Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy—The Swiss Army Knife in Curriculum Research

  • Yew-Jin LeeEmail author
  • Mijung Kim
  • Qingna Jin
  • Hye-Gyoung Yoon
  • Kenji Matsubara
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Education book series (BRIEFSEDUCAT)


Analyzing cognitive demands in a curriculum can map out what children are expected to learn and be able to do throughout their period of formal schooling. The question now is which tools are available or effective to analyze the dimensions and types of knowledge/skills required to teach/learn in schools.


Cognitive Demand Cognitive Dimension Curriculum Document Instructional Objective Curriculum Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anderson, L. W., & Sosniak, L. A. (Eds.). (1994). Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective. Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part II. Chicago, Il: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich…Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. White Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Ari, A. (2011). Finding acceptance of Bloom’s revised cognitive taxonomy on the international stage and in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11, 767–772.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. (1995). Assessing for learning: Some dimensions underlying new approaches to educational assessment. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41, 1–17.Google Scholar
  5. Bloom, B. S. (1994). Reflections of the development and use of the Taxonomy. In L. W. Anderson, & L. S. Sosniak (Eds.), Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective. Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part II (pp. 1–8). Chicago, Il: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D., R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  7. Brabrand, C., & Dahl, B. (2009). Using the SOLO taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula. Higher Education, 58, 531–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chung, D. H., Lee, J.-K., Kim, S. E., & Park, K. J. (2013). An analysis on congruency between educational objectives of curriculum and learning objectives of textbooks using semantic network analysis-focus on Earth Science I in the 2009 revised curriculum. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 34, 711–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holliday, W. G., & Cain, S. D. (2012). Teaching science reading comprehension: A realistic, research-based approach. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1405–1417). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klopfer, L. E. (1971). Evaluation of learning in science. In B. S. Bloom, J. T. Hastings, & G. F. Madsus (Eds.), Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of students learning. NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 212–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marzano, R. J. (2000). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  13. Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (Eds.). (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  14. Porter, A. C. (2006). Curriculum assessment. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 141–159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Schneider, J. (2014). From the ivory tower to the schoolhouse: How scholarship becomes common knowledge in education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  16. Wee, S.-M., Kim, B.-K., Cho, H., Sohn, J., & Oh, C. (2011). Comparison of instructional objectives of the 2007 revised elementary science curriculum with 7th elementary curriculum based on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 30, 10–21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yew-Jin Lee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mijung Kim
    • 2
  • Qingna Jin
    • 2
  • Hye-Gyoung Yoon
    • 3
  • Kenji Matsubara
    • 4
  1. 1.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.Chuncheon National University of EducationChuncheonKorea (Republic of)
  4. 4.National Institute for Educational Policy ResearchTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations