Week 3 Tasks

Your tasks for this week are to:

 Read the required readings. Go to Readings and Resources folder on the navigation
bar, click on the Course Objectives folder and read the first four articles (and the
optional article if you wish.):

"The ASSURE Model"

"ABCD Objectives"(be sure to check out the Practice Exercises by clicking on
"Writing Objectives" at the bottom of the page and then clicking on "Try Practice
Exercises.")
"Bloom's Revisited: A New Version of the Cognitive Taxonomy"
"Bloom's Digital Taxonomy"

Optional reading:
"Bloom's Taxonomy of Cognitive Domain"

 Make at least two posts to the discussion board, one by Thursday midnight PST
and the other by Monday midnight PST.

 Continue working with your group on the Midterm Project. You should have
decided (or be fairly close to deciding) what your project will be and begin dividing
tasks among yourselves for who will do what aspect of the project. You may look at
the student projects from previous terms by looking in the Sample Projects folder on
the green menu bar. You should continually communicate with your group member(s)
about the Midterm Project, make decisions and take action on an on-going basis. If
you have any questions or problems, please do not hesitate to contact the instructor. If
you have not done so already, please post the name of your group members in the
"Announcing Midterm Groups" thread on discussion board (one post per group is
fine.)

 OPTIONAL Assignment (NOT REQUIRED): Watch the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MawAx6Xgw

The ASSURE Model

(From Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning by Heinich, Molenda, Russell,
Smaldino, 1999)

Analyze learners
State objectives
Select instructional methods, media, and materials
Utilize media and materials
Require learner participation
Evaluate and revise
The ASSURE model is an ISD (Instructional Systems Design) process that was modified to
be used by teachers in the regular classroom The ISD process is one in which teachers and
trainers can use to design and develop the most appropriate learning environment for their
students. You can use this process in writing your lesson plans and in improving teaching and
learning.

The ASSURE model incorporates Robert Gagne's events of instruction to assure effective use
of media in instruction.

Analyze learners
Before you can begin, you must know your target audience (your students). You need to
write down the following information about your students:

General characteristics - grade, age, ethnic group, sex, mental, emotional, physical, or social
problems, socioeconomic level, and so on.
Specific entry competencies - prior knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
Learning styles - verbal, logical, visual, musical, structured, and so on.

State objectives
Once you know your students, you can begin writing the objectives of your lesson.
Objectives are the learning outcomes, that is, what will the student get out of the lesson?

The ABCD's of writing objectives are:

 Audience (who are your students?)

 Behavior to be demonstrated
 Conditions under which the behavior will be observed
  Degree to which the learned skills are to be mastered.

Example: Fifth grade social studies students (Audience) will be able to name at least 90%
(Degree) of the state capitols (Behavior) when given a list of states (Condition).

Select instructional methods, media, and materials

Once you know your students and have a clear idea of what they should get out of the lesson,
then you are ready to select the:

 Instructional method that you feel is most appropriate to meet the objectives for these
particular students.
 Media that would be best suited to work with your instructional method, the
objectives, and your students. Media could be text, still images, video, audio, and
computer multimedia.
 Materials that provide your students with the help they need in mastering the
objectives. Materials might be purchased and used as is or they might need some
modifications. You can also design and create your own materials for the students to
use. Materials would be specific software programs, music, videotapes, images, but
would also be equipment, i.e., overhead projector, computer, printer, scanner, TV,
laserdisk player, VCR, and so on.

Utilize media and materials

Now it's time to do your lesson and use the media and materials that you have selected. You
should always preview the materials before using them in a class and you should also use the
equipment in advance to be sure it works and you know how to use it. If you use electronic
equipment, don't assume that everything will work. Be sure to have a plan B. Hardware and
software are created by humans. Humans make mistakes and so software has mistakes in it.
Hardware can malfunction. Don't get discouraged if technology lets you down. Make sure
that your instructional materials are suitable and working the best you can and then use it in
the classroom.

Require learner participation

Remember, students learn best when they are actively involved in the learning. The passive
learner has more trouble learning whatever we try to pour into his/her brain. Whatever your
teaching strategy, you can incorporate questions and answers, discussions, group work,
hands-on activities, and other ways of getting students actively involved in the learning of the
content. It is up to you, the teacher, to make sure that all your students have opportunities to
participate in the learning activities in the unit plan. Avoid lecturing for an entire hour.
Listen to your students and allow them to become aware of the content. Allow them to learn
as opposed to trying to "teach" them.
Evaluate and revise
This last stage is often neglected but it is the most important one. Anyone can develop a
lesson and deliver it, but really good teachers must reflect upon the lesson, the stated
objectives, the instructional strategy, the instructional materials, and the assessment and
determine if these elements of the lesson were effective or if one or more of them need to be
changed the next time the lesson is done. Sometimes a lesson may seem like it would be
great, at least on paper. But then when you actually teach the lesson with a specific set of
students, you might discover there were several things that did not seem to work. Your
expectations might be too high or too low. The materials used might not have been
appropriate for the grade level or the material might not be very motivating. The
instructional strategy might not have got students interesting in participation or the strategy
might have been difficult for you to manage. The assessment you used might have shown
that students didn't learn what you tested for. This might mean that you did not accurately
test for the stated objectives, the method of assessment needs to be revised, or the lesson did
not permit enough time for the students to master the objectives.

You are not a bad teacher if a lesson does not work. You are a bad teacher if you don't
reflect upon your lessons and work on revising elements of the lesson until your
students become successful learners.

Writing Objectives
 View
 Revisions

Mon, 12/17/2007 - 19:55 — bxb11

The Best Choice .... according to the experts

Jones, 1997 – "Clear objectives can help the instructor design lessons that will be easier for
the student tocomprehend and the teacher to evaluate".

Lohr, no date – "A properly written objective tells you what specific knowledge, skill, or
attitude is desired and what method of instruction and criteria for learner achievement are
required."

Rationale

Writing clear course objectives is important because:

 Objectives define what you will have the students do.

 Objectives provide a link between expectations, teaching and grading.

Basic Information

Questions you need to think about

  Who are your students? Freshman? Senior? A mix of different prior knowledge and
experience?
 Is this course a general education course or a course required for the major?

The A.B.C.D. method

The ABCD method of writing objectives is an excellent starting point for writing objectives
(Heinich, et al., 1996). In this system, "A" is for audience, "B" is for behavior, "C" for
conditions and "D" for degree of mastery needed.

1. Audience – Who? Who are your learners?

2. Behavior – What? What do you expect them to be able to do? This should be an overt,
observable behavior, even if the actual behavior is covert or mental in nature. If you can't see
it, hear it, touch it, taste it, or smell it, you can't be sure your audience really learned it.

3. Condition – How? Under what circumstances or context will the learning occur? What will
the student be given or already be expected to know to accomplish the learning?

4. Degree – How much? How much will be accomplished, how well will the behavior need to be
performed, and to what level? Do you want total mastery (100%), do you want them to
respond correctly 80% of the time, etc. A common (and totally non-scientific) setting is 80%
of the time.

Examples of Well-Written Objectives

Below are some example objectives which include Audience (A), Behavior (B), Condition
(C), and Degree of Mastery (D). Note that many objectives actually put the condition first.

Psychomotor - "Given a standard balance beam raised to a standard height, the student
(attired in standard balance beam usage attire) will be able to walk the entire length of the
balance beam (from one end to the other) steadily, without falling off, and within a six second
time span."

Cognitive (comprehension level) -"Given examples and non-examples of constructivist

activities in a college classroom, the student will be able to accurately identify the
constructivist examples and explain why each example is or isn't a constructivist activity in
20 words or less."

Cognitive (application level) -"Given a sentence written in the past or present tense, the
student will be able to re-write the sentence in the past or present tense with no errors in tense
or tense contradiction."

Cognitive (problem solving/synthesis level) -"Given two cartoon characters of the student's
choice, the student will be able to list five major personality traits of each of the two
characters, combine these traits (either by melding traits together, multiplying together
complimentary traits, or negating opposing traits) into a composite character, and develop a
short (no more than 20 frames) storyboard for a cartoon that illustrates three to five of the
major personality traits of the composite character."
Affective - "Given the opportunity to work in a team with several people of different races,
the student will demonstrate an positive increase in attitude towards non-discrimination of
race, as measured by a checklist utilized/completed by non-team members."

Notes on Objective Writing

When reviewing example objectives above, you may notice a few things.

1. As you move up the "cognitive ladder," it can be increasingly difficult to precisely specify the
degree of mastery required.
2. Affective objectives are difficult for many instructors to write and assess. They deal almost
exclusively with internal feelings and conditions that can be difficult to observe externally.

3. It's important to choose the correct key verbs to express the desired behavior you want
students to produce. See the pages on a page on cognitive objectives (Blooms' Taxonomy),
affective objectives and psychomotor objectives to see examples of key words for each level.

Typical Problems Encountered When Writing Objectives

Problems Error Types Solutions

Too The objective is too broad in scope or is Use the ABCD method to identify each
vast/complex actually more than one objective. desired behavior or skill in order to
break objectives apart.

No behavior to No true overt, observable performance Determine what actions a student

evaluate listed. Many objectives using verbs like should demonstrate in order for you to
"comprehend" or "understand" may not know of the material has been learned.
include behaviors to observe.

Only topics are Describes instruction, not conditions. That Determine how students should use the
listed is, the instructor may list the topic but not information presented. Should it be
how he or she expects the students to use memorized? Used as background
the information. knowledge? Applied in a later project?
What skills will students need?

Vague The objective does not list the correct Determine parameters for your
Assignment behavior, condition, and/or degree, or they assignments and specify them for your
Outcomes are missing. Students may not sure of how students.
to complete assignments because they are
lacking specifics.
Tying Objectives to Assessment

Once you establish all the behaviors, conditions and degrees of mastery for each objective,
you can use them to determine what types of assignments, tests or alternative assessment (e.g.
a portfolio) you should use in the course.

The Assessment section discusses how to design methods to evaluate student performance
and includes examples using different types of learning objectives.

References

Dwyer, F. M. (1991). A paradigm for generating curriculum design oriented research

questions in distance education. Second American Symposium Research in Distance
Education, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.

Heinrich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J.D., Smaldino, S.E. (1996). Instructional Media and
Technologies for Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

Huitt, W. (2000). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain.

Retrieved May 14, 2003, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/bloom.html

Kizlik, B. (2003). How to write effective behavioral objectives. Boca Raton, FL: Adprima.
Retrieved May 14, 2003, from http://www.adprima.com/objectives.htm

Lohr, L (no date). Objectives, sequencing, strategies.

Retrieved May 14, 2003 from
http://www.coe.unco.edu/LindaLohr/home/et502_cbt/Unit3/Unit3_menu.htm

SOGC Org (No date). Writing instructional objectives: The what, why how and when.
Retrieved May 14, 2003, from http://www.sogc.org/conferences/pdfs/instructionalObj.PDF

Additional Links
 Writing Objectives (B. O'Bannon, University of Tennessee)
 Behavioral Objectives and How to Write Them (Florida State University)

 Writing Objectives (Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences)

How do I write an instructional objective? Heinich and his colleagues (2002) suggest that
well written objectives have four parts. They call these parts the ABCD's of instructional objectives.
The A stands for Audience, the B represents Behavior, the C stands for Condition and the D for
Degree of Accuracy. Each instructional objective is written in sentence format and should contain the
A, B, C and D. Let's take a closer look at each of these. NOTE: The Heinich book has been revised
by S. Smaldino, D. Lowther & J. Russell in 2007 yet continues to follow the ideas set forth earlier.

Audience

The audience is learner(s) that the objective is written for.

This is usually written "the learner" or "the student" however it could be written as specific as "The
third grade science student". I suggest that "less is more". Make it simple so that the objective does
not get too wordy.

Behavior

The behavior is the verb that describes what the learner (audience) will be able to do after the
instruction.

This is the heart of the objective and MUST be measurable AND observable. In addition, these verbs
MUST be specific. Verbs such as know, understand, comprehend, and appreciate are difficult to
measure and are therefore not good choices for objectives. While there are many good verbs to
choose from for instructional objectives, Heinich and his colleagues suggest The Helpful Hundred as
a good place to start.

Try the Practice Exercises

Condition

Conditions are the circumstances under which the objectives must be completed.

What will the instructor allow the student to use in order to complete the instruction? What equipment
or tools can the student have access to such as a calculator, map, the book, class notes, etc?
Obviously it would be much more difficult to make calculations without a calculator than with one.

Try the Practice Exercises

Degree

The degree identifies the standard that the learner must meet to reach acceptable performance.

In other words, what degree of accuracy does the learner have to achieve in order that his/her
performance be judged proficient? The degree of accuracy should be related to real-world
expectations. Degree of accuracy can be related as a time limit (in 20 minutes), or a number of
correct answers (7 out of 10) , or a range of accuracy (90%) or qualitative standard.
 Leslie Owen Wilson's

Curriculum Pages
Beyond Bloom - A new Version of the Cognitive Taxonomy

Leslie Owen Wilson 2006, restrictions on usage

Background: In the late 1950s into the early 1970s here in the US there were attempts to dissect
and classify the varied domains of human learning - cognitive (knowing, head), affective
(feeling, heart) and psychomotor (doing, hand/body). The resulting efforts yielded a series of
taxonomies in each area. A taxonomy is really just a word for a form of classification. The
aforementioned taxonomies deal with the varied aspects of human learning and are arranged
hierarchically proceeding from the simplest functions to those that are more complex.

While all of the taxonomies above have been defined and are explained in this site via the
hotlinks, the material below is a simple overview of the newer version of the cognitive domain.
You can also search the Web for various references on these different taxonomies, as well as
explore the active hyperlinks below. There are many valuable discussions of the development of
the varied taxonomies and examples of their usefulness and application in teaching. If you find
that some of my links are not working, please let me know through my e-mail link as I know
how frustrating that can be. Also, if you have additional related resources that you think I might
be interested in, please write sending the URL.

The Cognitive Domain: In the following table are the two primary existing taxonomies of
cognition. The one on the left, entitled Bloom's, is based on the original work of Benjamin
Bloom and others as they attempted in 1956 to define the functions of thought, coming to know,
or cognition. This taxonomy is over 50 years old.

The taxonomy on the right is the more recent adaptation and is the redefined work of one of
Bloom's former students, Lorin Anderson, working with one of Bloom's partners in the original
work on cognition, David Krathwohl. That one is labeled Anderson and Krathwohl. The new
taxonomy was a larger group effort lead by Anderson and Krathwohl as they worked on this task
from from 1995-2000. The group was assembled by the primary authors and included people
with expertise in the areas of cognitive psychology, curriculum and instruction, and educational
testing, measurement, and assessment.

As you will see the primary differences are not just in the listings or rewordings from nouns to
verbs, or in the renaming of some of the components, or even in the repositioning of the last two
categories. The major differences in the updated version is in the more useful and
comprehensive additions of how the taxonomy intersects and acts upon different types and levels
of knowledge -- factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive.

Taxonomies of the Cognitive Domain:

Bloom's Taxonomy 1956 Anderson and Krathwohl's

Taxonomy 2000
1. Knowledge: Remembering or retrieving 1. Remembering:
previously learned material. Examples of verbs Retrieving, recalling, or
that relate to this function are: recognizing knowledge
from memory.
know define record Remembering is when
identify recall name memory is used to
relate memorize recognize produce definitions,
list repeat acquire facts, or lists, or recite
or retrieve material.

2. Comprehension: The ability to grasp or 2. Understanding:

construct meaning from material. Examples of Constructing meaning from
verbs that relate to this function are: different types of functions
be they written or graphic
restate identify illustrate messages activities like
locate discuss interpret interpreting, exemplifying,
report describe draw classifying, summarizing,
recognize review represent inferring, comparing, and
explain infer differentiate explaining.
express
conclude

3. Application: The ability to use learned 3. Applying: Carrying out

material, or to implement material in new and or using a procedure through
concrete situations. Examples of verbs that executing, or
relate to this function are: implementing. Applying
related and refers to
apply organize practice situations where learned
relate employ calculate material is used through
develop restructure show products like models,
translate interpret exhibit presentations, interviews or
use demonstrate dramatize simulations.
operate illustrate
4. Analysis: The ability to break down or 4. Analyzing: Breaking
distinguish the parts of material into its material or concepts into
components so that its organizational structure parts, determining how the
may be better understood. Examples of verbs parts relate or interrelate to
that relate to this function are: one another or to an overall
structure or purpose. Mental
analyze differentiate experiment actions included in this
compare contrast scrutinize function are differentiating,
probe investigate discover organizing, and
inquire detect inspect attributing, as well as being
examine survey dissect able to distinguish between
contrast classify discriminate the components or parts.
categorize deduce separate When one is analyzing
he/she can illustrate this
mental function by creating
spreadsheets, surveys,
charts, or diagrams, or
graphic representations.

5. Synthesis: The ability to put parts together to 5. Evaluating: Making

form a coherent or unique new whole. judgments based on criteria
Examples of verbs that relate to this function and standards through
are: checking and critiquing.
Critiques, recommendations,
compose plan propose and reports are some of the
produce invent develop products that can be created
design formulate arrange to demonstrate the processes
assemble collect construct of evaluation. In the newer
create set up organize taxonomy evaluation comes
prepare generalize originate before creating as it is often
predict document derive a necessary part of the
modify combine write precursory behavior before
tell relate propose creating something.

Remember this one has

now changed places with
the last one on the other
side.

6. Evaluation: The ability to judge, check, and 6. Creating: Putting

even critique the value of material for a given elements together to form a
purpose. Examples of verbs that relate to this coherent or functional
function are: whole; reorganizing
elements into a new pattern
judge argue validate or structure through
assess decide consider generating, planning, or
 compare choose appraise producing. Creating
evaluate rate value requires users to put parts
conclude select criticize together in a new way or
measure estimate infer synthesize parts into
deduce something new and different
a new form or product. This
process is the most difficult
mental function in the new
taxonomy.

This one used to be #5 in

Bloom's known as
synthesis.

Table 1.1 Bloom vs. Anderson/Krathwohl

Visual comparison of the two taxonomies

One of the things that clearly differentiates the new model from that of the 1956 original is that it
lays out components nicely so they can be considered and used, and so cognitive processes as
related to chosen instructional tasks can be easily documented and tracked. This feature has the
potential to make teacher assessment, teacher self-assessment, and student assessment easier or
clearer as usage patterns emerge.

Perhaps surprisingly, these levels of knowledge were indicated in Bloom's original work -
factual, conceptual, and procedural - but these were never fully understood or used by teachers
because most of what educators were given in training consisted of a simple chart with the
listing of levels and related accompanying verbs. The full breadth of Handbook I and its
recommendations on types of knowledge were rarely discussed in any instructive or useful way.
Nor were teachers in training ever made aware of any of the criticisms leveled against the
original model. Please note that in the updated version the term "metacognitive" has been added
to the array of knowledge types.

Here are the intersections as the processes impact the levels of knowledge. Using a simple cross
impact grid or table like the one below, one can match easily activities and objectives to the
types of knowledge and to the cognitive processes as well. It is a very useful tool to use in
assessing how instruction is actually impacting levels of learning. Teachers can also use it to
track which levels of cognition they are requiring from students, as well as which dimensions of
knowledge.
 Cognitive Processes
The Knowledge
Dimensions
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Understand
Remember Apply Analyze Evaluate Create
Factual
Conceptual
Procedural
Metacognitive

Knowledge Dimensions Defined:

Factual Knowledge is knowledge that is basic to specific disciplines. This dimension refers to
essential facts, terminology, details or elements students must know or be familiar with in order
to understand a discipline or solve a problem in it.

Conceptual Knowledge is knowledge of classifications, principles, generalizations, theories,

models, or structures pertinent to a particular disciplinary area.

Procedural Knowledge refers to information or knowledge that helps students to do something

specific to a discipline, subject, area of study. It also refers to methods of inquiry, very specific
or finite skills, algorithms, techniques, and particular methodologies.

Metacognitive Knowledge is the awareness of one�s own cognition and particular cognitive
processes. It is strategic or reflective knowledge about how to go about solving problems,
cognitive tasks, to include contextual and conditional knowledge and knowledge of self.

A comprehensive example from the book is provided with publisher permission at

http://www.scribd.com/doc/933640/Bloom-Revised

Sources:

Anderson, L. W. and David R. Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds..) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning,
Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon.
Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group)

Bloom, B.S. and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The

Classification of Educational Goals, by a committee of college and university
examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. NY, NY: Longmans, Green

Bloom's Digital Taxonomy

 Bloom's Taxonomy (1950's) Bloom's Revised Taxonomy (1990's)
This is Benjamin Bloom's original Lorin Anderson, a former student of
taxonomy of cognitive objectives. Bloom, revised the taxonomy.
 Bloom's Digital Taxonomy Map (Churches, 2008)
Elements coloured in black are recognized and existing verbs.
Elements in Blue are new digital verbs.

Learn more about Bloom's Digital Taxonomy by reading these articles.

"Bloom's Taxonomy Blooms Digitally" Technology and Learning Magazine
"Bloom's Digital Taxonomy" by Andrew Churches a book online at Scribd

Bloom's Taxonomy Blooms Digitally

By Andrew Churches, April 1, 2008

from Educators' eZine

Introduction and Background:

Bloom's Taxonomy

In the 1950's Benjamin Bloom developed his taxonomy of cognitive objectives, Bloom's
Taxonomy. This categorized and ordered thinking skills and objectives. His taxonomy
follows the thinking process. You can not understand a concept if you do not first remember
it, similarly you can not apply knowledge and concepts if you do not understand them. It is a
continuum from Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) to Higher Order Thinking Skills
(HOTS). Bloom labels each category with a gerund.

Bloom's Revised Taxonomy

In the 1990's, a former student of Bloom, Lorin Anderson, revised Bloom's Taxonomy and
published this- Bloom's Revised Taxonomy in 2001.Key to this is the use of verbs rather than
nouns for each of the categories and a rearrangement of the sequence within the taxonomy.
They are arranged below in increasing order, from low to high.

Bloom's Revised Taxonomy Sub Categories

Each of the categories or taxonomic elements has a number of key verbs associated with it
Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS)

 Remembering - Recognising, listing, describing, identifying, retrieving, naming,

locating, finding
 Understanding - Interpreting, Summarising, inferring, paraphrasing, classifying,
comparing, explaining, exemplifying
 Applying - Implementing, carrying out, using, executing
 Analysing - Comparing, organising, deconstructing, Attributing, outlining, finding,
structuring, integrating
 Evaluating - Checking, hypothesising, critiquing, Experimenting, judging, testing,
Detecting, Monitoring
 Creating - designing, constructing, planning, producing, inventing, devising, making

Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)

The elements cover many of the activities and objectives but they do not address the new
objectives presented by the emergence and integration of Information and Communication
Technologies into the classroom and the lives of our students.
Bloom's digital taxonomy map

Key:
Elements coloured in black are recognised and existing verbs, Elements coloured in blue are
new digital verbs.

Remembering

This element of the taxonomy does infer the retrieval of material. This is a key element given
the growth in knowledge and information.

The digital additions and their explanations are as follows:

 Bullet pointing – This is analogous to listing but in a digital format.

 Highlighting – This is a key element of most productivity suites; encouraging
students to pick out and highlight key words and phrases is a technique for recall.
 Bookmarking or favorite-ing – this is where the students mark for later use web
sites, resources and files. Students can then organise these.
 Social networking – this is where people develop networks of friends and associates.
It forges and creates links between different people. Like social bookmarks (see
below) a social network can form a key element of collaborating and networking.
 Social bookmarking – this is an online version of local bookmarking or favorites, It
is more advanced because you can draw on others' bookmarks and tags. While higher
order thinking skills like collaborating and sharing, can and do make use of these
 skills, this is its simplest form - a simple list of sites saved to an online format rather
than locally to the machine.
 Searching or "Googling" - Search engines are now key elements of students' research. At
its simplest the student is just entering a key word or phrase into the basic entry pane of the
search engine. This skill does not refine the search beyond the key word or term.

Key Terms - Remembering:

Recognizing, listing, describing, identifying, retrieving, naming, locating,

finding, Bullet pointing, highlighting, bookmarking, social networking,
Social bookmarking, favorite-ing/local bookmarking, Searching,
Googling.

Understanding

The digital additions and their explanations are as follows:

 Advanced and Boolean Searching – This is a progression from the previous

category. Students require a greater depth of understanding to be able to create,
modify and refine searches to suit their search needs.
 Blog Journaling – This is the simplest of the uses for a blog, where a student simply
"talks" "writes" or "types" a daily- or task-specific journal. This shows a basic
understanding of the activity reported upon. The blog can be used to develop higher
level thinking when used for discussion and collaboration.
 Twittering – The Twitter site's fundamental question is "what are you doing?" This
can be, in its most simplistic form, a one or two word answer, but when developed
this is a tool that lends itself to developing understanding and potentially starting
collaboration.
 Categorizing – digital classification - organizing and classifying files, web sites and
materials using folders etc.
 Commenting and annotating – a variety of tools exist that allow the user to
comment and annotate on web pages, .pdf files and other documents. The user is
developing understanding by simply commenting on the pages. This is analogous with
writing notes on hand outs, but is potentially more powerful as you can link and index
these.
 Subscribing – Subscription takes bookmarking in its various forms and simplistic reading
one level further. The act of subscription by itself does not show or develop understanding
but often the process of reading and revisiting the subscribed-to feeds leads to greater
understanding.

Key Terms - Understanding:

Interpreting, Summarizing, inferring, paraphrasing, classifying,

comparing, explaining, exemplifying, Advanced searching, Boolean
searching, blog journaling, twittering, categorising and tagging,
commenting, annotating, subscribing.
Applying

The digital additions and their justifications are as follows:

 Running and operating – This is the action of initiating a program or operating and
manipulating hardware and applications to obtain a basic goal or objective.
 Playing – The increasing emergence of games as a mode of education leads to the
inclusion of this term in the list. Students who successfully play or operate a game are
showing understanding of process and task and application of skills.
 Uploading and Sharing - uploading materials to websites and the sharing of
materials via sites like flickr etc. This is a simple form of collaboration, a higher order
thinking skill.
 Hacking – hacking in its simpler forms is applying a simple set of rules to achieve a
goal or objective.
 Editing – With most media, editing is a process or a procedure that the editor employs.

Key Terms - Applying:

Implementing, carrying out, using, executing, running, loading, playing,

operating, hacking, uploading, sharing, editing.

Analysing

The digital additions and their explanations are as follows:

 Mashing – mash ups are the integration of several data sources into a single resource.
Mashing data currently is a complex process but as more options and sites evolve this
will become an increasingly easy and accessible means of analysis.
 Linking – this is establishing and building links within and outside of documents and
web pages.
 Reverse-engineering – this is analogous with deconstruction. It is also related to
cracking often with out the negative implications associated with this.
 Cracking – cracking requires the cracker to understand and operate the application or
system being cracked, analyse its strengths and weaknesses and then exploit these.
 Validating – With the wealth of information available to students combined with the
lack of authentication of data, students of today and tomorrow must be able to
validate the veracity of their information sources. To do this they must be able to
analyse the data sources and make judgements based on these.
  Tagging – This is organising, structuring and attributing online data, meta-tagging web
pages etc. Students need to be able understand and analyse the content of the pages to be
able to tag it.

Key Terms - Analysing:

Comparing, organising, deconstructing, Attributing, outlining, finding,

structuring, integrating, Mashing, linking, reverse-engineering, cracking,
mind-mapping, validating, tagging.

Evaluating

The digital additions and their explanations are as follows:

 Blog/vlog commenting and reflecting – Constructive criticism and reflective

practice are often facilitated by the use of blogs and video blogs. Students
commenting and replying to postings have to evaluate the material in context and
reply.
 Posting – posting comments to blogs, discussion boards, threaded discussions. These
are increasingly common elements of students' daily practice. Good postings like
good comments, are not simple one-line answers but rather are structured and
constructed to evaluate the topic or concept.
 Moderating – This is high level evaluation; the moderator must be able to evaluate a
posting or comment from a variety of perspectives, assessing its worth, value and
appropriateness.
 Collaborating and networking – Collaboration is an increasing feature of education.
In a world increasingly focused on communication, collaboration leading to collective
intelligence is a key aspect. Effective collaboration involves evaluating the strengths
and abilities of the participants and evaluating the contribution they make.
Networking is a feature of collaboration, contacting and communicating with relevant
person via a network of associates.
 Testing (Alpha and Beta) – Testing of applications, processes and procedures is a key
element in the development of any tool. To be an effective tester you must have the ability
to analyze the purpose of the tool or process, what its correct function should be and what
its current function is.

Key Terms – Evaluating:

Checking, hypothesising, critiquing, experimenting, judging, testing,

detecting, monitoring, (Blog/vlog) commenting, reviewing, posting,
moderating, collaborating, networking, reflecting, (Alpha & beta) testing.

Creating

The digital additions and their explanations are as follows:

  Programming – Whether it is creating their own applications, programming macros
or developing games or multimedia applications within structured environments,
students are routinely creating their own programs to suit their needs and goals.
 Filming, animating, videocasting, podcasting, mixing and remixing – these relate
to the increasing availability of multimedia and multimedia editing tools. Students
frequently capture, create, mix and remix content to produce unique products.
 Directing and producing – to directing or producing a product, performance or
production is a highly creative process. It requires the student to have vision,
understand the components and meld these into a coherent product.
 Publishing – whether via the web or from home computers, publishing in text, media
or digital formats is increasing. Again this requires a huge overview of not only the
content being published, but the process and product. Related to this concept are also
Video blogging – the production of video blogs, blogging and also wiki-ing -
creating, adding to and modify content in wikis. Creating or building Mash ups
would also fit here.

Key Terms – Creating:

designing, constructing, planning, producing, inventing, devising,
making, programming, filming, animating, Blogging, Video blogging,
mixing, remixing, wiki-ing, publishing, videocasting, podcasting,
directing/producing, creating or building mash ups.

Bibliography

Churches, A. 2007, Educational Origami, Bloom's and ICT Tools

Anderson, L.W., and D. Krathwohl (Eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and
Assessing: a Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman, New
York.

Acknowledgements: For assistance, discussion and often punctuation:Miguel Guhlin, Sheryl

Nussbaum-Beach, Alan Knightbridge, Sue Cattell, Raewyn Casey, Marg McLeod, Doug
DeKock

Email: Andrew Churches

 Bloom et al.'s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain
Citation: Huitt, W. (2009). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology
Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved [date], from
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/bloom.html

Return to | Overview of the Cognitive System | EdPsyc Interactive: Courses |

Beginning in 1948, a group of educators undertook the task of classifying education goals
and objectives. The intent was to develop a classification system for three domains: the
cognitive, the affective, and the psychomotor. Work on the cognitive domain was completed
in 1956 and is commonly referred to as Bloom's Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (Bloom
et al., 1956). Others have developed taxonomies for the affective and psychomotor domains.

The major idea of the taxonomy is that what educators want students to know (encompassed
in statements of educational objectives) can be arranged in a hierarchy from less to more
complex. The levels are understood to be successive, so that one level must be mastered
before the next level can be reached.

The original levels by Bloom et al. (1956) were ordered as follows: Knowledge, Comprehension,
Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. The taxonomy is presented below with sample verbs
and a sample behavior statement for each level.

SAMPLE SAMPLE
LEVEL DEFINITION
VERBS BEHAVIORS
KNOWLEDGE Student recalls or Write The student will
recognizes List define
information, Label the 6 levels of
ideas, and Name Bloom's
principles State taxonomy of the
 in the approximate
form in which they Define cognitive domain.
were learned.
Student translates, The student will
Explain
comprehends, or explain
Summarize
interprets the purpose of
COMPREHENSION Paraphrase
information Bloom's
Describe
based on prior taxonomy of the
Illustrate
learning. cognitive domain.
Student selects,
trans-
Use The student will
fers, and uses data
Compute write an
and principles to
Solve instructional
APPLICATION complete a
Demonstrate objective for each
problem
Apply level of Bloom's
or task with a
Construct taxonomy.
mini-
mum of direction.
Student
distinguishes,
classifies, and
Analyze The student will
relates
Categorize compare and
the assumptions,
ANALYSIS Compare contrast
hypotheses,
Contrast the cognitive and
evidence,
Separate affective domains.
or structure of a
statement or
question.
The student will
Student originates, design a
integrates, and classification
Create
combines ideas scheme for writing
Design
into a educational
SYNTHESIS Hypothesize
product, plan or objectives
Invent
proposal that is that combines the
Develop
new cognitive, affective,
to him or her. and psychomotor
domains.
Student appraises,
assesses, or The student will
Judge
critiques judge the effective-
Recommend
EVALUATION on a basis of ness of writing
Critique
specific objectives using
Justify
standards and Bloom's taxonomy.
criteria.
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revised Bloom's taxonomy to fit the more outcome-focused
modern education objectives, including switching the names of the levels from nouns to
active verbs, and reversing the order of the highest two levels. The lowest-order level
(Knowledge) became Remembering, in which the student is asked to recall or remember
information. Comprehension, became Understanding, in which the student would explain or
describe concepts. Application became Applying, or using the information in some new way,
such as choosing, writing, or interpreting. Analysis was revised to become Analyzing,
requiring the student to differentiate between different components or relationships,
demonstrating the ability to compare and contrast. These four levels remain the same as
Bloom et al.’s (1956) original well-known and accepted hierarchy.

In general, research over the last 40 years has confirmed the taxonomy as a hierarchy with the
exception of the last two levels. It is uncertain at this time whether synthesis and evaluation
should be reversed (i.e., evaluation is less difficult to accomplish than synthesis) or whether
synthesis and evaluation are at the same level of difficulty but use different cognitive
processes. The two highest, most complex levels of Synthesis and Evaluation were reversed
in the revised model, and were renamed Evaluating and Creating by Anderson and Krathwohl
(2001). As they did not provide empirical evidence for this reversal, it is my belief that these
two highest levels are essentially equal in level of complexity. Both depend on analysis as a
foundational process. However, synthesis or creating requires rearranging the parts in a new,
original way whereas evaluation or evaluating requires a comparison to a standard with a
judgment as to good, better or best. This is similar to the distinction between creative
thinking and critical thinking. Both are valuable while neither is superior. In fact, when either
is omitted during the problem solving process, effectiveness declines (Huitt, 1992).

Synthesis Evaluation
Analysis
Application
Comprehension
Knowledge

In any case it is clear that students can "know" about a topic or subject at different levels.
While most teacher-made tests still test at the lower levels of the taxonomy, research has
shown that students remember more when they have learned to handle the topic at the higher
levels of the taxonomy (Garavalia, Hummel, Wiley, & Huitt, 1999). This is because more
elaboration is required, a principle of learning based on finding from the information
processing approach to learning.
 References

 Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching,
and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New
York: Longman.
 Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of
educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I:
Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.
 Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom's taxonomy: Original and revised.. In M. Orey (Ed.),
Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved January
2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt
 Garavalia, L., Hummel, J., Wiley, L., & Huitt, W. (1999). Constructing the course
syllabus: Faculty and student perceptions of important syllabus components. Journal
of Excellence in College Teaching, 10(1), 5-22. Available online at
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/cons_course_syll.doc
 Huitt, W. (1992). Problem solving and decision making: Consideration of individual
differences using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Psychological Type,
24, 33-44. Retrieved June 2004, from
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/prbsmbti.html

| Internet Resources | Electronic Files |

Return to:

 Overview of the Cognitive System

 EdPsyc Interactive: Courses
 Home

All materials on this website [http://www.edpsycinteractive.org] are, unless otherwise stated,

the property of William G. Huitt. Copyright and other intellectual property laws protect these
materials. Reproduction or retransmission of the materials, in whole or in part, in any manner,
without the prior written consent of the copyright holder, is a violation of copyright law.