by Barbara Shadden, TFSC Co-Director
Designing a new course for the spring? Revising an old one? Wondering why your students don't meet your expectations in a particular course? If so, you may want to consider applying Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives to all stages in course planning (Bloom et al., 1956).
The levels of cognitive skills reflected in this taxonomy allow us to develop courses within a consistent philosophical and practical framework. This approach provides structure to the design of learning performance objectives, identification of teaching techniques to match learner outcomes, and selection of appropriate assessment tools.
Although many variants on the theme of learning levels exist (c.f., Sherman, 1984), Bloom's taxonomy remains a powerful tool in course design. The list which follows describes the model (modified from Bloom et al, 1956; Stice, 1978; Brightman, 1993). Associated action words for writing learning performance objectives and various assessment options are also indicated.
As can be seen in this list, educational objectives move from lower to higher order cognitive skills and outcomes. The instructor's course design should reflect desired educational levels, as noted in the learning performance objectives (LPO's) written for each component of a course. A learning performance objective is a description of an anticipated change in the behavior of a student after exposure to instruction. Objectives should be written using action terms that reflect desired behavioral outcomes. Examples of each level and appropriate objectives are provided in the following sections.
At the most basic level of knowledge in Bloom's taxonomy, students are expected to learn, and typically report back to the instructor, factual information. Action terms for LPO's might include "list" or "name." At the next level, this knowledge must be manipulated to demonstrate comprehension. Objectives should be phrased in terms such as "described" or "summarize." The distinction between knowledge and comprehension is the difference between being able to list a series of facts and the ability to explain or estate the same information.
The next level is application, in which previously acquired knowledge and understandings are applied to new situations. Problem-solving is an excellent example of the applications level of the taxonomy, as reflected in LPO terms such as "solve", "apply", or "compute." At higher levels, skills of analysis and synthesis are applied to the existing cognitive foundation. Analysis involves action words such as "compare" and "discriminate"; synthesis involves actions such as "design" and "plan." Finally, at the highest level, evaluation, the learner is capable of judging existing and new information, and objectives use terms such as "judge" and "assess" to reflect these skills.
Any given course may include learning performance objectives at multiple levels of Bloom's taxonomy. A required introductory science course at the university may emphasize knowledge, comprehension, and application heavily, while leaving higher order skills such analysis, synthesis and evaluation to upper division and graduate level courses.
As an example, students graduating with a master's degree in speech-language pathology must be able to diagnose and treat voice disorders. In their coursework at the sophomore level, learning performance objectives address primarily the knowledge level of Bloom's taxonomy, in that the student is expected to be able to list or recognize descriptions of common voice disorders. At the junior level, courses add to this base by providing information about the basic anatomy and physiology of voice production, the more specific nature of voice disorders, and common tools for measuring voice behavior. While knowledge is still emphasized, comprehension and application skills are also required. Tests emphasize manipulation of knowledge, and laboratory assignments address the application of knowledge and comprehension. Finally, at the graduate level, learning performance levels shift to analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Students must now be able to voice performance of a videotaped client, identify key elements from laboratory procedures, and synthesize this information into an appropriate diagnosis and treatment plan. They are also expected to evaluate critically research articles, new test protocols, and new treatment techniques.
Implicit in the above example is the observation that teaching strategies should vary depending on the level of the educational objectives in a given course. All too commonly, our teaching techniques may be mismatched with our desired learner outcomes. An instructor who spends 90% of her class time lecturing may be disappointed when she asks students to demonstrate analysis and synthesis skills on formal tests and assignments, yet she has provided little or no foundation for skill development in this area.
For an introductory level course emphasizing knowledge and comprehension, instructors may emphasize lecture, focused reading assignments with specific facts to be gleaned and understood, and list- or detail-oriented study guides. However, teaching and learning activities at this level do not have to be dull or passive. Silberman (1995) provides numerous active teaching/learning strategies in his book, 101 WAYS TO MAKE TEACHING ACTIVE.
For higher levels in Bloom's taxonomy, instructors should consider building in more active teaching and learning strategies, such as cooperative learning, games and simulations, case studies, and other types of activities that stimulate higher order thinking skills.
Last but not least, assessment is influenced by the specific cognitive level of individual learning performance objectives. As with teaching strategies, instructors who take the time to reexamine their courses using Bloom's taxonomy may find two types of mismatching between objectives and assessment tools. The instructor may teach and promote active learning strategies that address higher levels in Bloom's taxonomy, yet may test at the knowledge and comprehension levels only. Conversely, as noted above, it is unreasonable to expect students to demonstrate the ability to evaluate critically new information if they have not been provided with opportunities to observe and experiment with the evaluative process.
Unfortunately, most of us develop our tests and other assessment tasks based on variables such as class size, ease of grading and/or of developing test items, and availability of previous test material (see article in TFSC newsletter, February, 1995). The table above notes the general types of tests and assessment projects appropriate to each level of Bloom's taxonomy. Frye (1993) identifies a detailed process of developing a course evaluation plan that identifies the types of objective test items appropriate to each of Bloom's educational objectives and strategies for designing other types of assessment tools. Interested readers are referred to Frye's guidelines for completing the course evaluation plan and for using a comprehensive gird to link unit instructional objectives with specific test items.
The application of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives to course development ensures a high level of accountability in terms of learner outcomes, teaching strategies, and assessment processes. The model can even be used, if desired, to create a curriculum sequence within a major that provides a kind of scaffolding of content and educational skills, with the ultimate goal being the highest level of critical thinking in those learners who have completed the sequence.
Bloom, B.S., Englehart, M.D., et al. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I, the Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans Green.
Brightman, H.J. (1993). On Improving Teaching. Workshop Presented at the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville.
Frye, B. J. (1993). Planning student evaluation, constructing tests and grading. Chapter 7 in D. Grieve (Ed.), Teaching in College: A Resource for College Teachers (Rev. Ed.). Cleveland, OH: INFO-TEC.
Sherman, T. M. (1984). Proven Strategies for Successful Learning. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Stice, J.E. (1976). A First Step Toward Improved Teaching. Engineering Education, 101-105.
(From across the internet, forwarded courtesy of Jon Johnson)
Many of the students beginning college this fall were born in 1980 and...
And we wonder why our worldviews sometimes differ???
This year we are trying something a little different...in order to accommodate those who would like to go but are teaching, we are moving the conference to a weekend schedule. We will leave the U of A on Friday and return on Tuesday. With the new schedule, we expect slots to fill up faster than ever; so make plans now, and watch future mailings in January for application instructions and further information.