Anderson and Krathwohl Revised Taxonomy

A two-dimensional revision of Bloom's 1956 taxonomy of educational objectives in the cognitive domain, edited by Lorin W. Anderson and David R. Krathwohl in A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Longman, 2001). Krathwohl was one of the original 1956 authors, which gives the revision direct lineage. The framework now anchors most outcomes-based curriculum design in formal education.

The Revision

Three changes distinguish the 2001 framework from the original Bloom's Taxonomy:

• Cognitive processes are verbs, not nouns: knowledge becomes remember, comprehension becomes understand, and so on. The shift makes the categories operational for outcome statements.
• Reordering of the top two levels: the original sequence ended Synthesis → Evaluation. The revision treats evaluate as logically prior to create, since creation typically subsumes evaluative judgement.
• Knowledge becomes a separate dimension: the original "knowledge" category is split out as a second dimension orthogonal to cognitive process.

The Two Dimensions

Cognitive Process Dimension (six categories, simple to complex):

1. Remember
2. Understand
3. Apply
4. Analyse
5. Evaluate
6. Create

Knowledge Dimension (four types, concrete to abstract):

1. Factual knowledge
2. Conceptual knowledge
3. Procedural knowledge
4. Metacognitive knowledge

The two dimensions form a 6 × 4 matrix. Any objective can be located in a cell, for example apply procedural knowledge (cell C3) or evaluate metacognitive knowledge (cell E4). The matrix is intended for three uses: writing objectives, designing assessments aligned with those objectives, and analysing the alignment between intended outcomes, instruction, and assessment.

Application in ELT

The framework is heavily used in writing Learning Outcomes for language programmes, especially in EAP and Content-based Instruction settings where cognitive demand needs to be made explicit alongside language demand.

• A grammar objective such as recall the form of the present perfect sits at Remember × Conceptual (B1).
• Apply present-perfect forms in a personal narrative sits at Apply × Procedural (C3).
• Evaluate two pieces of writing for tense control and revise the weaker one sits at Evaluate × Procedural (D3) shading into Metacognitive (D4).

Because the verbs are operational, the taxonomy aligns with SMART Objectives and supports backward-mapping from outcomes to assessment tasks (see Backward Design). Where SOLO Taxonomy classifies the structural quality of a learner's response, the Anderson-Krathwohl matrix classifies the cognitive demand a task is designed to elicit, so the two are complementary rather than competing.

Limitations

The framework treats cognitive process and knowledge as independent dimensions, but in language learning these are often entangled: applying a procedural rule can require analysing context simultaneously. The taxonomy is content-neutral, so it offers no purchase on questions of which knowledge is worth teaching or what counts as a culturally appropriate "create" task. It also says nothing about affective, social, or strategic competences central to language use, areas covered in the affective and psychomotor companion taxonomies and in subsequent communicative-competence frameworks.

References

• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman.
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
• Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. David McKay.