Learn how to create effective and impactful learning outcomes with Bloom’s Taxonomy and Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning.
Learning outcomes are foundational to intentional, student-centered course design. They clarify expectations, guide assessment, and empower students by making learning goals transparent. Well-crafted learning outcomes enhance pedagogical creativity and student achievement.
This guide will help instructors:
When designing learning outcomes, it is essential to consider their cognitive complexity. Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy remains one of the most widely used frameworks for this purpose, offering a hierarchical model that helps educators differentiate between lower-order and higher-order thinking skills (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). By aligning outcomes with levels such as remembering, applying, analyzing, and creating, instructors can ensure that their goals are developmentally appropriate and intellectually rigorous. Frameworks like Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning provide a more holistic approach, emphasizing integration, human dimension, and caring alongside foundational knowledge (Fink, 2003).
Originally developed in 1956 and revised in 2001, Bloom’s Taxonomy organizes cognitive processes into six levels: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create.
These levels progress from lower-order to higher-order thinking, helping educators scaffold learning and align assessments with cognitive complexity.
Define, duplicate, list, memorize, repeat, state
Classify, describe, discuss, explain, identify, locate, recognize, report, select, translate
Execute, implement, solve, use, demonstrate, interpret, operate, schedule, sketch
Differentiate, organize, relate, compare, contrast, distinguish, examine, experiment, question, test
Appraise, argue, defend, judge, select, support, value, critique, weigh
Design, assemble, construct, conjecture, develop, formulate, author, investigate
Developed by L. Dee Fink in 2003, this taxonomy expands beyond cognitive skills to include affective and metacognitive dimensions. It comprises six interrelated categories:
Fink’s model emphasizes transformative learning that affects students’ personal, social, and professional lives.
| Feature | Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy | Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning |
|---|---|---|
| Structure | Hierarchical | Relational and integrated |
| Focus | Cognitive processes | Cognitive, affective, and metacognitive domains |
| Learning Goals | Intellectual skills | Transformative, holistic learning |
| Assessment Alignment | Observable behaviors and performance | Personal growth, values, and self-directed learning |
| Use Cases | Traditional course design and assessment | Experiential, interdisciplinary, and values-based learning |
Rather than choosing one over the other, many educators find value in using both frameworks together. Bloom’s taxonomy provides clarity and structure for cognitive development, while Fink’s taxonomy encourages deeper engagement and broader educational impact.
Syracuse University’s Office of Institutional Effectiveness has compiled a guide that brings together verbs from both Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy and Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning together, showing how the taxonomies overlap.
The SMART Framework is a useful tool for evaluating and refining learning outcomes (Boston College Center for Teaching Excellence):
Both Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy and Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning offer valuable lenses for crafting effective learning outcomes. Bloom’s provides a structured hierarchy of cognitive skills, ideal for scaffolding intellectual development and aligning assessments. Fink’s model emphasizes holistic and transformative learning, encouraging outcomes that address emotional, interpersonal, and metacognitive growth.
Use this structure to ensure clarity and alignment:
Object: Skill, knowledge, or concept
Action verb: Bloom- or Fink-aligned verb that reflects the desired level of complexity and significance
Effective learning outcomes operate at multiple levels, from broad course goals to specific lesson objectives. Understanding the distinction between these levels helps ensure coherence and alignment throughout the learning experience.
Course Objectives articulate overarching goals for student learning across the entire course.
Lesson Objectives define targeted outcomes for individual class sessions or units.
Use this checklist to review your outcomes (Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation):
| Weak Outcome | Why It’s Weak | Strong Outcome | Why It’s Strong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Understand ethical research | Vague, not observable | Evaluate ethical dimensions of a research scenario | Observable, measurable |
| Be familiar with marketing strategies | Vague, lacks specificity | Design a marketing plan using segmentation principles | Clear, actionable, measurable |
| Learn about Civil War causes | Too broad, not performance-based | Analyze historical documents to identify causes | Demonstrates analytical thinking, observable |
Boston College Center for Teaching Excellence. (n.d.). Learning objectives documentation. https://cteresources.bc.edu/documentation/learning-objectives/
Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center. (n.d.). Articulating learning objectives. https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/design/learningobjectives.html
Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation. (n.d.). Setting learning outcomes. https://teaching.cornell.edu/setting-learning-outcomes
Levinsson, H., and Linder, C. (2024). Course design as a stronger predictor of student evaluation of quality and engagement than teacher ratings. Higher Education, 88, 1997–2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01197-y
Martin-Alguacil, N., et al. (2024). Student-centered learning: Issues and recommendations for implementation in traditional curriculum settings. Education Sciences, 14(11), 1179. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/14/11/1179
Paolini, A. (2015). Enhancing teaching effectiveness and student learning outcomes. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 15(1), 20–33. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1060429.pdf
Purvis, A., and Winwood, B. (2023). A guide to writing learning outcomes in higher education. National Teaching Repository, Sheffield Hallam University. https://shura.shu.ac.uk/32056/
University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. (n.d.). Learning outcomes for global learning. https://crlt.umich.edu/internationalization/learning-outcomes
University of Minnesota Center for Educational Innovation. (n.d.). Course and syllabus design using the 4As framework. https://cei.umn.edu/teaching-resources/course-and-syllabus-design
Cooper, M. M., et al. (2024). Beyond active learning: Using 3-dimensional learning to create scientifically authentic, student-centered classrooms. PLOS ONE, 19(5), Article e0295887. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295887
Syracuse University Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment. (2021, November). Action verbs using Bloom’s and Fink’s taxonomies. Syracuse University. https://effectiveness.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Action-Verbs.pdf
Written by David Giovagnoli Assistant Director for Scholarly Teaching and Learning, Center for Integrated Professional Development, Last Updated 10/24/25
Source: