Table of Contents
Overview
 Foundation
 The Taxonomy Broken Down
 The Digital Taxonomy Explained
 Differences from Bloom’s Taxonomy
 Similarities with Bloom’s Taxonomy
 Conclusion
 Works Cited

Overview
A refresher of Bloom’s Revised
Taxonomy (1956)
 Examining the six levels of Bloom’s
Digital Taxonomy as defined by Andrew
Churches (2001)

Foundation







Original Taxonomy was created by Benjamin S.
Bloom in 1956
Revised in 2001 by Anderson and Krathwohl
The largest difference was replacing the nouns of the
original taxonomy with verbs and a change in their
order
Identified and outlined the cognitive domain which
involves the development of intellectual skills
Each level builds on the previous level
An educator begins with Lower Order Thinking Skills
(LOTS) and works up toward Higher Order Thinking
Skills (HOTS)
Typically viewed as a pyramid with LOTS on the
bottom and HOTS toward the top
Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy
The Taxonomy Broken Down






Remembering– memorization and the ability to recall
information
Understanding – the ability to understand the
meaning behind instructions
Applying – applying what was learned to a real world
task
Analyzing– separating information into parts and
making distinctions between hearsay and fact
Evaluating – bringing the parts together to form a
whole with new meaning
Creating – making decisions based on the merits of
an idea
Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy
The Digital Taxonomy Explained






Remembering – modern examples include the use of
social bookmarking websites, use of search engines
and social networking
Understanding – blog journaling, commenting on
websites and categorizing items using folders
Applying – playing educational games, editing a wiki
and sharing photos or documents online
Analyzing – creating “mashups” and leveraging
Google Docs
Evaluating – moderating a forum, structured and
reasoned blog responses and software beta-testing
Creating – directing or filming a video or podcast,
programming software
Differences from Bloom’s Taxonomy





While the ideas still reverberate with today’s
learners, they must be applied in a different
manner to better engage these students
Using the Digital Taxonomy, educators will be
able to teach HOTS to these younger students
Educators do not necessarily need to begin
their lessons at the bottom of the pyramid
Strong emphasis on collaboration between
learners
Larger integration of multimedia into lesson
plans
Similarities with Bloom’s Taxonomy
Both taxonomies maintain the same
verbage and basic principles
 Maintain pyramid structure with lower
order thinking skills at the bottom and
gradual increase to higher order thinking
skills

Conclusion
Churches’ update to Bloom’s Taxonomy
allows educators to bring it into the
modern classroom and apply it to the
current, quickly changing technological
environment
 Bloom’s Taxonomy has been tweaked
for well over 50 years and the Digital
Taxonomy still needs to be better
defined and will grow and adapt as it
ages

Works Cited

Anderson, I.W. & Krathwohl. A Taxonomy for Learning,
Teaching, and Assesing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives. New York: Longman, 2001.

Michael Fisher. Digigogy: A New Digital Pedagogy. 2009.
http://digigogy.blogspot.net.

Andrew Churches. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Digital
Approaches. 2007. Edorigami.
http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom%27s+and+ICT+tools