Blooms Taxonomy Verbs

Bloom's Taxonomy Verbs

Use this skill to make education writing clearer, more assessable, and better aligned to the intended cognitive demand.

Bloom's Taxonomy is most useful when the verb describes observable learner behaviour. Do not treat the verb list as a magic lookup table. The verb, task context, evidence, assessment conditions, and marking standard all need to point in the same direction.

Core Workflow

1. Identify the education artefact: learning outcome, assessment task, rubric criterion, marking descriptor, lesson objective, subject outline, or course documentation.
2. Identify the intended cognitive level: remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, or creating.
3. Replace vague or hidden mental-state verbs with observable action verbs.
4. Make the expected evidence explicit: report, design, calculation, code, critique, schema, presentation, reflection, plan, prototype, or other artefact.
5. Check alignment between the verb, the task, the marking standard, and the level of study.
6. Tell the user that the output should be manually reviewed by an educator, course coordinator, accreditation reviewer, or subject-matter expert before use.

Bloom's Taxonomy Levels

Use these levels from lower to higher cognitive complexity.

| Level | Purpose | Useful Verbs | | --- | --- | --- | | Remember | Recall facts, terms, steps, or definitions. | define, list, identify, name, recall, recognise, state, label | | Understand | Explain meaning, relationships, or concepts. | explain, summarise, describe, classify, compare, discuss, interpret, paraphrase | | Apply | Use knowledge or skills in a familiar or practical situation. | apply, calculate, demonstrate, implement, use, execute, configure, solve | | Analyse | Break material into parts and explain relationships, causes, patterns, or assumptions. | analyse, differentiate, compare, contrast, organise, deconstruct, distinguish, examine | | Evaluate | Make a judgement using criteria, evidence, standards, or constraints. | evaluate, justify, critique, defend, appraise, assess, prioritise, recommend | | Create | Produce a new artefact, approach, design, plan, or solution. | create, design, construct, develop, formulate, compose, produce, prototype |

Verb Choice Guidance

Prefer verbs that can be observed in submitted work.

Avoid vague verbs when writing assessable outcomes or rubric criteria:

• understand
• know
• learn
• appreciate
• be aware of
• be familiar with
• gain insight into
• demonstrate knowledge of, unless the required demonstration is named

Use the lowest level that honestly matches the task. Do not inflate a criterion to evaluate or create when the assessment only asks students to explain or apply a concept.

Some verbs can sit at different levels depending on context. For example, compare might be used at Understand level when students describe similarities and differences, or at Analyse level when they explain why those differences matter. Resolve ambiguity by naming the evidence and criteria.

Rubric Criterion Examples

Example 1: Technical Concept

Without Bloom's Taxonomy applied:

Shows a good understanding of database normalisation and why it is important.

Problems:

• Shows a good understanding is hard to assess directly.
• The expected student evidence is unclear.
• The cognitive level is vague.

With Bloom's Taxonomy applied:

Analyse a given relational schema to identify normalisation issues, justify required changes using 1NF, 2NF, and 3NF principles, and produce a revised schema that reduces duplication without losing required data.

Why this is stronger:

• Analyse, justify, and produce describe observable work.
• The criterion names the evidence: identified issues, justified changes, and revised schema.
• The required standard is clearer because it names the normal forms and design constraint.

Example 2: Professional Communication

Without Bloom's Taxonomy applied:

Student understands how to communicate professionally with stakeholders.

With Bloom's Taxonomy applied:

Compose a stakeholder update that summarises project progress, explains current risks, and recommends next steps using language appropriate for a non-technical audience.

Why this is stronger:

• Compose, summarises, explains, and recommends are assessable.
• The expected artefact is a stakeholder update.
• The audience and communication constraint are explicit.

Example 3: Evaluation Criterion

Without Bloom's Taxonomy applied:

Demonstrates awareness of ethical issues in the proposed solution.

With Bloom's Taxonomy applied:

Evaluate the proposed solution against privacy, accessibility, and bias considerations, then justify two changes that reduce ethical risk for the intended users.

Why this is stronger:

• Evaluate and justify require judgement against named criteria.
• The criterion clarifies which ethical dimensions matter.
• The output can be marked against concrete recommendations.

Rubric Descriptor Pattern

When writing a rubric criterion or descriptor, use this structure:

[Bloom verb] [student artefact or action] using/against [standard, concept, method, or constraint] to [observable result].

Examples:

Apply responsive design principles to implement a webpage layout that remains usable across mobile and desktop viewports.

Evaluate three deployment options against cost, maintainability, and security constraints, then recommend the best option for the project scenario.

Create a test plan that covers happy paths, edge cases, and failure states for the checkout workflow.

Manual Review Requirement

Always encourage manual review before the user publishes or relies on revised education wording.

Use a note like this when appropriate:

Please have this reviewed by the relevant educator, course coordinator, accreditation reviewer, or subject-matter expert before publishing it. Bloom's Taxonomy can improve clarity, but the final wording still needs to match the course level, institutional policy, assessment design, and marking expectations.

Manual review should check:

• the cognitive level matches the qualification or subject level
• the verb matches what students are actually asked to submit
• the criterion can be marked consistently by different assessors
• the wording fits local policy, accreditation, and accessibility requirements
• the final version does not overpromise what the assessment can measure

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: AlexStormwood
• Source: AlexStormwood/agentic-skills
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://www.skills.sh/alexstormwood/agentic-skills

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.