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, and 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 the mainstream in 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 what they can reason about, but rarely measure what they feel, value, or can physically do or operate within a space. 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 focus on the cognitive domain has narrowed our vision of what education can and should offer – an experience that spans the three dimensions.
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.
Extending Bloom’s Framework
Extending Bloom’s Framework across the three dimensions addresses this through a single practical move. This work concentrated on not just incorporating the other domains, but normalising them into a shared and connected framework - creating the Cognitive, Affective, and Operative domains. This normalisation continued into creating a shared structure of six dimensions across all three domains.
- Perceptual
- Conceptual
- Contextual
- Practical
- Critical
- Original
The result is a design volume rather than a pyramid or hierarchy: 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.
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. Explore the Domains and Dimensions, the Verb Taxonomy and please feel free to download and print your own copies and share how you've utilised them in your design process.