How to match what you teach with what your learners can actually show on Edovo

“How do I know if they got it?”

You wrote clear content. You asked good questions. You even added reflection prompts. But when it comes time to assess learning, it’s unclear whether your learner understands the material—or just clicked through it.

That disconnect usually starts way back at the learning objective. If the goal says “design a plan” or “demonstrate leadership,” but the platform only supports multiple choice, true/false, and short written responses, you’ve created a gap. The learner might be doing their best—but the system can’t show it.

That’s where Bloom’s Taxonomy comes in. It gives you the verbs, the levels, and the structure you need to set the right target and then actually measure whether your learner hits it.

The jargon you actually need to know

But here’s the thing: learning isn’t always that linear.

Newer research and perspectives—from cognitive science to instructional design—suggest that learners don’t always climb Bloom’s levels in a neat, upward path. In real life, thinking is messier. Learners bounce between understanding and analyzing, or might evaluate something before they’ve “mastered” all the facts. That’s why many educators today treat Bloom’s less like a staircase and more like a toolbox of cognitive skills to pull from, depending on the task and the learner.

This more flexible view is backed by scholars like Anderson & Krathwohl (2001), who revised the original taxonomy, and others like Marzano (2001) and Fink (2003) who proposed alternative frameworks focused on integration, meaning-making, and long-term learning. Cognitive science research also supports the idea that deep learning often involves moving back and forth between levels rather than climbing them one at a time.

Still, the original hierarchy has its uses—especially when it comes to choosing verbs and designing assessments. Words like identify, analyze, justify, and create still give instructors a clear way to write goals and measure learning outcomes. And in structured environments like Edovo, where learners work independently and progress must be trackable, that kind of clarity matters.

Even neuroscience and AI researchers are weighing in. A recent article in PubMed Central challenges older views of cognitive load and emphasizes that sequencing and mental effort are complex—not everything needs to be built from the bottom up.

So maybe it’s time we stop treating Bloom’s like a ladder to climb and start using it like a toolkit—flexible, practical, and grounded in how people actually learn.

“Use what helps the learner think better, not just harder.”

Why alignment matters on Edovo

On Edovo, you can’t grade a portfolio. You can’t observe behavior in real-time. You can’t see if someone built something by hand.

You can assess:

• Multiple choice
  
  

• True/false
  
  

• Fill in the blank responses
  
  

• Open reflection questions
  
  

That means your objectives need to align with what’s actually measurable—while still challenging the learner.

For example:

• Don’t say: “Create a budget”
  
  

• Do say: “Identify the key components of a weekly budget”
  
  

• Don’t say: “Demonstrate effective anger management”
  
  

• Do say: “Explain one strategy for managing anger in a stressful situation”
  
  

The goal is still meaningful—but now it’s assessable.

Note: “Create” is often difficult to assess on Edovo because learners don’t have a way to physically build, perform, or submit something online that can be reviewed or graded. Avoid verbs like design, develop, produce, or construct unless followed by a written prompt like: “Describe how you would…” so the learning remains active, but measurable.

What this looks like in a course

Let’s say your course is on conflict resolution. Here’s how to move through Bloom’s—using verbs and assessments that actually work on Edovo.

• Remember

• Objective: Identify two common reasons people get into conflicts
  Assessment type: Multiple choice or short response
  Example question:
  Which two of the following are common causes of conflict?
  A. Poor communication and feeling disrespectedB. Watching a movie and doing laundry

• Understand

• Objective: Explain why small arguments can grow when people don’t talk about what’s really going on
  Assessment type: Short answer or true/false
  Example question (true/false):
  True or false: Small arguments often get worse because people ignore their feelings or avoid talking things out.
   

• Apply

• Objective: Choose the most respectful response in a situation where someone disrespects your space
  Assessment type: Scenario-based multiple choice
  Example question:
  You’re using the phone, and someone cuts in and says they need it now. What’s the best way to respond?
  A. Push them away and say “Back off”
  B. Say nothing and walk away
  C. Calmly say, “I’ve got five more minutes—then it’s yours”
  D. Start yelling so others see what’s happening

• Analyze

• Objective: Compare what happens when someone avoids conflict vs. when they speak up calmly
  Assessment type: Multiple choice or reflection
  Example question:
  What’s one possible outcome of staying quiet instead of speaking up respectfully in a conflict?
  A. The situation stays the same or gets worse
  B. The other person always apologizes
  C. It makes you feel more in control
  D. The conflict disappears immediately

• Evaluate

• Objective: Defend whether walking away from a heated situation was the best decision
  Assessment type: Short written response
  Example question:
  Think about a time you walked away instead of reacting. Was that the right call? Explain why you think it was—or wasn’t—the best choice for you.

• Create (if used)

• Objective: Describe how you would handle a situation that usually sets you off
  Assessment type: Open reflection prompt
  Example question:
  Imagine someone says something that normally sets you off. Based on what you’ve learned, what would you try next time—and why?
  
  

This keeps learning active, reflective, and doable for someone working solo with limited tools.

These swaps keep your objectives challenging but aligned with what’s able to be evaluated on Edovo.

References

• Alharbi, M., Platt, A., & Al-Bayatti, A. H. (2025). Challenging cognitive load theory: The role of educational neuroscience and artificial intelligence in redefining learning efficacy. Brain Sciences, 15(2), 203.
  
  

• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
  
  

• Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Longmans.
  
  

• Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44–48.
  
  

• Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. Jossey-Bass.
  
  

• Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (8th ed.). Routledge.
  
  

• Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Corwin Press.