You are here:

Grounding Online Course Design in Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy

, Central Michigan Unversity, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Victoria, Canada ISBN 978-1-939797-03-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC


In online course development the structures of the technologies we use can facilitate the compartmentalization of learning. You have your discussion forums over in one location and your content in another. The experience of education can get lost in the fragmentation. In this presentation I will share an approach to course design that, while utilizing a variety of tools, still engenders a cohesive experience that supports students’ understanding of the content at the upper levels of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). More specifically, the purposeful selection of tools that best support collaborative knowledge building, the sharing of personal connections from the field, and the application of core course ideas can create a course that provides a deep and grounded understanding of the content.


Dirkin, K. (2013). Grounding Online Course Design in Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. In J. Herrington, A. Couros & V. Irvine (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2013--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 176-178). Victoria, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 24, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of(cid:1)tracking online education in the United States. Newburyport, MA. Retrieved from w
  2. Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
  3. Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75-85.
  4. Keller, J.M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.
  5. Krathwohl, D. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice. 41(4), 212218.
  6. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017-1054.
  7. Norman, D. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  8. Stewart, D. (2011). Master's programs defy easy profiling. The Chronicle of Higher Education 57(38). Academic OneFile. Web. 23 May 2013.-178 DASHDASH

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact