What Bloom’s Taxonomy Isn’t, and Why That Matters for Learning Design
Bloom’s Taxonomy is one of the most frequently referenced frameworks in learning design, and one of the most misunderstood.
It’s often treated as a hierarchy to climb: first remember, then understand, then apply, and so on.
But Bloom’s was never meant to function as a ladder.
And when it’s used that way, learning design often becomes more complex — without becoming more effective.
The Problem Isn’t Bloom’s — It’s How We Use It
In practice, Bloom’s Taxonomy often shows up in L&D as:
objectives rewritten to sound more sophisticated
verbs swapped without changing the learning
assumptions that “higher levels” are always better
This leads to learning that looks rigorous on paper but feels disconnected in practice.
Adults don’t disengage because objectives are too simple.
They disengage when objectives don’t map to real decisions and actions.
The question isn’t:
“How high up the taxonomy is this?”
The better question is:
“What kind of thinking does this work actually require?”
Not every task needs analysis.
Not every role requires evaluation.
And not every learning experience should aim for creation.
A More Useful Way to Design with Bloom’s
Instead of starting with the taxonomy, start with the work.
Ask:
What decisions does the learner actually need to make?
What actions do they need to take under real conditions?
What mistakes matter most?
Then use Bloom’s to clarify the kind of thinking involved, not to decorate objectives.
For example:
If the job requires choosing between options → evaluation matters
If the job requires following a procedure → application may be enough
If the job requires judgment under uncertainty → analysis and evaluation matter
Bloom’s helps you name the thinking — not inflate it.
Using AI to Clarify Cognitive Demand
AI can support this process — if used carefully.
For example, AI can help you:
identify the type of thinking a task requires
rewrite objectives to reflect real decisions
test whether an objective implies recall, application, or judgment
But AI can’t determine what matters in the job.
That judgment still belongs to the designer.
Why This Belongs in a Learning Designer’s Toolkit
Bloom’s Taxonomy isn’t about rigor for its own sake.
It’s a way to:
avoid unnecessary complexity
design faster with more confidence
justify decisions to stakeholders
align learning with real performance
