The primary theorists to categorize learning outcomes are Benjamin Bloom, Robert Gagné, and David Merrill. We will discuss each of their systems in the order in which they were developed.
Bloom’s Taxonomies
The taxonomies of Benjamin Bloom sought to identify educational goals according to cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. The largest proportion of learning outcomes fall within the cognitive domain (Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia, 1964). This domain is organized into a hierarchical format with outcomes moving from simple to complex through six main categories: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom, 1956). Each of the six main categories also includes various subcategories. For instance, the comprehension category has subcategories of translation, interpretation, and extrapolation.
Learning outcomes within the affective domain “represent interest, attitude, values, emotion, and bias” (Richey, Klein, and Tracey, 2011). The five main categories in this domain include: receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and characterization (Krathwohl et al., 1964).
Finally, Bloom and his colleagues identified a psychomotor domain of learning outcomes. This domain is concerned with “motor skills and the manipulation of tools and objects for a particular job” (Richey et al., 2011). Bloom and his associates did not elaborate categories or subcategories within the psychomotor domain due to sparse examples in the literature at the time.
According to van Merriënboer (2007), Bloom’s cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains roughly correspond to the typical knowledge, skill, and attitude (KS&A) outcomes prevalent in most traditional ID models.
Domains of Learning
Initially, Gagné presented his domains of learning as consisting of motor skills, verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive skills, and attitudes (Gagné, 1972/2000). Although his domains are similar to the ones Bloom proposed, Gagné believed that each category can be taught in a similar manner regardless of the subject matter. His position was that there are general types of learning that apply to all disciplines.
Performance-Content Matrix
Another approach to classifying learning outcomes is the Performance-Content Matrix (Merrill and Boutwell, 1973; Merrill, 1983). This approach identifies a learning task as consisting of two independent parts: 1) content categories and 2) the behaviors which the learners will perform after meeting the objective. Building off Gagné’s categories, the content categories include: fact, concept, procedure, and principle (Gagné and Merrill, 1990) and the types of student behavior are remember, find, and use.