Most training programmes have a measurement problem. They can tell you who completed the course. They can tell you who passed the quiz. But they can’t tell you what level of understanding the learner actually reached, whether they can recall a fact, apply it in context, or use it to solve a problem they’ve never seen before.
In 1956, educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom proposed a framework that addresses exactly this. It classifies learning into six cognitive levels, from basic recall to original creation, each building on the one before.
It gives L&D professionals a shared language for defining what “learning” actually means at each stage, and a structure for designing training that moves learners beyond remembering toward genuine mastery.
That framework is Bloom’s Taxonomy. Seventy years later, it remains one of the most widely used models in instructional design. This article explains what it is, how it’s evolved, and how to apply it to your training programme. It’s time to climb the pyramid.
Who Was Benjamin Bloom?
Benjamin Bloom (1913-1999) was a renowned American educational psychologist. During his time, he worked as a university examiner, led a group of cognitive psychologists, and served as an educational advisor to the governments of India and Israel.
He conducted research on various educational topics, including talent development, mastery learning, and learning objectives. He was instrumental in shifting instructional focus from rote memorisation to practical application.
As Stanford professor Elliot Eisner puts it, “Benjamin Bloom left an imprint that will not soon erode. The field of education, and more important, the lives of many children and adolescents are better off because of the contributions he made.”
He’s best known for his taxonomy of learning, so let’s explore that next.
What Is Bloom’s Taxonomy?
Bloom’s Taxonomy is a framework that classifies learning into six cognitive levels, from simple recall at the base to original creation at the top. Each level represents a deeper, more complex form of understanding. And each one builds on the one before it.
Specifically, the model was developed in 1956 by Benjamin Bloom and four collaborators: Max Engelhart, Edward Furst, Walker Hill, and David Krathwohl. Their goal was to give educators a common language for describing what learners should be able to do at each stage of their development — not just what they should know.
Their taxonomy is built on a simple but powerful premise: you cannot apply knowledge you don’t understand, and you can’t understand knowledge you don’t remember. True expertise requires progression through each level, with each stage establishing the foundation for the next.
The original framework covered three domains of learning:
- Cognitive (intellectual skills and knowledge)
- Affective (attitudes, values, and emotional responses)
- Psychomotor (physical skills and coordination)
The cognitive domain contains the six levels most people associate with Bloom’s Taxonomy. This will be the focus of this article, as it’s the domain that’s most directly applicable to L&D.
The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (2001): What Changed?
Bloom’s original taxonomy stood largely unchallenged for 45 years. Then, in 2001, two of the people closest to the original project, David Krathwohl (one of Bloom’s original co-authors) and Lorin Anderson (a former student of Bloom’s), published a significant revision.
The changes were structural, not cosmetic. Two stand out.
- Nouns Became Verbs: The original six levels were labelled as nouns (Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation). The revised framework replaced them with verbs (Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyse, Evaluate, Create). Indeed, the shift reflects a fundamental reframing: learning isn’t a state you arrive at. It’s something you do.
- “Create” Tops the Taxonomy: In the original taxonomy, Evaluation sat at the peak. The revised version argues that generating something new (such as a plan, a product, or a hypothesis) represents a higher cognitive demand than judging existing work. Creating requires the learner to draw on every level below it simultaneously.
The revised framework also introduced a second dimension that the original lacked: the knowledge dimension. Where the original taxonomy classified only the cognitive process (what the learner does), the revision also classifies the type of knowledge involved:
- Factual: The basic terminology, facts, and details a learner needs to know. “What is the company’s return policy?”
- Conceptual: The relationships between ideas, categories, and principles. “How does our return policy relate to our customer retention strategy?”
- Procedural: The methods, techniques, and steps for doing something. “How do I process a return in the system?”
- Metacognitive: Awareness of one’s own thinking and learning processes. “Do I understand this well enough to explain it to a new hire?”
This two-dimensional structure (cognitive process x knowledge type) is what makes the revised taxonomy so useful for training design. You’re not just asking “can the learner remember?” You’re asking “can the learner remember facts, or can they remember procedures?”
The specificity changes everything about how you write objectives, design assessments, and structure content.
The 6 Levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy Explained
The revised taxonomy classifies cognitive processes into six levels. Each one builds on the one before it, demanding progressively deeper engagement with the material. For instance:
- A learner who can remember a fact but can’t apply it hasn’t reached the third level.
- And a learner who can evaluate an argument but can’t construct one of their own hasn’t reached the sixth.
The framework is typically visualised as a pyramid. However, this can be misleading.
It’s tempting to read it as ‘creating is the goal and remembering is the starting line.’ Yet, in practice, most workplace training doesn’t need to reach the top of the pyramid. As such, the pyramid describes complexity, not importance.
The right level depends entirely on what the business needs the learner to be able to do.
Bloom’s Taxonomy Verbs: The Complete List
Each level of the revised taxonomy is defined by a set of action verbs. These verbs describe what the learner should be able to do at each stage. They’re also the building blocks for writing measurable learning objectives.
| Remember | Understand | Apply | Analyse | Evaluate | Create |
| Recall specific information. | Grasp meaning of materials. | Use information in new situations. | Identify links among ideas. | Use knowledge to make judgements. | Develop something new. |
| define describe examine identify label list locate match memorise recall recite recognise record reproduce retell select state tabulate tell visualise | associate classify compare contrast convert describe discuss distinguish explain illustrate interpret order predict relate report represent restate select summarise trace transform translate | apply articulate calculate change chart compute construct develop employ examine experiment explain illustrate interpret manipulate modify operate predict produce relate solve transfer | analyse categorise compare connect contrast criticise deduce diagram differentiate discriminate dissect estimate evaluate experiment infer organise plan prioritise question separate survey test | appraise argue assess choose convince critique debate defend editorialise estimate evaluate grade judge justify measure persuade predict rank rate reframe summarise support | adapt assemble compose construct create design develop facilitate hypothesise integrate invent modify negotiate plan propose revise role-play schematise simulate speculate support validate |
1. Remember
Retrieving information from long-term memory. At this level, the learner can recall facts, define terms, list steps, and recognise key concepts. It’s the most basic form of learning, and it’s the foundation everything else depends on. Without a critical mass of knowledge in memory, the higher levels are inaccessible.
In training design: This is where retrieval practice earns its place. Quizzes, flashcards, and knowledge contests don’t just test whether learners remember. Instead, they strengthen the memory traces that make remembering possible. Spaced repetition ensures those traces are reinforced before they fade.
2. Understand
Demonstrating comprehension by explaining, summarising, or interpreting information in your own words. Knowing a fact is not the same as understanding it. A learner who can recite a compliance policy has reached Level 1. A learner who can explain why the policy exists has reached Level 2.
In training design: Discussion forums, peer explanations, and social learning environments test understanding in ways that multiple-choice quizzes cannot. If a learner can explain a concept to a colleague in their own words, they’ve demonstrated comprehension (and not just simple recall).
3. Apply
Using knowledge in new situations. The learner can take what they’ve understood and put it to work. This could be through solving a problem, following a procedure in context, or transferring a principle to an unfamiliar scenario.
In training design: Scenario-based learning and simulations sit here. A learner who understands the complaints procedure in theory demonstrates Level 2. A learner who can navigate a simulated customer complaint using that procedure demonstrates Level 3.
4. Analyse
Breaking information into parts to examine relationships, identify patterns, and distinguish relevant from irrelevant. At this level, the learner moves beyond applying knowledge to interrogating it. They compare approaches, identify assumptions, and connect ideas across domains.
In training design: Case studies and comparative exercises work well here. Present the learner with two different approaches to the same problem and ask them to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each. The cognitive demand shifts from “use this knowledge” to “pull this knowledge apart”.
5. Evaluate
Making judgements based on criteria and evidence. The learner can now assess the quality of an argument, defend a position, recommend a course of action, and justify their reasoning. This is where genuine expertise begins to show. The learner has internalised the knowledge deeply enough to judge it, not just use it.
In training design: Peer review, debate exercises, and expert-level mentoring all operate at this level. A learner who can evaluate a colleague’s work and provide constructive, evidence-based feedback has demonstrated Level 5 mastery.
This is also where learners can begin tutoring others, which (as Bloom’s own 2 Sigma research showed) is one of the most effective learning methods ever studied.
6. Create
Generating something new (be it a plan, a product, a process, or a hypothesis). This is the peak of the taxonomy because it requires the learner to draw on every level below it simultaneously.
After all, you can’t create something original without remembering the foundations, understanding the principles, applying the skills, analysing the landscape, and evaluating your options.
In training design: Learner-generated content, collaborative project work, and innovation challenges sit at this level. When a learner can synthesise everything they’ve learned into something that didn’t exist before, then they’ve reached the top of the pyramid.
How to Use Bloom’s Taxonomy in Training Design
The taxonomy’s real value isn’t as a theory to understand. It’s as a tool to use. Specifically, for writing learning objectives that are precise, measurable, and matched to the right cognitive level.
Writing Objectives That Actually Mean Something
A weak, wishy-washy learning objective sounds like this: “Learners will understand the company’s data security policy.”
Understand how? To what depth? Could they define it? Could they apply it in a scenario? Would they be able to evaluate whether a colleague is following it correctly?
Bloom’s Taxonomy eliminates that ambiguity. Indeed, each level comes with specific verbs that describe exactly what the learner should be able to do. A well-written objective combines:
- A subject (your learner)
- A verb (from the appropriate level)
- And an object (the knowledge or skill they need to demonstrate)
Here’s the same data security objective written at each level.
| Level | Objective |
|---|---|
| Remember | By the end of this module, learners will be able to list the five categories of sensitive data defined in the policy. |
| Understand | Learners will be able to explain why the data security policy exists and what risks it mitigates. |
| Apply | Learners will be able to demonstrate the correct procedure for reporting a suspected data breach. |
| Analyse | Learners will be able to compare two data handling scenarios and identify which one violates the policy. |
| Evaluate | Learners will be able to assess whether a proposed process change complies with data security requirements and justify their reasoning. |
| Create | Learners will be able to design a data security checklist for onboarding new team members in their department. |
Notice how the cognitive demand escalates. The first objective asks for recall. The last asks the learner to generate something original that draws on every level below it. Both are valid, but they describe very different outcomes, and they require different training experiences to achieve.
Matching Content to the Right Level
The taxonomy also prevents a common design mistake: building training at the wrong cognitive level for the outcome you need.
For example, if your goal is compliance (ensuring every employee can follow a specific procedure), then you need Level 3 (Apply) the most. A scenario-based module with retrieval quizzes will get you there. Conversely, building a six-week programme that pushes learners to Level 6 would be overkill.
On the other hand, if your goal is leadership development (equipping managers to make judgement calls in ambiguous situations), then the lower levels won’t cut it. You’ll need Level 4 and 5 activities such as case studies, peer debate, and real-world problem solving.
The taxonomy gives you a shared language for this conversation. Instead of arguing about whether training is “good enough”, you can ask: what level does the business need, and what level is the training actually delivering?
Bloom’s Taxonomy: Criticisms and Limitations
Bloom’s Taxonomy has been one of the most influential frameworks in education for nearly seventy years. But no model survives that long without attracting legitimate criticism, and being honest about the limitations makes the framework more useful, not less.
- The Hierarchy May Be Too Rigid: The pyramid structure implies a strict linear progression. In other words, you must master one level before accessing the next. In reality, learning is often messier than this. You might analyse a case study (Level 4) before memorising every underlying fact (Level 1). Some researchers argue the levels are better understood as overlapping capabilities than as a fixed staircase.
- It Focuses Exclusively On Cognition: The taxonomy classifies what the learner thinks, but it says nothing about what they feel or how they behave. Motivation, emotional engagement, social context, and physical skill are all absent from the cognitive domain. Bloom himself acknowledged this by proposing separate affective and psychomotor domains.
- It’s Designed for Education, Not The Workplace: Bloom’s framework was designed for classrooms, curricula, and examinations. However, corporate training operates under different constraints. This usually means shorter timeframes, practical outcomes, adult learners with existing expertise, and business objectives that don’t always map neatly onto a six-level cognitive hierarchy.
- It Doesn’t Account for How The Brain Learns: The taxonomy describes levels of cognitive complexity, but it doesn’t explain the mechanisms that produce durable learning. You can write a perfect Level 5 objective and still produce forgettable training if the delivery ignores how memory works.
Of course, none of these criticisms invalidate the taxonomy. They just define its boundaries. Bloom’s Taxonomy is an excellent framework for classifying what learners should be able to do. It’s not a framework for how to make that learning stick. For that, you need the neuroscience.
Final Words
Bloom’s Taxonomy has endured for nearly seventy years because it solves a problem that hasn’t gone away: how do you define what “learning” actually means, and how do you know when it’s happened?
The six levels give L&D professionals a shared language for writing objectives, designing assessments, and structuring programmes that move learners beyond recall toward genuine mastery. The revised taxonomy’s verb-based framework and knowledge dimensions make it more practical and precise than ever.
And the pyramid’s core premise — that deeper understanding is built on foundations, not arrived at by accident — remains as sound today as it was in 1956. Of course, once you’ve decided what your learners should achieve, it’s up to you to ensure they get there. Good luck.
Thanks for reading. If you’ve enjoyed this content, please connect with me here or find more articles here.
Book a demo to see how the Impact Suite applies these principles at every level of the pyramid, or download our Learning Theory guidebook to explore the full framework.
