Learning outcomes assessment is an important course evaluation tool that informs what students learned relative to what instructors taught. Four different approaches to learning outcomes assessment, including exams, quizzes, labs, and student surveys, were compared in one semester of a plant propagation course at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln and results were interpreted within the cognitive framework of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Correlation analysis indicated no relationship among results from the four assessments for each of 14 learning outcomes, which suggests information gathered by each assessment was not duplicative. Direct, objective assessments (exams and quizzes) were most useful for discriminating between successful and problematic learning outcomes but interpreted alone these may underestimate student learning given their high-stakes nature. Indirect assessment of student learning (knowledge survey) was the least effective tool for identifying instructional weaknesses, and as a result may overestimate successful learning outcomes. Assessment performance scores decreased, and variability increased with increasing Bloom’s level; misalignment between what was taught and what was assessed may explain anomalous cases of low assessment scores. Overall, results of this case study demonstrate the need for a holistic assessment strategy that includes a diversity of evidence interpreted within a cognitive framework for more accurate assessment of learning outcomes.