In brief, in the 1940s a group of educators began to develop a classification system for educational learning objectives for three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The work on the cognitive domain resulted in a book titled a Taxonomy of educational objectives; the classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners (B. Bloom et al, 1956). This work is now commonly referred to as Bloom’s Taxonomy. These taxonomic models present a hierarchical classification of learning objectives that, reading from left to right, successively become more complex and specific. Originally, the cognitive domain was ordered as follows:

1. Knowledge
2. Comprehension
3. Application
4. Analysis
5. Synthesis
6. Evaluation

Updated Version

In 2001, a revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy was published, A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. 2001), that reflects new research and presents the taxonomy shown below.

We think that Anderson and Krathwohl’s revised taxonomy provides a good framework for starting to write your learning objectives. Each domain linked here has a list of verbs that form a hierarchy of increasing complexity from left to right and describe concrete and measurable actions.

A comparison of Bloom's original taxonomy and the revision.

In 2003, Dr. L. Dee Fink published an alternative to Bloom’s Taxonomy, “Taxonomy for Significant Learning. (PDF)" (Fink, 2003). In his paper titled he writes:

There is no question about the value of what Bloom and his associates accomplished by creating this taxonomy. Any model that commands this kind of respect half a century later is extraordinary. However, individuals and organizations involved in higher education are expressing a need for important kinds of learning that do not emerge easily from the Bloom taxonomy, for example: learning how to learn, leadership and interpersonal skills, ethics, communication skills, character, tolerance, the ability to adapt to change, etc.  (2003:2)

The conceptual basis of this framework is the integration of these dimensions of learning:

• Foundational knowledge
• Application learning
• Integration
• The Human dimension of learning – Caring
• Learning how to learn

1. Make a list of knowledge, skills, or competencies you hope students will gain from taking your course. Try to keep the ideas on your list specific, observable, and measurable as well as aligned with your department’s expectations for the course.
2. Start with a stem sentence that begins…
   “At the conclusion of the course [or unit or module], students should be able to…”
   …and then refer to one of the taxonomies below to choose a verb that’s specific and measurable, for example, “At the end of this module, you should be able to list and describe [insert the knowledge here].”
3. Consider the level of achievement you expect for each item on the list, and whether students will be expected to achieve it with or without aids (e.g. dictionary, reference guide, etc.). As you plan your course, you can ask yourself these questions:
   1. Does this course content (e.g. reading, activity, practice, assessment, or feedback) support one of my learning objectives? (Relevance)
   2. Then reverse the question: Have I listed an objective that isn’t addressed in specific course content or activities? (Relevance)
   3. Is this objective being evaluated at the point in the course where students are expected to have achieved it? Prior to that? (Timing)
   4. Are students aware of how each element of their coursework relates to their achievement of a course objective? (Transparency)