Most training programmes tell learners what they need to know. Bloom’s Taxonomy asks a different question: what do they need to be able to do with it?
That shift, from content delivery to capability building, is why this framework, first published in 1956, still shapes how L&D professionals, instructional designers, and educators structure learning today.
What follows covers the six cognitive levels, the three domains, the action verbs that make objectives measurable, and how to apply the taxonomy in corporate training practice.
- What is Bloom’s Taxonomy?
- Original vs. revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
- The 6 levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy
- Bloom’s Taxonomy action verbs
- The three domains of Bloom’s Taxonomy
- Higher-order vs. lower-order thinking skills
- Writing learning objectives with Bloom’s Taxonomy
- Why L&D teams use Bloom’s Taxonomy
- Limitations of Bloom’s Taxonomy
- FAQ
- Final thoughts
What is Bloom’s Taxonomy?
Bloom’s Taxonomy is a classification system for learning outcomes, organised into levels that move from basic recall to complex creation.
The core idea: learning is a progression.
You cannot apply what you do not understand. You cannot evaluate what you have not learned to apply.
The taxonomy makes that progression explicit, giving L&D teams and instructional designers a shared framework for aligning what they teach to what the job actually demands.
Educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues developed the framework in 1956. It was originally designed to give university educators a shared vocabulary for discussing assessment goals. It has since become the standard reference for instructional design across schools, universities, and corporate training programmes worldwide.
Original vs. revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
The taxonomy has been through one significant revision since 1956. Here is how the two versions compare.👇
| # | Original taxonomy (1956) | Revised taxonomy (2001) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Knowledge | Remember |
| 2 | Comprehension | Understand |
| 3 | Application | Apply |
| 4 | Analysis | Analyse |
| 5 | Synthesis | Evaluate |
| 6 | Evaluation | Create |
What changed in 2001, and why it matters
The revision was led by David Krathwohl (one of the original authors) and Lorin Anderson. Two structural changes were made.
Nouns became action verbs. “Knowledge” became “Remember”. “Comprehension” became “Understand”. The shift from nouns to verbs made each level directly usable when writing learning objectives: you can build a measurable task around a verb in a way you cannot around a noun.
The top two levels swapped. Synthesis was renamed Create and moved to the top. Evaluation moved to level five. The reasoning: producing something original requires evaluative judgement, making creation the more cognitively demanding task.
The 2001 revision is what most practitioners use. When Bloom’s Taxonomy is referenced in instructional design, corporate training, or curriculum design today, it is almost always the revised version. All examples and guidance in this article refer to the 2001 revision.
The 6 levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy
Each level builds on the one below it.
A learner who can evaluate something has, by definition, already moved through remembering, understanding, applying, and analysing it. The levels are not a checklist; they describe a sequence of cognitive development.
1. Remember: recall basic facts and concepts
Actions: Define, Identify, Recall, Recognise, List, Name, State
The foundation level. Learners retrieve information from memory without needing to interpret or use it yet. Training at this level typically involves exposure to content, not practice with it.
Corporate training examples:
- Identify workplace safety procedures.
- List the steps in the company’s sales process.
- Recognise key compliance regulations in your industry.
Question stems: What is…? List the steps of…? When did…? Who was responsible for…?
2. Understand: explain ideas and concepts
Actions: Describe, Explain, Interpret, Summarise, Classify, Translate
Learners can explain ideas in their own words rather than simply repeat them. They can summarise, interpret, and give examples without prompting. This is the first sign that a learner has made sense of the material rather than just encountered it.
Corporate training examples:
- Describe how the company’s values align with its business strategy.
- Summarise the benefits of a new software tool for your team.
- Explain the importance of cybersecurity best practices in your role.
Question stems: How would you explain…? What is the main idea of…? Can you give an example of…? What do you understand by…?
3. Apply: use knowledge in real situations
Actions: Demonstrate, Execute, Implement, Use, Solve, Carry out
Learners can take what they know and use it to carry out a task or solve a problem. This is where training moves from theory to practice. The task is familiar enough to recognise but requires execution, not just recall. The gap between knowing and doing starts to close here.
Corporate training examples:
- Use conflict resolution techniques in a team meeting.
- Apply time management strategies to improve daily productivity.
- Implement a project management framework such as Agile or PRINCE2 within your department.
Question stems: How would you use…? What would happen if you applied this to…? Can you demonstrate…?
4. Analyse: draw connections between ideas
Actions: Differentiate, Organise, Compare, Contrast, Examine, Deconstruct
Learners can break down information to understand its components and the relationships between them. They examine, compare, and draw conclusions. They do not just use information; they interrogate it.
Corporate training examples:
- Compare the effectiveness of two different leadership styles within your organisation.
- Break down customer feedback to identify recurring themes and root causes.
- Examine training completion data to find which programmes produce the strongest performance outcomes.
Question stems: What are the components of…? How does X compare to Y? What evidence supports…? What conclusions can you draw from…?
5. Evaluate: justify decisions and judgements
Actions: Assess, Critique, Judge, Justify, Defend, Prioritise
Learners can make informed judgements based on criteria and evidence. They do not just describe; they assess and defend a position. This level requires both knowledge and a view.
Corporate training examples:
- Assess whether a new training programme meets employee learning needs and business objectives.
- Justify a recommendation to invest in a specific learning platform over alternatives.
- Critique a proposed process change and recommend whether it should proceed.
Question stems: Which approach is more effective, and why? How would you defend…? What criteria would you use to judge…? Is this the best solution?
6. Create: build something new
Actions: Design, Develop, Construct, Formulate, Produce, Generate
The highest level of cognitive complexity. Learners synthesise knowledge and skills to produce something original: a plan, a product, or a new approach to a problem. Getting here requires having moved through all the levels below.
Corporate training examples:
- Develop a mentorship programme for new employees in your department.
- Design an interactive e-learning module for a new product launch.
- Build a process improvement proposal, drawing on analysis of existing workflow data.
Question stems: How would you design…? What would you propose if…? Can you construct a plan that…? What solution would you recommend?
Bloom’s Taxonomy action verbs
Each level of Bloom’s Taxonomy has a set of action verbs that signal the cognitive demand of a task.
These are the verbs L&D teams and instructional designers use when writing learning objectives. They make the expected outcome specific and assessable rather than vague and unmeasurable.
| Level | Sample action verbs |
|---|---|
| Remember | define, duplicate, list, memorise, recall, repeat, reproduce, state, name, recognise, identify |
| Understand | classify, describe, discuss, explain, identify, locate, recognise, report, select, translate, summarise, interpret |
| Apply | execute, implement, solve, use, demonstrate, operate, carry out, schedule, illustrate, write |
| Analyse | differentiate, organise, relate, compare, contrast, distinguish, examine, question, test, outline, deconstruct |
| Evaluate | appraise, argue, defend, judge, select, support, critique, assess, justify, prioritise, weigh |
| Create | design, assemble, construct, develop, formulate, plan, produce, generate, build, compose, invent |
The three domains of Bloom’s Taxonomy
Most guides treat Bloom’s Taxonomy as the six cognitive levels.
That is the framework most people learn first, but the original work covered three separate domains of learning. Understanding all three matters for L&D teams building complete training programmes. A course that only targets cognitive skills may miss what actually drives behaviour change.
1. The cognitive domain
The most widely known domain. It covers thinking skills: knowledge, comprehension, and the intellectual ability to analyse, evaluate, and create. This is the six-level framework described above.
2. The affective domain
The affective domain covers attitudes, values, and emotional responses to learning. It was developed by Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia in 1964, with five levels that describe how learners internalise and adopt new values.
| Level | What it means | Corporate training example |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Receiving | Open to an experience or idea | Attending a diversity workshop without dismissing its relevance |
| 2. Responding | Actively participating | Asking questions during safety training; applying feedback from a manager |
| 3. Valuing | Attaching importance to something | Choosing to report a near-miss incident even when not required to |
| 4. Organising | Reconciling new values with existing ones | Integrating a new company value into how you approach client decisions |
| 5. Characterising | Values become part of how you consistently behave | Proactively sharing knowledge without being asked, because it is simply how you work |
The affective domain matters most in culture change programmes, safety culture development, and any training where the goal is not just “knows the rule” but “acts on it consistently without being prompted.” Compliance programmes that only target cognitive recall frequently fall short here, because the failure mode is not not knowing the rule but not applying it under real conditions.
3. The psychomotor domain
The psychomotor domain covers physical skills and coordination. It is most relevant in manufacturing, healthcare, construction, and technical training: any context where learning requires performing a physical task correctly, not just understanding how to. Psychomotor learning objectives describe skill development in stages, from observing and imitating a procedure to performing it automatically under variable conditions.
Corporate training examples include operating machinery safely to a specified standard, performing a clinical procedure correctly, and physical product assembly.
A training programme that only tests cognitive understanding of these tasks without any practice component does not measure what the role actually requires.
A training programme that targets the cognitive domain only teaches people what to do. It does not build the attitude to do it consistently (affective) or the physical skill to do it correctly under real conditions (psychomotor). Complete instructional design maps learning objectives across all three domains.
Higher-order vs. lower-order thinking skills
The six levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy are split into two groups, and the distinction has practical implications for how training is designed and assessed.
| Lower-order thinking skills (LOTS) | Higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) |
|---|---|
| Levels 1 to 3: Remember / Understand / Apply | Levels 4 to 6: Analyse / Evaluate / Create |
| Working with existing knowledge: recalling, explaining, and using what has been learned | Doing something with knowledge: questioning it, judging it, building from it |
Most traditional training programmes, and most multiple-choice assessments, sit entirely within lower-order thinking.
Learners can pass by recognising the right answer from a list. That is not the same as knowing what to do when the situation does not match the textbook.
The distinction matters when you are auditing whether your training matches the actual cognitive demands of a role.
A manager who can recall the company’s values is at the Remember level.
A manager who can explain what those values mean in their department is at Understand level.
A manager who can assess whether a specific business decision aligns with those values and defend their position is at Evaluate level.
These are not the same capability. If the job requires evaluation but the training only assesses at the Remember level, the programme is measuring the wrong thing.
Writing learning objectives with Bloom’s Taxonomy
A learning objective states what a learner will be able to do after completing training, in measurable and observable terms. Bloom’s Taxonomy provides the verb that makes the objective specific and assessable.
The format: By the end of this [module / course / session], learners will be able to [Bloom’s verb] + [specific content or skill].
The verb does the heavy lifting. “Understand the data privacy policy” is not a measurable objective: you cannot assess understanding without specifying what a learner demonstrating understanding actually does. “Explain the company’s data privacy policy in their own words” is measurable, and it signals that the training needs to build comprehension, not just recognition.
| Level | Weak objective | Strong objective (Bloom’s verb applied) |
|---|---|---|
| Remember | Know the emergency shutdown steps | List the three emergency shutdown steps in the correct order |
| Understand | Understand the data privacy policy | Explain the company’s data privacy policy in their own words |
| Apply | Be able to handle a customer complaint | Complete a customer complaint form following the standard process |
| Analyse | Know about different product configurations | Compare two product configurations to identify which fits a customer’s stated requirements |
| Evaluate | Assess a proposed design | Assess whether a proposed product design meets the published safety criteria |
| Create | Build an onboarding plan | Develop a 30-day onboarding plan for a new direct report |
The most common mistake when writing learning objectives is setting them at a lower level than the job requires. A new hire who can list the company’s sales process is at Remember level. Handling a live objection from a sceptical buyer requires Evaluate.
If training only tests the former but the job demands the latter, that gap shows up in performance metrics rather than in the training report.
Using Bloom’s levels to map employee development programmes against the actual cognitive demands of a role is among the most direct applications of the taxonomy. It makes the gap between “completed training” and “ready to perform” visible, and gives L&D teams a structured basis for closing it.
Why L&D teams use Bloom’s Taxonomy
Bloom’s Taxonomy solves a problem that most training programmes have but rarely name: training activities and assessments are frequently set at a lower cognitive level than the job actually demands.
This is not usually deliberate. Lower-order learning is easier to design, easier to deliver, and easier to measure. A multiple-choice quiz on policy content is straightforward to build. An assessment that requires a learner to evaluate a real scenario and defend a judgement is harder to construct, but it is also the level the role requires.
Auditing training against actual job demands
L&D teams can use the taxonomy to audit existing programmes: take each learning module, identify the cognitive level of its activities and assessments, and compare that to the level the job actually requires.
A compliance course that only tests recall is not meeting the standard if the regulatory risk comes from failures at Apply or Evaluate level, when an employee knows the rule but does not apply it correctly under pressure.
According to Thirst’s State of L&D for SMBs 2026 report, a survey of 3,000+ SMB L&D professionals, 64% of L&D teams say leadership now expects proof of learning impact. Bloom’s Taxonomy gives those teams a structured language for explaining the gap between what training currently measures and what the role actually requires, which is a more credible basis for budget discussions than completion rates alone.
Writing measurable objectives for skills frameworks
For organisations building skills frameworks, Bloom’s levels give a practical language for describing capability at each stage of development.
Not just “does this person know about X” but “can this person evaluate X under real conditions and produce a recommendation.” That distinction matters when deciding who is ready for what, and it makes role-readiness assessments significantly more useful than completion records.
Supporting instructional designers
Instructional designers use the taxonomy throughout the design process: setting objectives at the correct level, choosing activities that develop those cognitive skills, and building assessments that actually test whether the objective was met.
The taxonomy is particularly useful when working with subject matter experts who default to information transfer. “Here is everything the learner needs to know” is a common starting point. Bloom’s levels give designers a structured basis for redirecting that toward capability development, with a clear rationale.
Limitations of Bloom’s Taxonomy
Bloom’s Taxonomy is a useful framework, but not a comprehensive one.
It assumes learning is linear
The taxonomy presents cognitive skills as a hierarchy in which lower levels are prerequisites for higher ones.
In practice, learning rarely follows a neat sequence. Learners move between levels depending on context, prior experience, and the complexity of the subject. Treating the hierarchy as rigid can produce over-engineered programmes that do not reflect how people actually develop capability.
It does not account for motivation or emotion
The framework focuses exclusively on cognitive complexity and says nothing about what motivates learners to engage, persist, or transfer knowledge to their work.
The affective domain, developed separately in 1964, addresses this, but the two frameworks are rarely integrated in practice. How learners feel about the material plays a significant role in whether training produces lasting behaviour change, and the cognitive taxonomy on its own does not address this.
Other frameworks exist
The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes) and Anderson and Krathwohl’s revised taxonomy offer alternative approaches that may suit certain learning contexts better.
Bloom’s Taxonomy is a useful starting point, but it works best as one tool within a broader instructional design approach rather than the only reference point.
FAQ
What is Bloom’s Taxonomy?
Bloom’s Taxonomy is a classification system for learning outcomes, organised into six levels that move from basic recall to complex creation. Developed in 1956 and revised in 2001, it gives L&D teams a structured framework for writing measurable learning objectives and designing training that builds genuine capability rather than surface-level familiarity.
What are the 6 levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy in order?
The six levels, from lowest to highest cognitive complexity, are: Remember (recall basic facts), Understand (explain ideas in your own terms), Apply (use knowledge in real situations), Analyse (draw connections and break down complex information), Evaluate (make and justify judgements), and Create (produce something new). The first three are lower-order thinking skills; the last three are higher-order thinking skills.
What are the action verbs used in Bloom’s Taxonomy?
Each level has associated action verbs. Remember: define, list, recall, recognise, identify. Understand: describe, explain, summarise, interpret, classify. Apply: demonstrate, execute, implement, use, solve. Analyse: compare, differentiate, examine, contrast, deconstruct. Evaluate: assess, critique, judge, justify, defend. Create: design, develop, construct, formulate, produce. These verbs are used when writing learning objectives to make expected outcomes specific and assessable.
What are the three domains of Bloom’s Taxonomy?
The original work covered three domains: the cognitive domain (the six thinking levels most people know), the affective domain (attitudes, values, and emotional responses, developed in 1964), and the psychomotor domain (physical skills and coordination, most relevant in manufacturing, healthcare, and technical training). Complete instructional design considers all three, since training that only targets cognitive skills may not build the attitude or physical capability the role requires.
How do you write learning objectives using Bloom’s Taxonomy?
Use this format: “By the end of this [module / session], learners will be able to [Bloom’s verb] + [specific content or skill].” The verb determines the cognitive level and makes the objective measurable. The level of the verb should match what the role actually demands. I
f the job requires Evaluate but the training only assesses at the Remember level, the programme is measuring the wrong thing, and the gap will show up in performance rather than in training metrics.
What is the difference between the original and revised Bloom’s Taxonomy?
The 1956 taxonomy used noun-based categories: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. The 2001 revision changed the names to action verbs and swapped the top two levels, placing Create (formerly Synthesis) above Evaluate.
The reasoning was that producing something original requires evaluative judgement, making creation the more cognitively demanding task. The 2001 version is the one referenced in L&D and instructional design today.
Final thoughts
Bloom’s Taxonomy is not a rigid rulebook, and it works best as a starting point rather than a prescriptive system.
What it does well is give L&D teams a shared language for thinking about learning depth, a practical structure for writing objectives that are specific enough to measure, and a framework for auditing whether training is actually set at the level the job demands.
The most common failure mode it addresses is not that L&D teams design bad training. It is that they design training at a lower cognitive level than the role requires, measure it against that lower level, and report clean results on a programme that has not actually moved performance.
Bloom’s Taxonomy makes that gap visible before the programme launches, which is when it is cheapest to close.
Got 2 minutes?
Thirst is the #1 learning platform for SMBs, built to help L&D teams do more with less.
It boosts learner engagement, speeds up onboarding, keeps compliance on track and brings all your learning into one place – without adding to your admin load.
Take a quick guided tour today and see how Thirst could support your organisation.
For more e-learning insights, resources and information, discover the Thirst blog.
You may also enjoy:
13 Of The Best Coaching Models to Use | 24 Examples of Employee Strengths and How to Develop Them | What is Adaptive Learning: A Beginner’s Guide
