Three Domains of Learning – Cognitive, Affective, Psychomotor

©Leslie Owen Wilson all rights reserved                                                          Contact Leslie

Three domains of learning –

What are the differences between the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor taxonomies? 
There are three main domains of learning and all teachers should know about them and use them to construct lessons.
These domains are cognitive (thinking), affective  (emotion/feeling), and psychomotor (physical/kinesthetic). Each domain on
this page has a taxonomy associated with it. Taxonomy is simply a word for a classification. All of the taxonomies below are
arranged so that they proceed from the simplest to more complex levels.

The domains of learning were first developed and described between 1956-1972. The ones discussed here are usually
attributed to their primary author, even though the actual development may have had more authors in its formal, complete
citation (see full citations below). Some web references attribute all of the domains to Benjamin Bloom which is simply not
true. While Bloom was involved in describing both the cognitive and the affective domains, he appeared as first author on the
cognitive domain. As a result this bore his name for years and was commonly known among educators as Bloom’s
Taxonomy even though his colleague David Krathwohl also a partner on the 1956 publication. When publishing the description
of the affective domain in 1964 Krathwohl was named as first author, but Bloom also worked on developing this work.
Krathwohl’s involvement in the development of the cognitive domain will be become important when you look at the authors of
the 2001 revisions to this taxonomy.

    Benjamin Bloom (Cognitive Domain),

    David Krathwohl (Affective Domain), and
    Anita Harrow (Psychomotor Domain).
Many veteran teachers are totally unaware that the cognitive/thinking domain had major revisions in 2000/01.  Here I have
included both the original cognitive domain, and I have also attached it to the newly revised version so that users can see the
differences. The newer version of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning has a number of added features that can be very useful to
educators as they try to construct optimal learning experiences. I hope readers will explore the differences and additions
through the links provided on this page.

Also, when possible, I believe teachers should attempt to construct more holistic lessons by using all 3 domains in
constructing learning tasks. This diversity helps to create more well-rounded learning experiences and meets a number of
learning styles and learning modalities. Using more diversity in delivering lessons also helps students create more neural
networks and pathways thus aiding recall.

The Original Cognitive or Thinking Domain –

Based on the 1956 work, The Handbook I-Cognitive Domain, behavioral objectives that dealt with cognition could be divided
into subsets. These subsets were arranged into a taxonomy and listed according to the cognitive difficulty — simpler to more
complex forms.  In 2000-01 revisions to the cognitive taxonomy were spearheaded by one of Bloom’s former students, Lorin
Anderson, and Bloom’s original partner in defining and publishing the cognitive domain, David Krathwohl. Please see my page
entitled Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised for further details.

Remember while it is good to understand the history of the older version of this domain, the newer version has a number of
strong advantages that make it a better choice for planning instruction today. One of the major changes that occurred
between the old and the newer updated version is that the two highest forms of cognition have been reversed. In the older
version the listing from simple to most complex functions was ordered as knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation. In the newer version the steps change to verbs and are arranged as knowing, understanding,
applying, analyzing, evaluating, and the last and highest function, creating. 

Taxonomies of the Cognitive Domain

Bloom’s Taxonomy 1956 Anderson and Krathwohl’s Taxonomy 2001

 1. Knowledge: Remembering or retrieving previously  1. Remembering: Recognizing or recalling knowledge
learned material. Examples of verbs that relate to this function from memory. Remembering is when memory is used to
are: produce or retrieve definitions, facts, or lists, or to recite
previously learned information. 
know identify define recall record name
relate list memorize recognize
repeat acquire

 2. Comprehension: The ability to grasp or construct meaning  2. Understanding:  Constructing meaning from different
from material. Examples of verbs that relate to this function types of functions be they written or graphic messages, or
are: activities like interpreting, exemplifying, classifying,
summarizing, inferring, comparing, or explaining.     
restate locate identify discuss illustrate
report recognize describe discuss interpret draw
explain express review infer represent
differentiate
conclude

 3. Application: The ability to use learned material, or to  3. Applying:  Carrying out or using a procedure through
implement material in new and concrete situations. Examples executing, or implementing. Applying relates to or refers
of verbs that relate to this function are: to situations where learned material is used through
products like models, presentations, interviews or
apply relate organize employ practice simulations.  
develop restructure calculate show
translate use interpret exhibit
operate demonstrate dramatize
illustrate
 4. Analysis: The ability to break down or distinguish the  4. Analyzing:  Breaking materials or concepts into parts,
parts of material into its components so that its organizational determining how the parts relate to one another or how
structure may be better understood.Examples of verbs that they interrelate, or how the parts relate to an overall
relate to this function are: structure or purpose. Mental actions included in this
function are differentiating, organizing, and
analyze compare differentiate experiment attributing, as well as being able to distinguish
probe inquire contrast scrutinize between the components or parts. When one is analyzing,
examine contrast investigate detect discover inspect he/she can illustrate this mental function by creating
categorize survey classify dissect spreadsheets, surveys, charts, or diagrams, or graphic
deduce discriminate representations.
separate

 5. Synthesis: The ability to put parts together to form a  5. Evaluating:  Making judgments based on criteria and
coherent or unique new whole. In the revised version of standards through checking and critiquing. Critiques,
Bloom’s synthesis becomes creating and becomes the last and recommendations, and reports are some of the products
most complex cognitive function. Examples of verbs that that can be created to demonstrate the processes of
relate to the synthesis function are: evaluation.  In the newer taxonomy, evaluating comes
before creating as it is often a necessary part of the
compose produce plan invent propose develop precursory behavior before one creates something.    
design assemble formulate collect arrange construct
create prepare set up generalize organize
predict modify document originate derive
tell combine relate write propose

 6. Evaluation: The ability to judge, check, and even critique  6. Creating: Putting elements together to form a
the value of material for a given purpose. This function goes coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into
to #5 in the revised version of Bloom’s. Examples of verbs a new pattern or structure through generating, planning,
that relate to evaluation are: or producing. Creating requires users to put parts together
in a new way, or synthesize parts into something new and
 different thus creating a new form or product.  This
judge assess argue decide validate consider process is the most difficult mental function in the new
compare evaluate choose rate select appraise value taxonomy. 
conclude estimate criticize infer
measure deduce

Table 1.1 – (Wilson, L.O. 2001) – Bloom vs. Anderson/Krathwohl revisions

Additional Resources: There are many different types of graphics cleverly depicting the new versions that can be printed and
readily used as everyday references during instructional planning. In a search engine like Google enter “revised Bloom’s
taxonomy” and view the “images” portion of the search to find many different types of colorful and useful graphics on this topic.

 The Affective or Feeling Domain:

Like cognitive objectives, affective objectives can also be divided into a hierarchy (according to Krathwohl). This area is
concerned with feelings or emotions. Again, the taxonomy is arranged from simpler feelings to those that are more complex.
This domain was first described in 1964 and as noted before is attributed to David Krathwohl as the primary author.

1. Receiving

This refers to the learner’s sensitivity to the existence of stimuli – awareness, willingness to receive, or selected attention.

feel  sense  capture  experience pursue  attend  perceive

2. Responding

This refers to the learners’ active attention to stimuli and his/her motivation to learn – acquiescence, willing responses, or
feelings of satisfaction.
 conform  allow  cooperate contribute  enjoy  satisfy

3. Valuing

This refers to the learner’s beliefs and attitudes of worth – acceptance, preference, or commitment. An acceptance, preference,
or commitment to a value.

believe  seek  justify respect  search  persuade

4. Organization

This refers to the learner’s internalization of values and beliefs involving (1) the conceptualization of values; and (2) the
organization of a value system.   As values or beliefs become internalized, the leaner organizes them according to priority.

examine  clarify  systematize create  integrate

5. Characterization – the Internalization of values

This refers to the learner’s highest of internalization and relates to behavior that reflects (1) a generalized set of values; and (2)
a characterization or a philosophy about life. At this level the learner is capable of practicing and acting on their values or
beliefs.

internalize  review  conclude resolve  judge

Based on:
Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom,B.S. and  Masia, B. B. (1964).Taxonomy of educational objectives, Book II. Affective domain. New
York, NY. David McKay Company, Inc.

Note: As with all of the taxonomies, in labeling objectives using this domain there has to be a very clear instructional
intention for growth in this area specified in the learning objective(s). Folks in the sciences and in math often avoid
including affective objectives stating that their areas are not emotional. However, any group work or cooperative exercise
where deportment, or collaborative or cooperative skills are discussed, used, and emphasized qualifies as having the potential
for affective growth. Additionally, if students are asked to challenge themselves with independently taking risks to develop and
present a hypothesis and/or persuade others on drawn conclusions, or actively take an intellectual risk whereby they increase
in self-confidence, these types of exercises also have the potential to be affective as well as a cognitive.  Also, in areas of
potential debate, where data allows students to draw conclusions about controversial topics or express opinions and feelings
on those topics, this too can be tweaked so there is intentional affective growth. Since emotion draws both attention and
channels strong residual memory, it behooves all dedicated and artful educators to include affective objectives, no matter
what their discipline or area of study.

The Psychomotor or Kinesthetic Domain

Psychomotor objectives are those specific to discreet physical functions, reflex actions and interpretive movements.
Traditionally, these types of objectives are concerned with the physically encoding of information, with movement and/or with
activities where the gross and fine muscles are used for expressing or interpreting information or concepts. This area also
refers to natural, autonomic responses or reflexes.

In examining the three domains of learning it is interesting to note that while the cognitive taxonomy was described in 1956, and
the affective in 1964, the psychomotor domain was not fully described until the 1970s. And while I have chosen to use the work
of Anita Harrow here, there are actually two other psychomotor taxonomies to choose from — one from E. J. Simpson (1972)
and the other from R.H. Dave (1970). See full citations and hyperlink below.

As stated earlier, to avoid confusion, if the activity is simply something that is physical which supports another area — affective
or cognitive — term the objective physical rather than psychomotor. Again, this goes to instructional intent. A primary example
of something physical which supports specific cognitive development and skills might be looking through a microscope, and
then identifying and drawing cells. Here the instructional intent of this common scientific activity is not to develop specific skilled
proficiency in microscope viewing or in reproducing cells through drawing. Usually the key intent in this activity is that a physical
action supports or is a vehicle for cognitive growth and furthering recognition skills. The learner is using the physical action to
achieve the cognitive objectives — identify, recognize, and differentiate varied types of cells.

If you are using a physical activity to support a cognitive or affective function, simply label it as something physical (labeling the
objective as kinesthetic, haptic, or tactile is also acceptable) and avoid the term psychomotor. Rather labeling something
psychomotor means there is a very clear educational intention for growth to occur in the psychomotor/kinesthetic domain.

Certainly more complex learning objectives can be written so that they that meld 2 or 3 domains. For instance, students can
gain appreciation (an affective objective) for the culture or country of origin through conducting investigations or listening to
stories while learning the dances from other countries.  Learning dance steps would fall under “skilled movements” in the
psychomotor domain.

(Terms in this area based on Anita Harrow’s taxonomy).

Reflex movements

Objectives at this level include reflexes that involve one segmental or reflexes of the spine and movements that may involve
more than one segmented portion of the spine as intersegmental reflexes (e.g., involuntary muscle contraction). These
movements are involuntary being either present at birth or emerging through maturation.

Fundamental movements

Objectives in this area refer to skills or movements or behaviors related to walking, running, jumping, pushing, pulling and
manipulating. They are often components for more complex actions.

Perceptual abilities

Objectives in this area should address skills related to kinesthetic (bodily movements), visual, auditory, tactile (touch), or
coordination abilities as they are related to the ability to take in information from the environment and react.

Physical abilities
Objectives in this area should be related to endurance, flexibility, agility, strength, reaction-response time or dexterity.

Skilled movements

Objectives in this area refer to skills and movements that must be learned for games, sports, dances, performances, or for the
arts.

Nondiscursive communication

Objectives in this area refer to expressive movements through posture, gestures, facial expressions, and/or creative
movements like those in mime or ballet.  These movements refer to interpretative movements that communicate meaning
without the aid of verbal commands or help.

Note: As we learn more about how the brain learns and retains information, today’s educators are realizing that targeted
physical movement has the potential to enhance memory and recall and can aid in accelerating longterm memory. Intentionally
adding movement to enhance learning is often called “embodied learning.” With the aid of technology this field is growing
rapidly.

Additional resources:

1. The Waag Society

2. SmallLAB Learning – Stellar explanation and examples of this concept

3. David Birchfield on YouTube explaining embodied learning/cognition

4. Description of all 3 psychomotor taxonomies

5. Lara Schenck – Provides an excellent definition of this new type of learning  in comparison to other types of learning.
**Remember that the trick in effectively planning lessons — there has to be the intention for growth
specifically in the selected domain area!  Learning takes place in ALL three domains of learning and wise
teachers combine domains so that lessons and learning  are more holistic and multidimensional. 
The following page and PPT AGO2 illustrate how you can use all three domains to create more holistic learning experiences.

Related page: Writing good curriculum

Giving = Continued Sharing

I created the Second Principle to share information about the educational ideas at the heart of all good teaching. I am dedicated
to the ideal that most of materials on this site remain free to individuals, and free of advertising. If you have found value in the
information offered here, please consider becoming a patron through a PayPal donation to help defray hosting and operating
costs. Thanks for your consideration, and blessings on your own journey.

Sources:

(As these hotlinks take readers to Amazon, the FTC requires me to indicate that they qualify as ads)

There are 3 editions of the revisions of Bloom’s from Anderson and Krathwohl and others, or from Anderson.

1. Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds.) (2000) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A
Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (complete edition) . Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson
Education Group)

2. Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds.) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A
Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (abridged edition). Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson
Education Group)
3.* There is a newer, less expensive, abridged version of this book. See Anderson, L. W. (2013) A Taxonomy for Learning,
Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Abridged Edition.

Bloom, B.S. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al.(1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational
Goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. NY, NY: Longmans, Green
(This is the original work. It is unavailable for purchase, however there are later editions available.)

Dave, R.H. (1970). Psychomotor levels in Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives, pp.20-21. R.J. Armstrong, ed.
Tucson, Arizona: Educational Innovators Press. (Unavailable for purchase)

Harrow, A. (1972) A Taxonomy of Psychomotor Domain: A Guide for Developing Behavioral Objectives. New York:
David McKay.

Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification of Educational
Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc.

Simpson E.J. (1972). The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon
House.