Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol.5, No.

5
Publication Date: May. 25, 2018
DoI:10.14738/assrj.55.4233.
Adesoji, F. A. (2018). Bloom Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives And The Modification Of Cognitive Levels. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 5(5) 292-297.

Bloom Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives And The

Modification Of Cognitive Levels
Professor Francis A. Adesoji
Department of Science and Technology Education
University of Ibadan, Oyo state, Nigeria

ABSTRACT
The author is of the opinion that the Bloom taxonomy of educational objectives
particularly the six cognitive levels should reflect the levels of cognitive development
and thinking of students. This thinking pattern would no doubt, reflect the student’s
environment and his genetic composition. In the light of this, Bloom’s cognitive levels
should not be generalised and it would be better if the six levels are collapsed into low,
Medium and high cognitive process.

Key words: Bloom taxonomy, Educational objectives, Cognitive levels, Cognitive

development, Students

INTRODUCTION
Bloom’s Taxonomy provides an important framework for teachers to use to focus on higher
order thinking and by providing a hierarchy of levels, this taxonomy can assist teachers in
designing performance tasks, crafting questions for conferring with students, and providing
feedback.

THE LEARNING DOMAINS

The Bloom’s Taxonomy was created in 1956 under the leadership of Dr. Benjamin Bloom who
is an Educational Psychologist and their aim was to promote higher form of thinking in
education, such as analysing and evaluating rather than just remembering facts which is mere
rote learning.

The three identified domains of learning on educational activities are:

Ø Cognitive – mental skills or knowledge
Ø Affective – growth in feelings or emotional areas (attitude or self)
Ø Psychomotor – manual or physical skills

If domain is referred to as categories and some people simply refer to the three categories as
KSA (Knowledge, Skills and Attitude) then it would not be out of place if we conclude that the
taxonomy of learning behaviour is “the focus of the learning process”. However, the
psychomotor domain is not well dealt with by Bloom committee perhaps because their
experience is limited and they have little knowledge of what goes on in say, drama or sports.
But the main concern of this paper is the cognitive domain.

THE COGNITIVE DOMAIN

This, according to Bloom (1956) involves knowledge and the development of intellectual
skills. There are some major categories which is from the simplest behaviour to the most
complex. It is therefore logical to say that the lower or simplest ones must be mastered before
the higher or complex ones.

Copyright © Society for Science and Education, United Kingdom 292

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.5, Issue 5 May-2018

The categories in order of hierarchy are:

vii. Knowledge – This has to do with real data or information. Commonly used words a
re: arranges, defines, describes, identifies, knows, labels, lists, matches, names, outli
nes, recalls, recognizes, reproduces, selects, states. A very good example is “itemise
the steps involved in test construction”.
viii. Comprehension – This has to do with understanding the meaning, translation, interp
olation, and interpretation of instructions and problems, state a problem in one’s
word. Example is when7 you apply what is learnt in the classroom into novel situa
tion in your place of work. The use of algorithm to solve a problem is another one.
Commonly used words are: applies, changes, computes, constructs, demonstrates,
discovers, manipulates, modifies and operates.
ix. Application – This involves the use of concepts in a new situation and application o
f what was learned into a novel situation. Application of a new law to solve a probl
em. Commonly used words are: applies, computes, constructs, demonstrates, disco
vers, manipulates, modifies and operates.

This first three is regarded as being belong to the lower order of thinking while the last three
levels are classified as higher order.

x. Analysis – This involves separation of material or concepts into component parts. I

t is also ability to differentiate between facts and inferences. A very good example
is when we categorise participants and then fashion-out the type of training for ea
ch category. Commonly used words are: analyses, break down, compares, contrast,
diagrams, deconstructs, differentiates, discriminates, distinguishes, identifies, illus
trates, infers, outlines, relates, selects and separates.
xi. Synthesis – This is the building of a structure or pattern from diverse elements. Pu
t parts together to form a whole, in order to create a new meaning or perhaps, a st
ructure. Examples are designing a training to solve a problem, writing-out a progr
amme for computation of results or designing a machine for specific task.

Commonly used words are: categorises, combines, compiles, composes, creates, devices, designs,
explains, generates, modifies, organizes, plans, rearranges, reconstructs, relates, reorganizes,
revises, rewrites, summarises, tells and write.

xii. Evaluation – This is making judgements about the value of ideas or materials. Very
good examples are: select the most effective solution or engage the most qualifie
d/effective candidate. Commonly used words are: appraises, compares, concludes,
contrasts, criticizes, critiques, defends, describes, discriminates, evaluates, explains,
interprets, justifies, relates, summarises and support.

THE RATIONALE FOR MODIFICATION OF THE LEVELS

There is enough evidence to show that the original six levels of Bloom cognitive process are
obsolete. According to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) the levels could be modified to be:
• Remembering
• Understanding
• Applying
• Analysing
• Evaluation and
• Creating

Copyright © Society for Science and Education, United Kingdom 293

Adesoji, F. A. (2018). Bloom Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives And The Modification Of Cognitive Levels. Advances in Social Sciences Research
Journal, 5(5) 292-297.

This is to say that you create new information after you might have evaluated or made valid
judgment.

The evolution of the New Terms from the Original Terms was coined in the work of Pohl
(2000).

It is necessary to mention that Lorin Anderson was a former student of Bloom and the most
remarkable modification he made in the mid-nineties was the change of the six categories from
noun to verb forms and slightly rearranging them.

This new taxonomy was seen as reflecting a more active form of thinking and is perhaps
more accurate.

It is necessary to note that if we want to move with time particularly with knowledge
explosion, I see the original and new domain as not well suited to the operation of what goes
on in the teaching and learning situation. It is very necessary to applaud the effort made by
some members of academia by deeming it fit to condense the six levels into three that is;
Knowledge, Understanding and Thinking. My personal opinion about this arrangement is
that knowledge is simply based on regurgitation of information and anchored on rote learning,
understanding cannot stand the test of time because understanding is reflected under
comprehension in the six categories when we marry Bloom and Anderson levels and
comprehension is under the lower level of cognitive process. The implication of this is,
understanding/comprehension, are in the middle cognitive thinking process. Are we then
saying that once a student understands, he or she can apply and analyse. This is not possible.

The last category, Thinking cannot be all encompassing. What the category is saying is that
once you can think, you can apply, analyse, synthesize, evaluate and with the new domain,
create. This is not humanly possible.

MY OWN CONTRIBUTION
The idea of having to replace synthesis with evaluation and making creating to replace
evaluation is not acceptable to me as we have in the new domain of Lorin Anderson.

If we remember that Bloom is referring to cognitive learning process, then the six levels of
Bloom could still stand but for it to be more meaningful and fit favourably well with the
cognitive process, we can then collapse the six levels into three as shown below:

Six Levels of Bloom Modified Form

1. Knowledge 1 & 2 (Lower Order)

2. Comprehension

3. Application 3 & 4 (Medium Order)

4. Analysis

5. Synthesis 5 & 6 (Higher Order)

6. Evaluation

NOTE that the order refers to cognitive process; problem solving and critical thinking belongs
to Higher Order Cognitive Process.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.55.4233. 294
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.5, Issue 5 May-2018

Lorin Anderson et al Category

Original Domain New Domain

1. Knowledge Remembering

2. Comprehension Understanding

3. Application Applying

4. Analysis Analysing

5. Synthesis Evaluating

6. Evaluation Creating

You could notice that knowledge and remembering are synonymous according to the new
domain. The same applies to comprehension and understanding.

BLOOM TAXONOMY ACTION VERBS

Some of the revised action verbs are:
1. Remembering: Exhibit memory of previously learned material by recalling facts,
concepts and answer
2. Understanding: Demonstrate understanding of facts and ideas by organising and
comparing
3. Applying: Solve problems to new situation by applying acquired knowledge, facts and
rules in different ways
4. Analysing: Examine and break information into parts by identifying motives or causes,
make inference.
5. Evaluating: Present and defend options by making judgement about information,
validity of ideas
6. Creating: Compile information together in a different way by combining elements in a
new pattern or proposing alternative solutions.

Verbs
1. Choose, Define, Find, How, Label
2. Classify, Compare, Contrast, Demonstrate, Explain, Illustrate
3. Apply, Build, Choose, Construct, Identify, Develop
4. Analyse, Assume, Categorise, Classify, Compare, Contrast, Distinguish, List
5. Agree, Appraise, Assess, Award, Choose, Criticise, Decide, Deduct, Determine, Estimate,
Evaluate
6. Adapt, Build, Change, Combine, Compile, Construct, Create, Design, Develop, Discuss,
Modify, Predict

The modification made by Lorin Anderson and his group is unwieldy and it is loaded with some
repetitions in a way, the more reason why we should have a manageable three levels which
would be direct and easier to identify and cope with.

If the motive of Bloom is ‘cognitive’, it then becomes necessary to have an in-depth knowledge
of this word in order for us to know how students can operate within himself and in a testing
situation after the intervention with a teacher.

Copyright © Society for Science and Education, United Kingdom 295

Adesoji, F. A. (2018). Bloom Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives And The Modification Of Cognitive Levels. Advances in Social Sciences Research
Journal, 5(5) 292-297.

Cognitive concerns with the act or process, knowing and perceiving. This is to say precisely
that there is cognitive development and cognitive functioning. It therefore relates to the
mental processes of perception, memory, judgement and reasoning and looking at this
critically, it is more or less the summary of Bloom’s level of cognitive development.

COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
This refers to a large group of private house or apartment houses often of similar design,
constructed as a unified community especially by a real estate developer or government
organisation. The developer in academic community like ours is the teacher. The development
of low, medium or higher order cognitive skill by the student is dependent on the student
himself or herself and the teacher output.

Cognitive development therefore is a field of study in neuroscience and psychology focusing on

a child’s development in terms of information processing, conceptual resources, perceptual
skill, language learning and other aspect of brain development, ability to think and
understand.

The Piagetian cognitive development or Genetic epistemology is now obsolete. It is now

replaced by Information Processing Theory, neuro-Piagetian theories of cognitive
development, which aim to integrate Piaget’s ideas with more recent models and concepts in
development and cognitive science; theoretical cognitive neuroscience and social
constructivist approaches.

For the purpose of this paper, I will like to make a deduction as to whether the coghnitive
development is based on nature or nurture and finally further make case for the collapse of
the Bloom’s six levels into three that is, lower, medium and higher order cognitive processes or
skills as the case may be.

Thus, is the cognitive development dependent on individual innate (nature) ability or on their
personal experience (nurture)? It is my candid opinion that no matter the experience a teacher
provides for a student, his genetic composition would play an important function. Student
cannot be made to perform higher cognitive process if his nature cannot cope with it no matter
the method adopted by the teacher. Therefore, both nature and nurture are important in any
cognitive task.

In his Book on Human Cognitive Abilities, Carroll (1993) devoted chapter 15 to Higher Order
Cognitive factors, chapter 16 to three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities and chapter 17,
Outline of the implications of such a theory for problems of nature and nurture. The
categorisation of cognitive skills is further corroborated by Uri Zoller & Georgious Tsaparlos
(1997) in their paper on Higher and Lower Order Cognitive Skills: The case of chemistry.

It could be observed that the above references are a pointer to the fact that the three cognitive
processes or skills i.e lower, medium and higher are what students adopt when they are
confronted with any task in an education enterprise. It is therefore of paramount importance
to condense the six levels, be it of Bloom or Lorin Anderson et al into three levels which are
logically related to student’s cognitive process which they adopt whenever they are confronted
with any task.

THE PROCESS AND RATIONALE FOR THE CATEGORISATION OF THE TASK

Although, the tasks could fall into any of the cognitive levels of Bloom’s but it is the cognitive
development level of students that would determine the actual level of the task. A student

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.55.4233. 296

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.5, Issue 5 May-2018

could find a task under application level difficult and consequently, categorises the task as high
cognitive task.

This is why a teacher should have question bank which is usually compiled along with the
lesson plan. This questions are expected to be tried during lessons and the responses of
students determine whether the questions should be modified or even reframed. It now
becomes the prerogative of the teacher to categorise the question into low, medium or high
cognitive task. The categorisation of these task would depend on the students’ cognitive level
and his environment together with his genetic composition.

Students from developed countries of the world are not expected to think the same way as
those from developing countries. The Bloom cognitive levels should not be generalised and in
my own opinion, the levels should pave way for the new categorisation of cognitive tasks into
Low, Medium and High cognitive levels. In this new arrangement, problem solving and critical
thinking could still maintain their high cognitive level

CONCLUSION
The cognitive levels of Bloom and his group is a good contribution to teaching and learning and
the modification made by Lorin Anderson et al is also commendable particularly in the usage of
the verbs but because the genesis of the level is cognition, it is better to collapse the six levels
into three to reflect the order of cognition expected of students in performing tasks. This is
exactly what I did in this paper.

References
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing, Abridged Edition.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
Anderson, Lorin W. & Krathwohl, David R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of
Bloom’s Taxonomy. New York. Longman Publishing
Carroll B. John (1993) Human Cognitive Abilities. A survey of factor-analytic studies: Cambridge University Press
978-0-521-38275-5. Frontmatter
Pohl (2000). Learning to Think, think to Learn. Retrieve from
http://www.kurwongbss.gld.edu.au/thinking/Bloom/blooms.htm
Uri Zoller & Georgious Tsaparlis (1997). Higher and Lower-Order Cognitive Skills: the case of Chemistry, Research
in Science Education. Vol 27(1) pp 117 – 130

Copyright © Society for Science and Education, United Kingdom 297