Blooms 3D

Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956) is the most widely adopted framework for writing course learning outcomes in Australian higher education, and around the world. Most educators know the Taxonomy – the pyramid, the six levels, the verbs. What fewer people know is that Bloom always intended it to be three-dimensional.

Alongside the cognitive domain – the one most are familiar with – there were always meant to be companion frameworks: one for the Affective domain (how we feel, value, and relate) and one for the Psychomotor domain (how we physically do and make). These were developed later by other researchers, but they never made it into mainstream educational practice the way the cognitive framework did.

As a result, most program design, learning outcomes, and assessments focus almost entirely on the cognitive domain. We measure what students know, and sometimes what they can reason about, but rarely measure what they feel, what they value, or what they can physically do or how spatially aware they are. We don’t delve into the relationship between these three domains and how they shape how we interact with the world and the people in it.

The Extended Bloom’s Framework

The Extended Bloom’s Framework addresses this through a single practical move: normalising the six cognitive levels across all three domains – cognitive, affective, and operative – within a shared six-dimension structure (Perceptual through to Original). The result is a design volume rather than a pyramid: a three-dimensional space in which learning outcomes can be mapped, balanced, and written with precision across the full range of human capability. A structured verb taxonomy, organised by domain and dimension, gives curriculum designers and academics a usable instrument that works within existing CLO writing practice rather than replacing it.

Why does this matter right now?

Industry consistently identifies affective and interpersonal capabilities – collaboration, empathy, adaptability, ethical judgement – as critical graduate attributes. But there is a well documented gap between employer expectations of graduate readiness and graduates’ actual preparedness in these areas. If learning outcomes are the primary mechanism through which institutions specify and assure graduate capability, and they are systematically weighted toward knowledge and cognition, then the apparatus is itself reproducing the capability gap.

In addition AI is placing universities under real pressure around assurance of learning. If specific cognitive skills are easy to automate, then a broader understanding and inclusion of the affective and operative dimensions become even more important to develop and demonstrate.

But we can’t develop what we can’t name. And we can’t assess what we haven’t designed for. Hence this work to develop Blooms 3D. Bloom gave us a language for the cognitive dimension – it’s time we had one for the rest.

The innovation is deliberately small. It doesn’t require a new policy, platform, or restructured curriculum. It requires only that we ask a deeper question about learning: not just what students should know, but what they should feel, value, and be able to do? That question and changing single words are how a small innovation becomes lasting change.

Your thoughts are welcome – particularly from anyone working in curriculum design, learning design, or competency frameworks. This is a work in progress (V1.0) and I’m genuinely keen to hear where it holds up and where it doesn’t.