Three Domains of Learning – Cognitive, Affective, Psychomotor

What are the differences between the three domains of learning? What are the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor taxonomies? 

©Leslie Owen Wilson all rights reserved ** If you are using your phone to view this page, view it horizontally! 

There are three main domains of learning and all teachers should know about them and use them to construct lessons. These
domains of learning are the cognitive (thinking), the affective (social/emotional/feeling), and the psychomotor (physical/kinesthetic)
domain, and each one of these has a taxonomy associated with it. Taxonomy is simply a word for a classification. All of the
taxonomies below are arranged so that they proceed from the simplest to more complex levels.

The domains of learning were first developed and described between 1956-1972. The cognitive domain had a major revision in 2000-
01. The ones discussed here are usually attributed to their primary author, even though the actual development may have had more
authors in its formal, complete citation (see full citations below). Some web references attribute all of the domains to Benjamin
Bloom which is simply not true. While Bloom was involved in describing both the cognitive and the affective domains, he appeared
as first author on the cognitive domain. As a result this bore his name for years and was commonly known among educators
as Bloom’s Taxonomy even though his colleague David Krathwohl also a partner on the 1956 publication. When publishing the
description of the affective domain in 1964 Krathwohl was named as first author, but Bloom also worked on developing this work.
Krathwohl’s involvement in the development of the cognitive domain will be become important when you look at the authors of the
2001 revisions to this taxonomy.

  Benjamin Bloom (Cognitive Domain),

    David Krathwohl (Affective Domain), and
    Anita Harrow (Psychomotor Domain).

Many veteran teachers are totally unaware that the cognitive/thinking domain had major revisions in 2000-01.  If you are searching the
internet for more information on domains of learning, please be sure the sources you find are offering readers information that
includes the most recent revisions. Here I have included both the original cognitive domain, and I have also attached it to the newer,
revised version so that users can see the differences. The newer version of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning has a number of added
features that can be very useful to educators as they try to construct optimal learning experiences. I hope readers will explore the
differences and additions through the links provided on this page.

1
Also, when possible, I believe teachers should attempt to construct more holistic lessons by using all 3 domains of learning in
constructing educational tasks. This diversity helps create more well-rounded learning experiences and meets a number of learning
styles and learning modalities. Mixing domains of learning and using more diversity in delivering lessons also helps students create
more neural networks and pathways thus aiding their retention and recall.

The Original Cognitive or Thinking Domain –

Based on the 1956 work, The Handbook I-Cognitive Domain, behavioral objectives that dealt with cognition could be divided into
subsets. These subsets were arranged into a taxonomy and listed according to the cognitive difficulty — simpler to more complex
forms.  In 2000-01 revisions to the cognitive taxonomy were spearheaded by one of Bloom’s former students, Lorin Anderson, and
Bloom’s original partner in defining and publishing the cognitive domain, David Krathwohl. Please see my page entitled Bloom’s
Taxonomy Revised for further details.

Remember while it is good to understand the history of the older version of this domain, the newer version has a number of strong
advantages that make it a better choice for planning instruction today. One of the major changes that occurred between the old
and the newer updated version is that the two highest forms of cognition have been reversed. In the older version the listing from
simple to most complex functions was ordered as knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. In the
newer version the steps change to verbs and are arranged as knowing, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and the last and
highest function, creating. 

Understanding the Revised Version of Bloom’s Taxonomy 

A succinct discussion of the revisions to Bloom’s classic cognitive taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl and how to use them
effectively

Background: 

Who are Anderson and Krathwohl? These gentlemen are the primary authors of the revisions to what had become known
as   Bloom’s Taxonomy — an ordering of cognitive skills.  (A taxonomy is really just a word for a form of classification.) This
taxonomy had permeated teaching  and instructional planning for almost 50 years before it was revised in 2001. And although these
crucial revisions were published in 2001, surprisingly there are still educators who have never heard of Anderson and Krathwohl or
their important work in relation to Bloom’s Cognitive Taxonomy. Both of these primary authors were in a perfect position to
orchestrate looking at the classic taxonomy through a critical lens. Lorin Anderson was once a student of the famed Benjamin Bloom,

2
and David Krathwohl was one of Bloom’s partners as he devised his 1956 classic cognitive taxonomy. They called together a group of
educational psychologists and educators to help them with the revisions. Their combined efforts led to a revised version of Bloom’s
famed taxonomy.

Here in the United States, from the late 1950s into the early 1970s, there were attempts to dissect and classify the varied domains of
human learning – cognitive (knowing, or head), affective (emotions, feelings, or heart) and psychomotor (doing, or kinesthetic, tactile,
haptic or hand/body). The resulting efforts yielded a series of taxonomies for each area.  The aforementioned taxonomies deal with the
varied aspects of human learning and were arranged hierarchically, proceeding from the simplest functions to those that are more
complex. Bloom’s Cognitive Taxonomy had been a foundational staple in teacher training and professional preparation for almost 40
years before Anderson and Krathwohl instituted an updated version. An overview of those changes appears below.

While all of the taxonomies above have been defined and used for many years, there came about at the beginning of the 21st century
in a new version of the cognitive taxonomy, known commonly before as Bloom’s Taxonomy. You can also search the Web for varied
references on the other two taxonomies — affective or psychomotor. There are many valuable discussions on the development of all
the of the hierarchies, as well as examples of their usefulness and applications in teaching. However, it is important to note that in a
number of these discussions, some web authors have mislabeled the affective and psychomotor domains as extensions of
Bloom’s work. These authors are in grave error!

The original cognitive domain was described and published in 1956. This work was written by Benjamin Bloom, Max Englehart,
Edward Furst, Walter Hill, and David Krathwohl. As Bloom was the senior and primary author, his name was listed first on the
publication. Thus, this seminal work became commonly known as Bloom’s Taxonomy.

The affective domain was not categorized until 1964 and as David Krathwohl was the lead author on this endeavor, it should bear his
name, not Bloom’s. Bloom had little to do with the psychomotor domain and it was not described or named until the first part of the
1970s. There are 3 versions of this taxonomy by 3 different authors — Harrow (1972); Simpson (1972); and Dave (1970) See full
citations below.

The Cognitive Domain:

The following chart includes the two primary existing taxonomies of cognition. Please note in the column one on the left,
entitled Bloom’s, is based on the original work of Benjamin Bloom and others as they attempted in 1956 to define the functions of
thought, coming to know, or cognition. (*I have included at the very bottom of this page a chart of the levels with sample

3
performance verbs for each level.) Many teachers loved this 1956 version because they could go into the chart and just pick and
choose which verbs they wanted students to perform. But this rendition of the cognitive taxonomy is well over 60 years old, and we
now know a lot more about the processes involved in human cognition.

The taxonomy in the right hand column is the more recent adaptation and is the redefined work from 2000-01. That one is
labeled Anderson and Krathwohl.  The group redefining Bloom’s original concepts, worked from 1995-2000. As indicated above,
this group was assembled by Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl and included people with expertise in the areas of cognitive
psychology, curriculum and instruction, and educational testing, measurement, and assessment. I think it is important to note the
new adaptation also took into consideration many of Bloom’s own concerns and criticisms of his original taxonomy.

Table 1.1 – Comparative Table Bloom’s 1956 vs. Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001

(Diagram 1.1, Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised)

©Wilson, Leslie O. 2001 – all rights reserved)

4
Taxonomies of Cognition Old and New

Bloom’s Taxonomy 1956 Anderson and Krathwohl’s Revised Taxonomy 2001

1.Knowledge: Remembering or retrieving previously

1. Remembering:  Recognizing or recalling knowledge from memory.
learned material. Examples of verbs that relate to this
Remembering is when memory is used to produce or retrieve definitions,
function are: Know, identify, relate, list, define, recall,
facts, or lists, or to recite previously learned information.   
memorize, repeat, record, name, recognize, acquire

2. Comprehension: The ability to grasp or construct

meaning from material. Examples of verbs that relate
to this function are: restate, locate, report, recognize,
explain, express, identify, discuss, describe, discuss,
review, infer, illustrate, interpret, draw, represent,
differentiate, conclude.
2. Understanding:  Constructing meaning from different types of functions
be they written or graphic messages or activities like interpreting,
exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, or
explaining.  

3. Application: The ability to use learned material, or

to implement material in new and concrete situations.
Examples of verbs that relate to this function are:
apply, relate, develop, translate, use, operate, organize,
employ, restructure, interpret, demonstrate, memorize,
repeat, practice, calculate, show, exhibit, dramatize.
3. Applying:  Carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or
implementing. Applying relates to or refers to situations where learned
material is used through products like models, presentations, interviews or
simulations.   

4. Analysis: The ability to break down or distinguish

 4. Analyzing:   Breaking materials or concepts into parts, determining how
the parts of material into its components so that its
the parts relate to one another or how they interrelate, or how the parts
organizational structure may be better understood.
relate to an overall structure or purpose. Mental actions included in this
Examples of verbs that relate to this function are:
function are differentiating, organizing, and attributing, as well as being
analyze, compare, probe, inquire, examine, contrast,
able to distinguish between the components or parts. When one is
categorize, differentiate, investigate, detect, survey,
analyzing, he/she can illustrate this mental function by creating
classify, deduce, experiment, scrutinize, discover,
spreadsheets, surveys, charts, or diagrams, or graphic representations.  
inspect, dissect, discriminate, separate

5
 5. Synthesis: The ability to put parts together to form a
coherent or unique new whole. In the revised version
of Bloom’s synthesis becomes creating and becomes
5. Evaluating:  Making judgments based on criteria and standards through
the last and most complex cognitive function.
checking and critiquing. Critiques, recommendations, and reports are some
Examples of verbs that relate to the synthesis function
of the products that can be created to demonstrate the processes of
are: compose, produce, design, assemble, create,
evaluation.  In the newer taxonomy, evaluating comes before creating as it
prepare, predict, modify, tell, plan invent, formulate,
is often a necessary part of the precursory behavior before one creates
collect, set up, generalize, document, combine, relate,
something.   
propose, develop, arrange, construct, organize,
originate, derive, write

6. Evaluation: The ability to judge, check, and even

critique the value of material for a given purpose. This
function goes to #5 in the revised version of Bloom’s.
Examples of verbs that relate to evaluation are: judge,
assess, compare, evaluate, conclude, measure, deduce,
argue, decide, choose, rate, select, estimate, validate,
consider, appraise, value, criticize, infer.
6. Creating:   Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional
whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through
generating, planning, or producing. Creating requires users to put parts
together in a new way, or synthesize parts into something new and different
creating a new form or product.  This process is the most difficult mental
function in the new taxonomy.   

Comments on the changes:

As you will see the primary differences are not in the listings or rewordings from nouns to verbs, or in the renaming of some of the
components, or even in the re-positioning of the last two categories. The major differences lie in the more useful and comprehensive
additions of how the taxonomy intersects and acts upon different types and levels of knowledge — factual, conceptual, procedural
and metacognitive. This melding can be charted to see how one is teaching at both knowledge and cognitive process levels. Please
remember the chart goes from simple to more complex and challenging types of thinking.

6
Note: Bloom’s critically examines his own work – After creating the cognitive taxonomy one of the weaknesses noted by Bloom
himself was that there is was a fundamental difference between his “knowledge” category and the other 5 levels of his model as those
levels dealt with intellectual abilities and skills in relation to interactions with types of knowledge. Bloom was very aware that there
was an acute difference between knowledge and the mental and intellectual operations performed on, or with, that knowledge. He
identified specific types of knowledge as:

 Terminology
 Specific facts
 Conventions
 Trends and sequences
 Classifications and categories
 Criteria
 Methodology
 Principles and generalizations
 Theories and structures

Levels of Knowledge – The first three of these levels were identified in the original work, but rarely discussed or introduced when
initially discussing uses for the taxonomy. Metacognition was added in the revised version.

 Factual Knowledge – The basic elements students must know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems.
 Conceptual Knowledge – The interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to
function together.
 Procedural Knowledge – How to do something, methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and
methods.
 Metacognitive Knowledge – Knowledge of cognition in general, as well as awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition.
(29)

(Summarized from: Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D.R., et al (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of
Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.)

One of the things that clearly differentiates the new model from that of the 1956 original is that it lays out components nicely so they
can be considered and used. Cognitive processes, as related to chosen instructional tasks, can be easily documented and tracked. This

7
feature has the potential to make teacher assessment, teacher self-assessment, and student assessment easier or clearer as usage
patterns emerge. (See PDF link below for a sample.)

As stated before, perhaps surprisingly, these levels of knowledge were indicated in Bloom’s original work – factual, conceptual, and
procedural – but these were never fully understood or used by teachers because most of what educators were given in training
consisted of a simple chart with the listing of levels and related accompanying verbs. The full breadth of Handbook I, and its
recommendations on types of knowledge, were rarely discussed in any instructive or useful way. Another rather gross lapse in
common teacher training over the past 60+ years is teachers-in-training are rarely made aware of any of the criticisms leveled against
Bloom’s original model.

Please note that in the updated version the term “metacognitive” has been added to the array of knowledge types. For readers not
familiar with this term, it means thinking about ones thinking in a purposeful way so that one knows about cognition and also knows
how to regulate one’s cognition.

Table: 1.2 colorized version from original by Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds..) (2001)

Knowledge Dimensions Defined:

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

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

8
Procedural Knowledge refers to information or knowledge that helps students to do something specific to a discipline, subject, or
area of study. It also refers to methods of inquiry, very specific or finite skills, algorithms, techniques, and particular methodologies.

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

**Endnotes: The very useful things about any of the taxonomies associated with learning are that they become tools that allow
educators to analyze and categorize students’ tasks. Educators can then look for frequency patterns within instructional events. Are
my tasks evenly balanced, or are they over concentrated in limited areas? This type of in-depth examination leads to professional self-
analysis of performance and this is a key element of reflective practice. Professionally, reflective educators are often better teachers
because they are constantly trying to improve their methods of organization and delivery.

The following PDF attachment is an example of how I used Bloom’s revised taxonomy to reflectively assess what I was asking my
students to do on a particular assignment. Artifact2chart  If you need more information on the original assignment that goes with the
chart, please contact me.

The Affective or Feeling Domain:

Like cognitive objectives, affective objectives can also be divided into a hierarchy (according to Krathwohl). This area is concerned
with feelings or emotions (and social/emotional learning and skills). Again, the taxonomy is arranged from simpler feelings to those
that are more complex. This domain was first described in 1964 and as noted before is attributed to David Krathwohl as the primary
author.

1. Receiving
This refers to the learner’s sensitivity to the existence of stimuli – awareness, willingness to receive, or selected attention.

feel  sense  capture

pursue  attend  perceive
experience

9
2. Responding
This refers to the learners’ active attention to stimuli and his/her motivation to learn – acquiescence, willing responses, or feelings of
satisfaction.

conform  allow  cooperate contribute  enjoy  satisfy

3. Valuing
This refers to the learner’s beliefs and attitudes of worth – acceptance, preference, or commitment. An acceptance, preference, or
commitment to a value.

believe  seek  justify respect  search  persuade

4. Organization
This refers to the learner’s internalization of values and beliefs involving (1) the conceptualization of values; and (2) the organization
of a value system.   As values or beliefs become internalized, the leaner organizes them according to priority.

examine  clarify  systematize create  integrate

5. Characterization – the Internalization of values

This refers to the learner’s highest of internalization and relates to behavior that reflects (1) a generalized set of values; and (2) a
characterization or a philosophy about life. At this level the learner is capable of practicing and acting on their values or beliefs.

10
 internalize  review  conclude resolve  judge

Based on:
Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom,B.S. and  Masia, B. B. (1964).Taxonomy of educational objectives, Book II. Affective domain. New York,
NY. David McKay Company, Inc.

Note: As with all of the taxonomies, in labeling objectives using this domain there has to be a very clear instructional intention for
growth in this area specified in the learning objective(s). Folks in the sciences and in math often avoid including affective
objectives stating that their areas are not emotional. However, any group work or cooperative exercise where deportment, or
collaborative or cooperative skills are discussed, used, and emphasized qualifies as having the potential for affective growth.
Additionally, if students are asked to challenge themselves with independently taking risks to develop and present a hypothesis and/or
persuade others on drawn conclusions, or actively take an intellectual risk whereby they increase in self-confidence, these types of
exercises also have the potential to be affective as well as a cognitive.  Also, in areas of potential debate, where data allows students to
draw conclusions about controversial topics or express opinions and feelings on those topics, this too can be tweaked so there is
intentional affective growth. Since emotion draws both attention and channels strong residual memory, it behooves all dedicated
and artful educators to include affective objectives, no matter what their discipline or area of study.

The Psychomotor or Kinesthetic Domain

Psychomotor objectives are those specific to discreet physical functions, reflex actions and interpretive movements. Traditionally,
these types of objectives are concerned with the physically encoding of information, with movement and/or with activities where the
gross and fine muscles are used for expressing or interpreting information or concepts. This area also refers to natural, autonomic
responses or reflexes.

In examining the three domains of learning it is interesting to note that while the cognitive taxonomy was described in 1956, and the
affective in 1964, the psychomotor domain was not fully described until the 1970s. And while I have chosen to use the work of Anita
Harrow here, there are actually two other psychomotor taxonomies to choose from — one from E. J. Simpson (1972) and the other
from R.H. Dave (1970). See full citations and hyperlink below.

11
As stated earlier, to avoid confusion, if the activity is simply something that is physical which supports another area — affective or
cognitive — term the objective physical rather than psychomotor. Again, this goes to instructional intent. A primary example of
something physical which supports specific cognitive development and skills might be looking through a microscope, and then
identifying and drawing cells. Here the instructional intent of this common scientific activity is not to develop specific skilled
proficiency in microscope viewing or in reproducing cells through drawing. Usually the key intent in this activity is that a physical
action supports or is a vehicle for cognitive growth and furthering recognition skills. The learner is using the physical action to achieve
the cognitive objectives — identify, recognize, and differentiate varied types of cells.

If you are using a physical activity to support a cognitive or affective function, simply label it as something physical (labeling the
objective as kinesthetic, haptic, or tactile is also acceptable) and avoid the term psychomotor.  Rather labeling something psychomotor
means there is a very clear educational intention for growth to occur in the psychomotor/kinesthetic domain.

Certainly more complex learning objectives can be written so that they that meld 2 or 3 domains. For instance, students can gain
appreciation (an affective objective) for the culture or country of origin through conducting investigations or listening to stories while
learning the dances from other countries.  Learning dance steps would fall under “skilled movements” in the psychomotor domain.

(Terms in this area based on Anita Harrow’s taxonomy).

Reflex movements
Objectives at this level include reflexes that involve one segmental or reflexes of the spine and movements that may involve more than
one segmented portion of the spine as intersegmental reflexes (e.g., involuntary muscle contraction). These movements are
involuntary being either present at birth or emerging through maturation.

Fundamental movements
Objectives in this area refer to skills or movements or behaviors related to walking, running, jumping, pushing, pulling and
manipulating. They are often components for more complex actions.

Perceptual abilities
Objectives in this area should address skills related to kinesthetic (bodily movements), visual, auditory, tactile (touch), or coordination
abilities as they are related to the ability to take in information from the environment and react.

12
 Physical abilities
Objectives in this area should be related to endurance, flexibility, agility, strength, reaction-response time or dexterity.

Skilled movements
Objectives in this area refer to skills and movements that must be learned for games, sports, dances, performances, or for the arts.

Non discursive communication

Objectives in this area refer to expressive movements through posture, gestures, facial expressions, and/or creative movements like
those in mime or ballet.  These movements refer to interpretative movements that communicate meaning without the aid of verbal
commands or help.

**Remember that the trick in effectively planning lessons — there has to be the intention for growth specifically in the selected
domain area!  Learning takes place in ALL three domains of learning and wise teachers combine domains so that lessons and learning
are more holistic and multidimensional. 

The following page and PPT AGO2 illustrate how you can use all three domains to create more holistic learning experiences.

Holistic Lesson Plans using all 3 Domains

The following plans were created by my undergraduate students between 2002-2008. Even if they are not in a subject area you are
interested in, the format can serve as a prototype. 

1. Holistic Plan 1
2. Holistic Plan 2
3. Holistic Plan 3
4. Holistic Plan 4
5. Holistic Plan 5

Related page: Writing good curriculum

13
 **New: Learning Taxonomies  – A comprehensive listing of the 3 traditional domains of learning, plus additions in the
psychomotor domain, and examples of newer taxonomies. 

End Note: As we learn more about how the brain learns and retains information, today’s educators are realizing that targeted physical
movement has the potential to enhance memory and recall and can aid in accelerating longterm memory. Intentionally adding
movement to enhance learning is often called “embodied learning.” With the aid of technology this field is growing rapidly.

Additional resources:

1.  SmallLAB Learning – Stellar explanation and examples of this concept

2. David Birchfield on YouTube explaining embodied learning/cognition
3. Description of all 3 psychomotor taxonomies – The work is erroneously titled Bloom’s Psychomotor Domain!
4.  Lara Schenck – Provides an excellent definition of this new type of learning  in comparison to other types of learning.

Giving = Continued Sharing

14