Unpacking Curriculum Standards and Competencies

Special Other Techniques for Unpacking Curriculum Standards and Competencies

Topic NCBTS:

Overview
In the 21st century, education has become learner – centered and it requires teachers to
conceptualized lessons that are fit in the curriculum competencies and as well as diagnosed in
needs and developed the learners. We diverse the skills and knowledge at the same time in the
school. In order to that Bloom’s taxonomy will help educators to develop critical thinking and
higher order cognitive abilities in students.

The taxonomy is a convenient way to describe the degree to which students understand
and use concepts, to demonstrate particular skills, and to have their values, attitudes and interest
affected. This will determine which classroom assessment techniques are most appropriate for
the course.

In this module it aims to explore the other techniques for unpacking curriculum standards
and competencies. By these techniques, teachers can successfully unpack curriculum standards
and competencies, fostering clarity, coherence and alignment in instructional planning and
assessment practices.

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this module, the preservice teachers are expected to:

a. Determine other techniques for unpacking curriculum standards and strategies

Get set
Directions: Arrange the following scrambled words.
1. OMLOB’S XNMTOYAO
(comprises of three learning domains: the knowledge, affective, and skill –
based domain)
2. RAETCE
(combining parts to make a new whole)
3. FAVFTCEEI IMANDO
 (one of the three domains in Bloom’s Taxonomy which involves feelings,
attitudes and emotions)
4. NLILEGNZRNATI AUSLVE
(has a value system that controls their behavior)
5. UGDDIE PERONSES
(the early stages in learning a complex skill that includes imitation and trial
and error)

Read and learn

Some teachers also use the taxonomy of educational objectives for unpacking curriculum
standards and competencies. The taxonomy for educational objectives were developed and
published by Bloom and Krathwohl (1956). The Bloom's Taxonomy has become popular for
teachers especially in developing instructional objectives. Bloom uses a multi-tiered scale to
express the level of expertise required to achieve each measurable student outcome. According to
Bloom, educational objectives can be categorized into three domains (1) knowledge-based, (2)
skills-based, and (3) and affective.

Create
Evaluate
Analyze
Apply
Understand
Remember

Figure 24 . Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)

The first taxonomy is for the cognitive or knowledge-based domain. Bloom identified
five categories under the cognitive domain starting from knowledge up to the highest level,
which is evaluation. Originally, Bloom Taxonomy included synthesis between analysis and
evaluation. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revised it later to include creation as the highest
category in the taxonomy.

For affective domain, Bloom also categorized learning objectives into five categories.

Internalizing
Values
Organizing
Valuing
Responding
 Figure 25. Bloom's Taxonomy for Affective Objectives

For the psychomotor domain, Bloom categorized skills-based learning competencies into
six categories from simple to complex.

Origination
Adaptation
Mechanism
Guided
Response
Set
Perception

Figure 26. Taxonomy for Skills-based Objectives

The Teachers should first decide which of these three broad categories (knowledge-
based, skills-based, and affective) the corresponding course goal belongs to in order to the level
of expertise required for each measurable student outcome. The result is useful for teachers in
understanding the nature of the contents and in the selection of teaching strategies. Organizing
measurable student outcomes in this way will also allow teachers to select appropriate classroom
assessment techniques for the course.

Fink (2003) also presented an alternative taxonomy for categorizing different types of
learning outcomes. It is known as Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning. Fink presented his
taxonomy for a systematic approach to course design that went beyond the usual focus on
content. This taxonomy provided a model for course design that helps the teacher to align
learning goals with a method for assessing student learning. Fink’s Taxonomy encourages
teachers to put more emphasis on active learning and relating course content with real-life
problems.

Figure 27. Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning

Direction: In a one whole sheet of paper, illustrate the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy by
following the three domain which are: knowledge domain, affective domains and psychomotor
domain.

Do this
Reflect on and address the following:

1. Form a small group. Select one subject to examine from the K-12 Basic Education
curriculum.

2. Examine the nature of the competencies. Then, using the appropriate. Bloom's
Taxonomy, look over the descriptions of the various levels of expertise.

3. Determine which description most closely matches that learning competency.

4. Analyze which of the three domains of learning is more emphasized in the curriculum.

5. Report your output to the whole class.

Look Back and Share your Thoughts

1. For you, what is the importance of having different techniques for unpacking curriculum
standards and strategies in shaping the students learning and assessment.
2. Examine the nature of competencies. Then using the appropriate Bloom’s Taxonomy,
look over the descriptions of the various levels of expertise.
REFERENCES:

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

bom, 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

Department of Education (2016). K-12 Basic Education Curriculum.

Fink, LD. (2003). Creating Significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing
college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Glatthorn, B. A. (1998). Performance assessment and standards-based curricula. The