process and knowledge dimensions. Remember: these are learning objectives—not learning activities. It may be useful to think of preceding each objective with something like: “Students will be able to . . .” Reflect on one’s progress.