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, 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 (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, Mcgregor's XY Theory, The SWOT analysis model,
and Berne's Transactional Analysis theory, 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-KnowledgeAttitude, 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-aglance model. It's helpful at this point to consider also the 'conscious
competence' learning stages model, 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)

3. Apply (use)

2. Respond
(react)

2. Manipulation
(follow
instructions)

4. Analyse
(structure/elements
)

3. Value
(understand
and act)

3. Develop
Precision

5. Synthesize
(create/build)

4. Organise
personal
value
system

4. Articulation
(combine,
integrate related
skills)

5.
Internalize
value
system
(adopt
behaviour)

5. Naturalization
(automate,
become expert)

2. Understand

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
'level'

Knowledge

behaviour
description
s

examples of
activity to be
trained, or
demonstratio
n and
evidence to
be measured

'key
words'
(verbs
which
describe
the
activity to
be trained
or
measured
at each
level)

recall or
recognise
information

multiple-choice
test, recount
facts or statistics,

arrange,
define,
describe,

Comprehensio
n

Application

Analysis

recall a process,
rules, definitions;
quote law or
procedure

label, list,
memorise,
recognise,
relate,
reproduce,
select, state

explain or
interpret
meaning from a
given scenario or
statement,
suggest
treatment,
reaction or
solution to given
problem, create
examples or
metaphors

explain,
reiterate,
reword,
critique,
classify,
summarise,
illustrate,
translate,
review,
report,
discuss, rewrite,
estimate,
interpret,
theorise,
paraphrase,
reference,
example

use or apply
knowledge,
put theory into
practice, use
knowledge in
response to
real
circumstances

put a theory into

practical effect,
demonstrate,
solve a problem,
manage an
activity

use, apply,
discover,
manage,
execute,
solve,
produce,
implement,
construct,
change,
prepare,
conduct,
perform,
react,
respond,
role-play

interpret
elements,

identify
constituent parts

analyse,
break down,

understand
meaning, restate data in
one's own
words,
interpret,
extrapolate,
translate

and functions of a
process or
concept, or deconstruct a
methodology or
process, making
qualitative
assessment of
elements,
relationships,
values and
effects; measure
requirements or
needs

catalogue,
compare,
quantify,
measure,
test,
examine,
experiment,
relate, graph,
diagram,
plot,
extrapolate,
value, divide

develop new
unique
structures,
systems,
models,
approaches,
ideas; creative
thinking,
operations

develop plans or
procedures,
design solutions,
integrate
methods,
resources, ideas,
parts; create
teams or new
approaches, write
protocols or
contingencies

develop,
plan, build,
create,
design,
organise,
revise,
formulate,
propose,
establish,
assemble,
integrate, rearrange,
modify

assess
effectiveness
of whole
concepts, in
relation to
values,
outputs,
efficacy,
viability;
critical
thinking,
strategic
comparison
and review;
judgement

review strategic
options or plans
in terms of
efficacy, return
on investment or
costeffectiveness,
practicability;
assess
sustainability;
perform a SWOT
analysis in
relation to
alternatives;
produce a

organizational
principles,
structure,
construction,
internal
relationships;
quality,
reliability of
individual
components

Synthesis
(create/build)

Evaluation

review,
justify,
assess,
present a
case for,
defend,
report on,
investigate,
direct,
appraise,
argue,
projectmanage

relating to
external
criteria

financial
justification for a
proposition or
venture, calculate
the effects of a
plan or strategy;
perform a
detailed and
costed risk
analysis with
recommendation
s 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
'level'

Receive

Respond

behaviour
description
s

examples of
experience,
or
demonstratio
n and
evidence to
be measured

'key words'
(verbs
which
describe
the activity
to be
trained or
measured
at each
level)

open to
experience,
willing to hear

listen to teacher
or trainer, take
interest in
session or
learning
experience, take
notes, turn up,
make time for
learning
experience,
participate
passively

ask, listen,
focus, attend,
take part,
discuss,
acknowledge,
hear, be open
to, retain,
follow,
concentrate,
read, do, feel

participate
actively in group
discussion, active
participation in
activity, interest
in outcomes,
enthusiasm for
action, question
and probe ideas,
suggest
interpretation

react,
respond, seek
clarification,
interpret,
clarify,
provide other
references
and
examples,
contribute,
question,
present, cite,
become
animated or
excited, help
team, write,
perform

react and
participate
actively

decide worth and

relevance of
ideas,
experiences;
accept or commit
to particular
stance or action

argue,
challenge,
debate,
refute,
confront,
justify,
persuade,
criticise,

Organise or
Conceptualiz
e values

reconcile
internal
conflicts;
develop value
system

qualify and
quantify personal
views, state
personal position
and reasons,
state beliefs

build,
develop,
formulate,
defend,
modify, relate,
prioritise,
reconcile,
contrast,
arrange,
compare

Internalize or
characterise
values

adopt belief
system and
philosophy

self-reliant;
behave
consistently with
personal value
set

act, display,
influence,
solve,
practice,

Value

attach values
and express
personal
opinions

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
'level'

Imitation

behaviour
description
s

examples of
activity or
demonstratio
n and
evidence to
be measured

'key words'
(verbs
which
describe
the
activity to
be trained
or
measured
at each
level)

copy action of
another;
observe and
replicate

watch teacher or
trainer and
repeat action,
process or

copy, follow,
replicate,
repeat,
adhere

activity

reproduce
activity from
instruction or
memory

carry out task

from written or
verbal instruction

re-create,
build,
perform,
execute,
implement

execute skill
reliably,
independent of
help

perform a task or
activity with
expertise and to
high quality
without
assistance or
instruction; able
to demonstrate
an activity to
other learners

demonstrate,
complete,
show, perfect,
calibrate,
control,

Articulation

adapt and
integrate
expertise to
satisfy a nonstandard
objective

relate and
combine
associated
activities to
develop methods
to meet varying,
novel
requirements

construct,
solve,
combine,
coordinate,
integrate,
adapt,
develop,
formulate,
modify,
master

Naturalizatio
n

automated,
unconscious
mastery of
activity and
related skills at
strategic level

define aim,
approach and
strategy for use
of activities to
meet strategic
need

design,
specify,
manage,
invent,
projectmanage

Manipulation

Precision

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, 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).
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, 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 'level'

descriptio
n

examples of
activity or
demonstratio
n and
evidence to
be measured

'key
words'
(verbs
which
describe
the
activity to
be trained

or
measured
at each
level)

Perception

Set

Guided
Response

awareness

use and/or
selection of
senses to absorb
data for guiding
movement

recognise,
distinguish,
notice, touch
, hear, feel,
etc

readiness

mental, physical
or emotional
preparation
before
experience or
task

arrange,
prepare, get
set

attempt

imitate or follow
instruction, trial
and error

imitate, copy,
follow, try
make,
perform,
shape,
complete

Mechanism

basic
proficiency

competently
respond to
stimulus for
action

Complex
Overt
Response

expert
proficiency

execute a
complex process
with expertise

coordinate,
fix,
demonstrate

adaptable
proficiency

alter response to
reliably meet
varying
challenges

adjust,
integrate,
solve

creative
proficiency

develop and
execute new
integrated
responses and
activities

design,
formulate,
modify, redesign,
trouble-shoot

Adaptation

Origination

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
'level'

descriptio
n

examples of
activity or
demonstratio
n and
evidence to
be measured

'key
words'
(verbs
which
describe
the
activity to
be trained
or
measured
at each

level)
1

Reflex
Movement

involuntary
reaction

respond
physically
instinctively

react,
respond

Basic
Fundamental
Movements

basic simple
movement

alter position,
move, perform
simple action

grasp, walk,
stand, throw

basic
response

use than one

ability in
response to
different sensory
perceptions

catch, write,
explore,
distinguish
using senses

fitness

develop strength,
endurance,
agility, control

endure,
maintain,
repeat,
increase,
improve,
exceed

complex
operations

execute and
adapt advanced,
integrated
movements

drive, build,
juggle, play a
musical
instrument,
craft

activity expresses
meaningful
interpretation

express and
convey
feeling and
meaning
through
movement
and actions

Perceptual
Abilities

Physical
Abilities

Skilled
Movements

Non-discursive
Communicatio
n

meaningfully
expressive
activity or
output

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