A New Revision of the [Revised] Bloom’s Taxonomy

Information processing emerged in the early 1940s as a focal point for cognitive research. Based on psychology, current learning theories, and research studies conducted over time, it can be said with confidence that a human being’s mind applies different mental processes while she or he manipulates, interprets, stores, and retrieves information (Gagne, 1977; Guilford, 1959; Lindsay & Norman, 1977; Piaget, 1952; Rothkoph, 1966; Rumelhart, 1980; Wittrock, 1974a, 1974b). These mental processes differ in terms of type,such as memorization, comprehension, discrimination, analysis, and so forth. Further, these same mental processes differ in terms of level of difficulty, such as simple, medium and complex levels. Therefore, type and level of difficulty should be considered as part of any classification scheme involving cognition.

Accordingly, a number of instructional psychologists have utilized the results of cognitive research and applied their principles into fields of education (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956; Guilford, 1959; Gagne, 1977; Gagne, Briggs, & Wager, 1992; Gagne & Driscoll, 1988; Merrill, 1983; West, Farmer, & Wolff, 1991). Instructional psychologists have aimed to help teachers, trainers, and curriculum developers to design instruction that induces students’ memories to store, retrieve, and use the intended material properly and effectively. The aforementioned educators believed that presenting knowledge in a particular sequence, which is consistent with the human memory’s function, will help students to store, retrieve, recall, and use information in a beneficial way; otherwise, the whole learning process will be hindered. Therefore, it becomes essential that students acquire prerequisite knowledge and skills prior to attempting to process new information as they construct new knowledge in meaningful ways so that the entire teaching and learning process is enhanced (Ausubel, 1968; Bruner, 1966; Gagne, 1977).

One of the most prominent instructional psychologists who applied the cognitive principles in the field of education and instruction was Benjamin Bloom. In 1956, Bloom and his associates published a taxonomy of educational objectives for the cognitive domain. Bloom et al. (1956) classified different forms and levels of learning based on mental processes in which students engage as they learn. Most educators and instructors welcomed Bloom et al.’s (1956) taxonomy and started to use it in their work. However, after almost 5 decades of using Bloom’s original taxonomy, some educators began to wonder whether the taxonomy is still valid. One of those educators was Lorin Anderson, a former student of Benjamin Bloom. During the 1990s, Anderson led a new assembly of scholars, accompanied by David Krathwohl, which met for the purpose of updating the taxonomy. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revised Bloom’s taxonomy) to be more adaptive to our current age by proposing another taxonomy that will meet the needs of curriculum designers, teachers, and students. However, after almost 2 decades of a thorough assessment of Anderson and Krathwohl’s revised Bloom et al.’s taxonomy, and after an extensive review of studies on cognition, metacognition, and information processing theory, I contend that Anderson and Krathwohl’s revised Bloom et al.’s taxonomy still fails to match the intent of cognitive psychologists relative to the types and difficulty levels of mental processing (Baker& Brown, 1984; Bondy, 1984; Brown, 1980; Burley, Brown, & Saunders, 1985; Darwazeh, 1995, 2004, 2011, 2013, 2016; Darwazeh & Branch, 2015; Gagne, 1977; Gagne & Driscoll, 1988; Guilford, 1959; Haller, Child, & Walberg, 1988; Kaufman & Randlett, 1983; Lindsay & Norman, 1977; Merrill, 1983; Palinscar, 1986; Paris & Winogard, 1990; Pressley, Borkowski, & Sullivan, 1985; Tuckman, 1992; Wade & Reynolds, 1989; West, Farmer, & Wolff, 1991; Wham, 1987). Therefore, the aim of this article is to offer a new revision of the revised Bloom et al.’s (2001) taxonomy based on the extensive review of the literature and studies on cognition, metacognition, information processing theory, Merrill’s (1993) component display theory, and Gagne’s (1977) hierarchical approach to learning.

This article is organized into four parts. Part I presents Bloom et al.’s (1956) original educational taxonomy. Part II presents Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revised Bloom’s et al.’s taxonomy. Part II provides an analysis of Anderson and Krathwohl’s s revision of Bloom et al.’s taxonomy with rationales. Part IV offers a new depiction of the revised Bloom et al.’s taxonomy.

The original Taxonomy of Educational Objectives was published by Bloom et al. (1956) as a way to improve communication between educators and instructional designers. Bloom et al. classified forms and levels of learning based on cognitive processes undertaken by learners during their construction of knowledge. These forms and levels are:

1. Knowledge: Exhibits memory of previously learned materials by recalling facts, terms, basic concepts, abstractions, generalities, and so forth.

2. Comprehension: Demonstrates understanding of facts and ideas by giving the meaning, translating, interpreting, explaining, describing of main ideas, and so forth.

3. Application: Uses acquired knowledge in new or novel situations to solve problems.

4. Analysis: Examines and breaks information and materials into parts to see the details and relationships.

5. Synthesis: Compiles information together in different ways, builds a structure or pattern from diverse elements, and puts parts together to form a whole.

6. Evaluation: Presents opinions by making judgments about the value and the merit of ideas and materials.

Bloom and his associates (1956) claimed that the learner can address a higher level of learning only after she or he has mastered the one below, the reason being that the lower level is a prerequisite for the higher level. Bloom et al. also said that the higher level includes the lower one automatically, thus suggesting that the levels of learning should be sequenced hierarchically and cumulatively from the simplest level, which lies in the bottom of the triangle, to the most complex level at the top. Bloom et al. created this taxonomy of education for the purpose of helping teachers and other educators to state, deliver, and assess learning objectives comprehensively, thus to develop learners’ intellectual processes in a way that helps them become good thinkers. Bloom et al. considered his initial effort to be a starting point. Bloom et al. believed that each major field should have its own taxonomy in its own language. Since then, only Lorin Anderson has evaluated Bloom et al.’s taxonomy, which led to Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revised Bloom et al.’s taxonomy.

Anderson, a former student of Bloom, updated and revised the taxonomy, claiming its relevance to 21st century work for both students and teachers (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Anderson changed the taxonomy in three broad ways: terminology, structure, and emphasis (Forehand, 2005; Krathwohl, 2002). Anderson modified the original terminology by changing Bloom’s categories from nouns to verbs. Anderson also renamed three categories: knowledge into “remember,” comprehension into “understanding,” and synthesis into “create.” Anderson also changed the order of the synthesis category (renamed “create”) by placing it at the top of the triangle. Thus, Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revised Bloom’s taxonomy became: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create (Figure 2).

Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) also made structural changes to Bloom et al.’s (1956) original taxonomy. Anderson and Krathwohl considered two dimensions in their revised taxonomy instead of one. The two new dimensions posited by Anderson and Krathwohl are: (1) knowledge (or the kind of knowledge to be learned), and (2) cognitive process (or the cognitive processes to be used in acquiring knowledge). As one can see from the Oregon State University chart in Figure 3 (Fisher, 2005, www.oregonstate.edu), the intersection of the knowledge and cognitive categories forms 24 separate cells. From Anderson’s point of view, the knowledge dimension on the left side is composed of four kinds of knowledge ranging from concrete to abstract: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge (Fisher, 2005, www.oregonstate.edu). The cognitive process dimension across the top of the grid consists of six levels of cognitive processes sequenced from simple to complex: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create (Figure 3).

Based on an analysis of the Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revision of Bloom et al.’s (1956) original taxonomy and based on extensive review of the literature on cognitive and metacognitive psychology studies and research, I recommend further revisions supported by a plethora of research studies on intellectual skills, human thinking and learning, and human information processing since 1956 (e.g., Draper, 2016; Gagne, 1977; Gagne, Briggs, & Wager, 1992; Gagne & Driscoll, 1988; Lindsay & Norman, 1977; Merrill, 1983; O’Neill & Murphy, 2010). A review of literature directly related to the application of Bloom’s et al.’s taxonomy can be summarized by the following nine conclusions:

Conclusion 1: Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revised Bloom et al.’s (1956) taxonomy is a good taxonomy, but still has some missing points and limitations either in the cognitive process dimension or in the knowledge dimension. A review of the literature on metacognitive processes (Baker & Brown, 1984; Bondy, 1984; Boulware-Gooden, Carreker, Thornhill, & Joshi 2007; Brown, 1980; Burley, Brown, & Saunders, 1985; Darwazeh, 1995, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2013; Dermody, 1988; Eggen & Kauchak, 1992; Flavell, 1985; Gagne, 1977; Gagne & Driscoll, 1988; Gilbert, 1986; Haller, Child, & Walberg, 1988; Huff & Nietfeld, 2009; Kaufman & Randlett, 1983; Kistner et al., 2010; Lindsay & Norman, 1977; Paris & Winogard, 1990; Pressley & Levin, 1978; Palinscar, 1986; Scarr & Zanden, 1984; Tregaskes, 1989; Wham, 1987; Wade & Reynolds, 1989); and a review of research and studies on instructional design (Darwazeh, 2001, 2004; Gagne, Briggs, & Wager, 1992; Gagne & Driscoll, 1988; Merrill, 1983; Reigulth, 1983; West, Farmer, & Wolff, 1991), suggest that the metacognitive process is a process of thinking rather than a type of knowledge, primarily because one definition of the metacognitive process is thinking about thinking (Gagne & Driscoll, 1988). Further, this cognitive process consists of three major procedures: (1) Awareness of the mental process that the learner uses before learning; (2) Monitoring of the mental process that the learner uses during learning; and (3) Regulating the cognitive process that the learner uses after learning as she or he faces difficulties in learning (Beyer, 1987; Eggen & Kauchak, 1992; Gall, Gall, Jacobsen, & Bullock, 1990; Gagne & Driscoll, 1988; Haller, Child, & Walberg, 1988; Li, 1992; Peirce, 2003; Scarr & Zanden, 1984; Wham, 1987).

Therefore, the metacognitive process is considered as one type of cognitive process that the learner uses in his or her learning rather than the one type of knowledge to be learned, as claimed by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001). Further, the metacognitive process is the most complex cognitive process that the learner applies in his or her learning because it needs enough maturation, intelligence, and training in order to be used effectively by the learner as stated by Burley et al. (1985). This process is growing and developing by years and training (Burley et al., 1985; Darwazeh, 2013). Robert Gagne also considered the metacognitive process as cognitive strategies in which learners guide their attending, learning, remembering, and thinking. “It is our abilities to engage in these self-monitoring, self-guiding activities that makes possible executive control” he said (Gagne & Driscoll, 1988, p. 55). It is also a way of managing the processes of learning, remembering, and thinking (Gagne, 1977; Gagne & Driscoll, 1988).

Conclusion 2: Another observation about Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revised taxonomy is related to the levels of cognitive processes. I contend the cognitive dimension is missing a major process that the human mind used from the beginning of life; it is the organizing process, named by Bloom as a synthesis process. Therefore, this process cannot be integrated under the analyzing process and put the two of them in one category as Anderson did in her revision, nor under the synthesis process as Bloom did in his taxonomy (see Figure 2, adapted from Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 67–68). Guilford (1959) also differentiated between divergent thinking, which is equivalent to analysis mental process in Bloom’s taxonomy (1956) and in Darwazeh’s proposed taxonomy (2015, 2016), and convergent thinking, which is equivalent to organizing mental process in Darwazeh (2015, 2016), and synthesis in Bloom’s taxonomy (1956). This means that analysis and organizing are two different mental processes, which have different meanings and definitions. The analyzing, organizing and the synthesizing processes have different meanings and definitions; thus, they should be separated into different categories.

Conclusion 3: Anderson and Krathwohl (2001; Krathwohl, 2002) viewed the synthesis process as a creative process (see Figure 2), which I dispute, because the synthesis process has a different meaning than the creative. Synthesizing is also easier to perform by the learner than is creating. Creation requires the person to generate something new and original, whereas the synthesis only requires the person to see the relationships among the ideas that have been taught in the intended text either horizontally (i.e., among the ideas which have coordinate relationships), or vertically (i.e., among the ideas which have super ordinate-subordinate relationships) in order to see the whole picture through comparison and contrast (Gropper, 1974; Reigeluth & Darwazeh, 1982). For example, assembling pieces of Japanese equipment in Singapore (synthesis) does mean Singaporeans create them. The authors also differentiated between the two types of synthesis: (a) an internal synthesis in which the learner figures out the relationships between and among the individual ideas that have been taught in the text, and interrelate and integrate them together, (b) the external syntheses in which the learner figures out the relationships among the learned ideas in the text and relates them with other ideas in other texts, subjects, or situations (i.e., beyond the subject-matter that have been learned). The external synthesis is more difficult to perform than the internal one because it needs to see the relationship between the learned idea and other external related ideas outside the learned text. The external synthesis is the one that helps students to apply the learned information in new, novel, and strange situations and, therefore, be considered as a prerequisite of the application process.

Conclusion 4: Cognitive psychologists typically differentiate between organizing processes and synthesizing processes. Organizing as a mental process requires the learner to chunk, categorize, classify, tabulate, group, put together, and order information according to a certain principle (Lindsay & Norman, 1977; West, Farmer, & Wolff, 1991). Synthesizing is defined as a mental process that requires the learner to figure out the relationships among the learned ideas in the passage in order to see the whole picture, then to integrate them with other related ideas in external topics, (Gropper, 1974; Reigeluth & Darwazeh, 1982). Cognitive psychologists also differentiate between the organizing processes and synthesizing processes in terms of human memory’s function (Lindsay & Norman, 1977; West, Farmer, & Wolff, 1991). Lindsay and Norman (1977), and West et al. (1991) consider the organizing or chunking process as a one function of the short term memory beside the rehearsal, whereas the Synthesizing process is one function of the long term memory beside explaining, interpreting, concluding, connecting, and so forth. Organizing processes, which require the learner to chunk or classify items, are also easier to perform than the synthesizing, which needs to see the relationship among the items, so it should come before the synthesizing process. Therefore, rather than combine the Organizing process and the synthesizing process into a single category as Bloom did in his 1956 taxonomy, and rather than combine the organizing process and the analyzing process into a single category as Anderson did in her 2001 taxonomy, I advocate separating analyzing, organizing, and synthesizing into three different categories because they are different mental processes, which have different meanings and definition.

Conclusion 5: With respect to the remembering level, neither Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revised taxonomy nor Bloom et al.’s (1956) original taxonomy differentiated between the two levels of remembrance based on content type. Merrill (1983) clearly differentiated, in his component display theory, between the two levels of remembrance based on the content type: (a) remember specific information and (b) remember general information. Merrill defined the specific information as a kind of knowledge or data that cannot be generalized or transferred to another situation, because it is valid within itself, such as dates or events, names, symbols, terms, labels, examples, lists, instances, whereas the general information is a kind of knowledge that can be generalized and applied to more than one situation, such as concepts, principles and procedures. Merrill also claimed that remembering specific information is easier to recognize or recall than remembering general information, and so it should come before remembering general information. According to the above differentiation between specific information and general information, the specific information can be learned on a remember level only, whereas the general information can be learned on remember, use, and find levels of learning as Merrill stated in his component display theory (Merrill, 1983). Thus, the remember level should be divided into two levels: (1) remember specific information (facts and instances), and (2) remember general information (generalities).

Conclusion 6: With respect to the ordering of cognitive processes, I believe the application process is more difficult to perform than the analysis, organizing, and synthesizing processes, so the application process should come after those processes. The reason is that the application process is interpreted as the use of previous acquired knowledge (generalities) in new, novel, or strange situations (Bloom et al.’s, 1956; Merrill, 1983). I do not think that the learner can use or apply or implement the acquired knowledge in a new, novel, or strange situation unless she or he inspects, examines, analyzes, organizes, reorganizes its components, and sees the relationships between its components and the generalities to be applied. These processes of analyzing, organizing, and synthesizing will help him/her to see where the previous learned knowledge will fit in a new situation in order to use and apply it. For example, when a carpenter wants to make a new closet (use or apply a learned procedure), he or she can’t make a new closet unless he or she knows how to measure wood, cut the pieces, arrange them together in a certain fashion, see the relationships among its parts, and so forth. These skills will need to undergo analysis, organizing, and synthesizing processes before becoming a closet. Another example is when the teacher asks students to classify new pictures of animals into mammals or not mammals (use or apply the learned concept), students need to inspect, analyze, figure out the relationships between the given new pictures and what they learned about mammals in order to see if these pictures have the critical attributes of mammals or not, then to classify them into mammals or not mammals. Yet another example is when the teacher asks students to solve a new math problem outside their curriculum (use or apply the learned principle or law), the learner needs to analyze the new problem and reorganize its elements, see the relationships between its different parts, and the principle he or she learned in order to use the learned principle or law in solving the new problem. All three examples illustrate that analyzing, organizing, and synthesizing should come before applying; thus, they should be prerequisites of the application processes, especially the external synthesizing, which requires the learner to perceive relationships between the learned ideas and the external ones in other text or situation.

Conclusion 7: With respect to the knowledge dimension, Anderson’s revised Bloom’s taxonomy specified four kinds of knowledge: facts, concepts, procedures, and metacognitive knowledge ranging from concrete to abstract. In this case, the knowledge dimension is missing a major type of knowledge—the principle type or relationships knowledge (Gagne, 1977; Merrill, 1983; West, Farmer, & Wolff, 1991). Anderson (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, p. 46) put the principle under the conceptual type of knowledge (Figure 4), which is inconsistent with Gagne’s (1977) hierarchical learning theory, Merrill’s (1983) component display theory, and West et al. (1991).

Merrill’s (1983) component display theory identified four types of knowledge or content: facts, concepts, principles, and procedures. Facts are defined as arbitrarily associated pieces of information, such as a proper name, a date or an event, a symbol, an example, or an instance of generalities, etc. In order to identify factual content, these questions should be answered: what and when? Concepts are defined as a group of objects, events, or symbols that all share some common characteristics and that are identified by the same name, such as mammals, trees, fruits, chairs, etc. In order to identify conceptual content, this question should be answered: what is this? Principles are defined as an explanation or prediction of why things happen in the world, such as to explain what will happen to the intensity of the light when electrons flow in the circuit, explain the first law of motion, thunderstorm, and so forth. The principle is a kind of cause-effect relationship, according to Merrill. In order to identify principles content, this question should be answered: why? Procedures are defined as an ordered sequence of steps necessary to accomplish or reach a certain goal, or produce some product such as how to conduct experiment in the lab, how to use a smartphone, how to send a letter by e-mail, how to plant a tree, how to cock a certain food, and so forth. In order to identify procedural content, this question should be answered: how? (Figure 5).

Gagne (1977) also differentiated between conceptual and principles knowledge. He looked at principles as different types of content. Gagne also considered the concepts as prerequisites for learning principles.

The contention here is that Anderson’s revised Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Krathwohl, 2002) should include the principle or relationship type of knowledge, because it is a different type relative to facts, concepts, and procedures. It also should move metacognitive knowledge to the cognitive dimension, because metacognition is a kind of mental process rather than a kind of knowledge.

Conclusion 8: Another limitation to Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revised taxonomy was ranging the knowledge dimension from concrete to abstract starting from factual knowledge, forward to the concepts, then procedures, ending with metacognitive knowledge to be the most abstract knowledge the student can learn ^(Fig^ure 4).

According to Gagne (1977) and Merrill (1983), factual knowledge is not more abstract than the procedural, conceptual, or principles knowledge. The contention here is that any type of knowledge could be presented on concrete and abstract levels depending on how the teacher presents the information first. If the teacher starts with a tangible specific example (factual knowledge) either for the concept, principle, or procedure (generalities), then the knowledge that the learner is expected to acquire will be easier to acquire than to acquire the generalities. However, if the teacher starts with presenting a definition of the concept, principle, or procedure (generalities) first, then the knowledge that the learner is expected to acquire will be more difficult to acquire than to acquire the examples of the generalities. Gagne, in his hierarchical learning theory, considered concepts as being less difficult to acquire than the principles, but not less abstract. For example, the definition of tree (as a concept) is not less abstract than the definition of Archimedes’ law (as a principle) but rather is less difficult to learn. Another example, H2O as factual information, is not less abstract than the concept of the tree but rather is less difficult to remember than remembering the definition of the tree, and so forth. The issue here is related to a difficulty level of the acquired knowledge, rather than the concreteness or abstraction itself (Figure 4).

Conclusion 9: Anderson and Bloom named their taxonomies “educational taxonomies.” I contend that the name “educational taxonomy” does not reflect what is going on in students’ minds and their learning. So, I prefers to rename the educational taxonomy into “learning taxonomy” in order to fit what is going on in students’ mind rather than reflecting their education.

Based on the aforementioned nine conclusions, I proposed a revision to Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revised Bloom’s et al.’s (1956) taxonomy (Darwazeh, 2016; Darwazeh & Branch, 2015). The new proposed taxonomy has two substantive modifications. One is related to the cognitive dimension, and the other is related to the knowledge dimension.

With respect to the cognitive process dimension, I have reorganized the order of cognitive processes of Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revised Bloom’s et al.’s (1956) taxonomy and added to them based on the review of literature on cognitive research and studies as I mentioned above. I recommend 10 cognitive processes that the students experience during learning. These processes range hierarchically and cumulatively from the simplest level which lies at the bottom of the triangle to the most complex level at the top, as follows:

1. Facts’ Remembrance: It is related to recognizing, recalling, retrieving the previous learned specific information and details, such as dates, names, symbols, events, terms, labels, titles, lists, elements, parts, examples, instances, specific details, and so forth (Merrill, 1983).

2. Generalities’ Remembrance: It is related to recognizing, recalling, retrieving, defining previous learned general information and ideas, such as recalling definitions of concepts, principles, and procedures (Merrill, 1983).

3. Comprehension: It is related to constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic messages through understanding, interpreting, explaining, paraphrasing, summarizing, discussing, clarifying, and so forth (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom et al., 1956; Darwazeh, 2007, 2011).

4. Analysis: It is related to breaking down the whole into its components and parts to see the details or components such as dividing, analyzing, separating, identifying, comparing, distinguishing, differentiating, discriminating, deconstructing, following up step-by-step, et cetera (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom et al., 1956; Darwazeh, 2011).

5. Organizing: It is related to putting parts together or ordering according to a certain structure, fashion, pattern, theme, model, or principle such as grouping, categorizing, tabulating, classifying, chunking, ordering, listing, outlining, sum up, and so forth (Lindsay & Norman, 1977; Tuckman, 1992; West et al., 1991).

6. Synthesis: It is related to figure out the relationships between and among the learned ideas in the text (internal synthesis) and the relationships between them with other external ideas in other texts, subjects or situations (external synthesis) such as integrating, connecting, correlating, structuring, compiling, composing, inferring, concluding, drawing, mapping, building, assembling, constructing, and so forth (Gropper, 1974; Lindsay & Norman, 1977; Reigeluth & Darwazeh, 1982; West et al., 1991).

7. Application: It is related to using the learned generalities (concepts, principles, or procedures) in a new novel, or strange, situation, such as transferring, translating, applying, implementing, solving, making, using, give new examples of learned generalities, execute, carrying out, planting, reasoning new phenomena, and so forth (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom et al., 1956; Darwazeh, 2004, 2011; Merrill, 1983).

8. Evaluation: It is related to making judgment based on criteria and standards through critiquing, balancing, appreciating, giving the merit, making decisions, presenting opinions, evaluating, estimating, stating advantages disadvantages, selecting, preferring, critique, choosing, grading, ranking, suggesting, deciding, correcting, and so forth (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom et al., 1965; Darwazeh, 2011)

9. Creation: It is related to overcoming new instances and manipulating new situations to come up with new products, and laws, such as producing a new product, discovering, composing new things, generating, finding, inventing, predicting, creating, deriving, hypothesizing, writing new story, poem, drama, novels, articles, planning, designing, and so forth (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Merrill, 1983).

10. Metacognition: This level is related to the kind of cognitive strategy related to thinking about thinking through promoting awareness, planning, monitoring, evaluating, and regulating mental processes that the learner used in his or her learning, such as proving, justifying, regulating, correcting, directing, steering, controlling. (e.g., Beyer, 1987; Bondy, 1984; Darwazeh, 1995, 2013; Gagne & Driscoll, 1988; Haller, Child, & Walberg, 1988; Huff & Nietfeld, 2009; Kistner et al., 2010; Palinscar, 1986; Paris & Winograd, 1990; Peirce, 2003; Tuckman, 1992; Wham, 1987).

I contend that each mental process ranges from simple to complex according to the number of items, factors, and components in which the learner engages during the construction of knowledge. So, as long as the information is getting bigger and larger, the difficulty level of the mental process will be harder and more complex to recall; for example, asking students to remember or process one item is easier for them to remember or process more than two or three items. The same thing is valid for the rest of the mental processes of the taxonomy. These mental processes also are sequenced hierarchal and cumulatively from simple to complex (Figure 6).

The intersection of the 10 cognitive processes (facts’ remembrance, generalities’ remembrance, comprehension, analysis, organizing, syntheses, application, evaluation, creation, and metacognition) with the four knowledge types (facts, concepts, principles, and procedures) forms a grid with 32 separate cells (Figure 7). Check marks represent that students can exhibit this kind of behavior related to this certain type of knowledge, and X marks represent that students can’t exhibit. The rationale is that once the facts are a kind of specific information or knowledge that cannot be generalized to more than one new situations; thus, the student cannot comprehend, apply, evaluate, or create them (Merrill, 1983). A learner can remember them on specific level of learning only, but not on a general level. The student also can discover the facts but cannot create them, because they exist in the world already. The student can also recognize, analyze, organize, reorganize, and synthesize the elements of facts, either names, symbols, dates, labels based on a certain principle. For example, the student can reorder the list of names alphabetically, once recognized and analyzed. He or she can also make connections and see relations between their elements. For example, the student can connect between titles of the books and their authors. She or he can see the relationships among the apparatus parts and how they fit together coherently. Finally, the student can accept the fact either he or she likes it or dislikes it. In other words, the student cannot evaluate or modify facts, but can accept or reject it as it is (Figure 7). The metacognition as a cognitive strategy accompanied all mental processes in different degree. We can look at metacognitive process as a hat which learners can wear and put it on the top of their heads but in a different size depending on their maturation, age, training, and intelligence.

Based on an extensive review of studies, theories, and research related to cognitions, metacognitions, information processing, and instructional design, I made major modifications to Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revision of Bloom’s et al. (1956) taxonomy. They were summarized as the following:

1. Moving the metacognitive process from the knowledge dimension to the cognitive dimension.

2. Considering the metacognitive process as the most complex level of the cognition dimension not of the knowledge dimension like what Anderson claimed.

3. Dividing remember level into two levels based on the content type: facts’ remembrance, and generalities’ remembrance.

4. Retaining the analyzing mental level posed by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) but in a different order.

5. Adding the organizing mental level to the cognitive dimension and put it after the analysis level.

6. Keeping the synthesizing mental level like it was in the original Bloom’s taxonomy but in different meaning and order.

7. Keeping the creation level like it was in the Anderson’s taxonomy after the evaluation ones

8. Reorder the cognitive processes of application, synthesis, and organize by putting:

   • the application level after the synthesizing level,

   • the synthesizing level after the organizing level, and

   • the organizing level after the analysis level.

9. Arranging each level of cognitive process from simple to complex according to the number of its items, factors, or components that the learner gets involved in while she or he learns.

10. Adding the principle type of knowledge to knowledge dimension.

11. Renaming the educational taxonomy as a learning taxonomy to fit with what happens in students’ mind and reflect their learning not their education.

Because presenting knowledge to students in an appropriate sequence will help them to store and retrieve information properly, enhancing the whole learning and instructional process (Gagne, 1977), I proposed a new revision of Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) [revised] Bloom’s taxonomy with more mental processes and in different sequence. The new proposed learning taxonomy is intended to be used in a broader and comprehensive frames by teachers, supervisors, educators, instructors, professional trainers, curriculum planners, and evaluators either at traditional or nontradi- tional (distance) learning system, who intend to promote students’ thinking and skills and enhance their performance levels, in order to be good thinkers, creators, discoverers, builders, and critical thinkers, so they can live productively and comfortably in the information technology age.