Bloom’s taxonomy shapes how our field talks about task complexity, whether we agree with every part of it or not. A working knowledge of the framework helps trainers design sharper objectives and engage more confidently with peers and stakeholders. In this practitioner briefing, Jonathan Halls runs through the essentials all trainers need to know.
Task Complexity & Bloom’s Taxonomy
No conversation about learning objectives is complete without mentioning both Mager’s model and Bloom’s taxonomy. Mager focuses on the structure of a learning objective — the action, condition, and standard. Bloom focuses on the type of task and its level of complexity.
So, let’s take a moment to explore Bloom’s taxonomy. All trainers should be familiar with it, even if they don’t subscribe to every part. For the record, I’m one of those folks, and explain my reasons in another article and in my latest book on learning objectives. My perspective comes from corporate and vocational training. I’m not speaking to its use in K–12, which isn’t my area of expertise.
A Brief History of Bloom’s Taxonomy
In the late 1940s, a group of college examiners began developing a shared system for classifying educational goals to help them in writing exam questions. Their work eventually became Bloom’s taxonomy, named after the committee chair, Benjamin Bloom.
The Three Learning Domains
Bloom’s committee proposed that learning falls into one of three domains:
- Cognitive domain — knowledge and thinking skills, such as explaining a policy or analyzing a problem.
- Psychomotor domain — physical or motor skills, such as rolling pizza dough or operating a forklift.
- Affective domain — attitudes and values, such as working to provide better customer focus or putting safety first in a work environment.
If you’ve been a trainer for any length of time, you’ll recognize that each domain tends to use a collection of similar training techniques. For example, trainers often teach cognitive skills through discussion and analysis. They teach psychomotor skills through hands-on practice. And they teach affective skills through reflection and modeling.
Over time, many practitioners have simplified the way they describe these domains and use the terms knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs). For the record, I find these terms clunky and don’t use them in my practice as a consultant, facilitator or learning designer. Instead of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, I use thinking skills for the cognitive domain, physical skills for the psychomotor domain, and mindset skills for the affective domain.
Task Complexity
Not all tasks are equal, and Bloom’s committee looked at how to categorize learning objectives in terms of their complexity. Some tasks are simple, while others require deeper thinking, more steps, or more judgement. For example, in an insurance call center:
- A sales agent generally describes policy features to customers to help them find the right product.
- A claims advisor analyzes a customer’s situation and evaluates it against claims criteria to determine next steps.
The work of the claims advisor is more complex than the work of the sales agent. The advisor’s expertise builds on the foundational knowledge the sales agent uses, and here the taxonomy’s hierarchy becomes useful: it helps us sequence learning and understand how higher-order skills build on lower-order ones.
Bloom’s committee created a taxonomy for the cognitive domain. It began with objectives focused on remembering facts, then moved through increasingly complex tasks such as analyzing and evaluating. About 25 years ago, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revised the original list, ranging from remembering to creating:
- remember
- understand
- apply
- analyze
- evaluate
- create
Bloom’s Taxonomy in Learning Objectives Today
Learning objectives comprise three elements that describe the action, condition, and standard of performance. Bloom’s taxonomy relates primarily to the verb used in the action element.
Learning designers choose a verb that reflects the level of complexity. The designer might choose “describe” or “recite” if someone needs to remember how a task is performed. If the task is more complex — for example, at the evaluate level — the designer might use “assess” or “review.”
Getting the verb right is important, so designers often consult Bloom’s verb lists or “verb wheels” to choose verbs that reflect the complexity of the task. A simple online search can find these tools, and they are helpful — but they should never replace the designer’s judgement. I always urge designers to choose a verb because it accurately describes the task, not simply because it appears on a list.
Is Bloom’s Still Relevant?
The canon of learning theory firmly embeds Bloom’s taxonomy. But I rarely use it in corporate settings. It’s not as rigorous as some think, and much of what our industry takes for granted in the taxonomy can be open to reasonable challenge. Using the framework can also be cumbersome and unnecessarily complicated, which often slows people down instead of helping them design more agile learning. I discuss this on ATD’s Accidental Trainer podcast with Alexandria Clapp, and I devote a chapter in my book on objectives to a few of these concerns.
That said, whether or not you agree with my position, talent professionals still need to understand Bloom’s taxonomy. It remains influential, and knowing its structure and language helps you navigate conversations across the learning profession.
The Bottom Line
Bloom’s taxonomy offers a useful lens for setting task complexity and sequencing learning, and it fits neatly into the action element of Mager’s model.
Comments are closed.