home (index.htm) » human resources (human-resources.

htm) » bloom's taxonomy - learning

domains

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
(kirkpatricklearningevaluationmodel.htm), 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
(kirkpatricklearningevaluationmodel.htm) (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 (maslow.htm), Mcgregor's XY Theory (mcgregor.htm), The SWOT analysis
(swotanalysisfreetemplate.htm) model, and Berne's Transactional Analysis theory (transact.htm), 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 (consciouscompetencelearningmodel.htm), 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. Understand 2. Respond (react) 2. Manipulation (follow
instructions)

3. Apply (use) 3. Value (understand and 3. Develop Precision

act)

4. Analyse 4. Organise personal value 4. Articulation (combine, integrate

(structure/elements) system related skills)

5. Synthesize (create/build) 5. Internalize value system 5. Naturalization (automate,

(adopt behaviour) become expert)

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.
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

level category or behaviour examples of activity to be 'key words'

'level' descriptions trained, or demonstration (verbs which
and evidence to be describe the
measured activity to be
trained or
measured at
each level)

1 Knowledge recall or multiple-choice test, recount arrange, define,

recognise facts or statistics, recall a describe, label,
information process, rules, definitions; list, memorise,
quote law or procedure recognise, relate,
reproduce,
select, state
2 Comprehension understand explain or interpret meaning explain, reiterate,
meaning, re- from a given scenario or reword, critique,
state data in statement, suggest treatment, classify,
one's own reaction or solution to given summarise,
words, interpret, problem, create examples or illustrate,
extrapolate, metaphors translate, review,
translate report, discuss,
re-write,
estimate,
interpret,
theorise,
paraphrase,
reference,
example

3 Application use or apply put a theory into practical use, apply,

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

4 Analysis interpret identify constituent parts and analyse, break

elements, functions of a process or down, catalogue,
organizational concept, or de-construct a compare,
principles, methodology or process, quantify,
structure, making qualitative assessment measure, test,
construction, of elements, relationships, examine,
internal values and effects; measure experiment,
relationships; requirements or needs relate, graph,
quality, reliability diagram, plot,
of individual extrapolate,
components value, divide
 5 Synthesis develop new develop plans or procedures, develop, plan,
(create/build) unique design solutions, integrate build, create,
structures, methods, resources, ideas, design, organise,
systems, parts; create teams or new revise, formulate,
models, approaches, write protocols or propose,
approaches, contingencies establish,
ideas; creative assemble,
thinking, integrate, re-
operations arrange, modify

6 Evaluation assess review strategic options or review, justify,

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

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

level category or behaviour examples of 'key words' (verbs

'level' descriptions experience, or which describe
demonstration the activity to be
and evidence to trained or
be measured measured at each
level)
 1 Receive open to experience, listen to teacher or ask, listen, focus,
willing to hear trainer, take interest in attend, take part,
session or learning discuss, acknowledge,
experience, take hear, be open to,
notes, turn up, make retain, follow,
time for learning concentrate, read, do,
experience, participate feel
passively

2 Respond react and participate actively in react, respond, seek

participate actively group discussion, clarification, interpret,
active participation in clarify, provide other
activity, interest in references and
outcomes, enthusiasm examples, contribute,
for action, question question, present, cite,
and probe ideas, become animated or
suggest interpretation excited, help team,
write, perform

3 Value attach values and decide worth and argue, challenge,

express personal relevance of ideas, debate, refute,
opinions experiences; accept or confront, justify,
commit to particular persuade, criticise,
stance or action

4 Organise or reconcile internal qualify and quantify build, develop,

Conceptualize conflicts; develop personal views, state formulate, defend,
values value system personal position and modify, relate,
reasons, state beliefs prioritise, reconcile,
contrast, arrange,
compare

5 Internalize or adopt belief system self-reliant; behave act, display, influence,

characterise and philosophy consistently with solve, practice,
values personal 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.

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)

level category or behaviour examples of 'key words' (verbs

'level' descriptions activity or which describe
demonstration the activity to be
and evidence to trained or
be measured measured at each
level)

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

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

2 Manipulation reproduce activity carry out task from re-create, build,

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

4 Articulation adapt and integrate relate and combine construct, solve,

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

5 Naturalization automated, define aim, approach design, specify,

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

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

(consciouscompetencelearningmodel.htm), 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 (contactus.htm)).

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 (body-language.htm), 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 or description examples of 'key words' (verbs

'level' activity or which describe the
demonstration and activity to be
evidence to be trained or
measured measured at each
level)
 1 Perception awareness use and/or selection of recognise, distinguish,
senses to absorb data notice, touch , hear,
for guiding movement feel, etc

2 Set readiness mental, physical or arrange, prepare, get

emotional preparation set
before experience or
task

3 Guided attempt imitate or follow imitate, copy, follow, try

Response instruction, trial and
error

4 Mechanism basic proficiency competently respond to make, perform, shape,

stimulus for action complete

5 Complex Overt expert proficiency execute a complex coordinate, fix,

Response process with expertise demonstrate

6 Adaptation adaptable alter response to adjust, integrate, solve

proficiency reliably meet varying
challenges

7 Origination creative proficiency develop and execute design, formulate,

new integrated modify, re-design,
responses and 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)

level category or description examples of 'key words'

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

1 Reflex involuntary respond physically react, respond

Movement reaction instinctively

2 Basic basic simple alter position, move, grasp, walk, stand,

Fundamental movement perform simple action throw
Movements

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

4 Physical fitness develop strength, endure, maintain,

Abilities endurance, agility, repeat, increase,
control improve, exceed

5 Skilled complex execute and adapt drive, build, juggle,

Movements operations advanced, integrated play a musical
movements instrument, craft

6 Non-discursive meaningfully activity expresses express and convey

Communication expressive activity meaningful feeling and meaning
or output interpretation through 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

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
http://www.businessballs.com/bloomstaxonomyoflearningdomains.htm 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.

see also
• conscious competence (consciouscompetencelearningmodel.htm)
• Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences theories (howardgardnermultipleintelligences.htm)
 • Kirkpatrick's learning evaluation model (kirkpatricklearningevaluationmodel.htm)
• Fisher's personal transition model (personalchangeprocess.htm)
• 360 degree appraisals tips (performanceappraisals.htm#360 degree feedback 360 degree
feedback)
• employment termination, dismissal, redundancy, letters templates and style
(employmentterminationletterssamples.htm)
• exit interviews, questions examples, tips (exitinterviews.htm)
• grievance procedures letters samples for employees
(employmentterminationletterssamples.htm#samples letters discipline dismissal hearings)
• group selection recruitment method (interviews.htm#group selection)
• induction training checklist, template and tips (inductiontrainingchecklist.htm)
• job interviews - tips, techniques, questions, answers (interviews.htm)
• job descriptions, writing templates and examples (jobdescription.htm)
• performance appraisals - process and appraisals form template (performanceappraisals.htm)
• team briefing process (teambriefing.htm)
• training programme evaluation processes (trainingprogramevaluation.htm)
• training and developing people - how to (traindev.htm)

authorship/referencing
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).

© Benjamin Bloom's and others original concepts as stated in material; Alan Chapman contextual
material, review, code, design 2006-2009.

Please see additional referencing/usage terms below.

The use of this material is free for self-development, developing others, research, and
organizational improvement. Please reference authorship and copyright of material used, including
link(s) to Businessballs.com and the material webpage; see authorship/referencing above. This
material may not be sold, published, or reproduced online. Disclaimer: Reliance on this material
and any related provision is at your sole risk. Alan Chapman assumes no responsibility for any
errors or damages arising. Seek qualified advice for any action entailing potential liabilities. Where
appropriate retain this notice on copies. See about us (aboutus.htm) for detailed terms.
© Businessballs 2016