TRAINING MODULE SERIES: STUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING (SCL) APPROACHES FOR INNOVATIVE TEACHING

TRAINING MODULE SERIES: STUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING (SCL) APPROACHES FOR INNOVATIVE TEACHING

Rozinah Jamaludin, Rogayah Jaafar & Sarjit Kaur

Module 3: Learning TaxonomiesRozinah Jamaludin, Rogayah Jaafar & Sarjit Kaur

Module 3: Learning Taxonomies

© Centre for Development of Academic Excellence(CDAE), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM),

2012

Training Module Series: Student-Centered Learning (SCL) Approaches for Innovative Teaching

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or

by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission

of Centre for Development of Academic Excellence(CDAE), Universiti Sains Malaysia

Centre for Development of Academic Excellence (CDAE)

Universiti Sains Malaysia

2nd Floor, Eureka Complex

11800, USM Pulau Pinang

MODULE 3:LEARNING TAXONOMIESRozinah Jamaludin, Rogayah Jaafar & Sarjit Kaur

CONTENTS

Preface..........................................................................................................

Module Description......................................................................................

Module Outcomes........................................................................................

1. Introduction to Learning Taxonomies.....................................................

2. Bloom’s Taxonomy....................................................................................

3. Buckwalter’s Educational Taxonomy......................................................

4. Conclusion.................................................................................................

References & Further Reading....................................................................

1

3

3

4

5

11

13

14

1

Preface Students are expected to achieve 21st century skills, which inculcate life & career skills,

learning & innovation and information & communication technology (ICT) skills. Consequently,

it has become the unwavering responsibility of educators to ensure that these skills are

sowed in students especially at higher education institutions (HEIs). As such new methods of

teaching and learning (T&L) have been continuously identified to devise techniques which

are relevant and suitable for the students of the net generation. Parallel to that perspective,

Student-Centered Learning (SCL) has been promoted as a new approach in T&L to support

the rapidly changing educational environment. The Centre for Development of Academic

Excellence (CDAE) has published the Training Module Series: Student-Centered Learning (SCL)

Approaches for Innovative Teaching which consists of Modules 1 to 6 that will provide the basis

for a training programme for academic staffs to enhance their pedagogical knowledge and

skills. The modules were authored by an array of experts in the area of T&L, who have provided

an overview of SCL in terms of definition, methodology and application.

Module 1: Introduction serves as a foreword to the concept of SCL by: (1) introducing

the vision and mission of the National Higher Education Strategic Plan 2 (NHESP 2) regarding

T&L through the soft power approach at the regional and global levels; (2) describing the 21st

century skills that are needed for today’s society and (3) specifying the outcomes of T&L in the

classroom. Module 2: Philosophy of Student-Centered Learning (SCL) provides an overview of

SCL and introduces the underlying philosophies that support the student-centered approach

to teaching. The content of this module also describes the key benefits of SCL for students and

lecturers and student-centered pedagogy (i.e. characteristics of the learners and the nature

of the learning environment in the student-centered setting).

Module 3: Learning Taxonomies revolves around the learning taxonomies used in T&L

that are based on Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy and

Buckwalter’s Taxonomy for the Health and Medical Sciences (1981). This module illustrates

the basic principles of the learning taxonomies used in education and the classification of

educational objectives (i.e. three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor). Module 4:

The Constructivist Lecturer provides detailed methods that will assist the reader to become a

constructivist lecturer via the application of constructivist approaches in T&L.

Module 5: Approaches to Student-Centered Learning (SCL) aims to offer teachers

in higher education a variety of student-centered educational approaches. These learning

approaches are presented in a straightforward manner, with opportunities for self-assessment

and reflection to allow for the selection of the most appropriate SCL approach.

2

Module 6: Assessment in Student Centered Learning is a compilation of six individual

units that includes the detailed description of assessment for the SCL approach which consists

of definition, methodology and principles. This module also describes issues, benefits, and

challenges of implementing assessment and best practices for assessing students in the in the

SCL.

On the whole, the modules are projected to be beneficial to the reader in terms of

T&L, upon the understanding and consequently the application of the SCL concept. Each

module in this series will definitely aid in the improvement of the T&L environment in USM and

thus is recommended for all the academic staff of Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM).

Professor Abd Karim Alias Director

Centre for Development of Academic Excellence (CDAE), USM

3

Module DescriptionThis module describes the learning taxonomies used in teaching and learning that

are based on Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy and

Buckwalter’s Taxonomy for the Health and Medical Sciences (1981). Bloom’s Taxonomy of

Learning Domains is a classification of learning objectives within the field of education that was

proposed in 1956 in the publication titled Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification

of Educational Goals. Bloom’s Taxonomy is a foundational and essential element within the

education community. It refers to a classification of the different objectives that educators

set for students (i.e. learning objectives). Bloom’s Taxonomy divides educational objectives

into three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor (sometimes loosely described as

knowing/head, feeling/heart, and doing/hands, respectively). Within the domains, learning at

the higher levels depends on having attained prerequisite knowledge and skills at the lower

levels. A goal of Bloom’s Taxonomy is to motivate educators to focus on all three domains,

thereby creating a more holistic form of education.

Module OutcomesAt the end of this module, users should be able to:

1. Understand the basic principles of the learning taxonomies used in education;

2. Classify educational objectives into three domains: cognitive, affective, and

psychomotor;

3. Apply the knowledge dimension to the six cognitive levels of the revised Bloom’s

Taxonomy and its various modifications; and

4. Compare Bloom’s Taxonomy with Buckwalters’ Taxonomy for the Health and

Medical Sciences.

4

1 Introduction to Learning TaxonomiesUnderstanding learning taxonomies is important for ensuring meaningful learning outcomes

for learners and for choosing among available learning resources and assessment methods in

the learning environment. A number of learning taxonomies exist, as shown in Table 1.

Sour

ce: A

nder

son,

L.W

. & K

rath

woh

l, D

.R. (

Eds.)

. (20

01).

Tabl

e 1.

Com

paris

on o

f lea

rnin

g ta

xono

mie

s

Rem

emb

erV

erb

atim

Mem

orize

Info

rma

tion

Dec

lara

tive

Know

ledg

eRe

mem

ber

Para

phra

seUn

der

sta

ndRe

latio

nshi

ps

Proc

edur

alKn

owle

dge

Use

Gen

eral

ityA

pply

Skills

Find

Gen

eral

ityA

pply

Gen

eric

Ski

lls

Rece

ivin

gRe

spon

din

gV

alu

ing

Org

ani

zatio

nC

hara

cter

izatio

nPe

rcep

tion

Set

Gui

ded

Res

pons

eM

echa

nism

Com

ple

x Re

spon

seA

da

pta

tion

Orig

ina

tion

Met

a-C

ogni

tive

Know

led

ge

Proc

edur

alKn

owle

dge

Con

cept

ual

Know

ledg

e

Fact

ual

Know

led

ge

Rem

embe

r

Und

erst

and

App

ly

Ana

lyze

Eva

lua

teC

reat

e

Ver

bal

Info

rma

tion

Con

cep

ts

Proc

edur

es&

Rul

esPr

oble

mSo

lvin

g

Cog

nitiv

e

Cog

nitiv

eSt

rate

gies

Affe

ctiv

eA

ttitu

des

Psyc

hom

otor

Mot

or S

kills

Trip

artit

eHi

lgar

d(1

980)

Gag

ne(1

985)

Know

ledg

e

Com

pre

hens

ion

App

licat

ion

Ana

lysis

Synt

hesis

Eva

lua

tion

Bloo

m(1

956)

And

erso

n(1

981)

Mer

rill

(198

3)

Reig

elut

h &

Moo

re(1

999)

Krat

hwoh

l,Bl

oom

&M

asia

(196

4)Si

mps

on(1

972)

Revi

sed

Bloo

m,

And

erso

n &

Krat

hwoh

l(2

001)

5

2 Bloom’s Taxonomy In the 1950s, Benjamin Bloom developed the taxonomy of cognitive objectives that

categorised thinking behaviours as ordered thinking skills and objectives. His taxonomy follows

the thinking process by stating that ‘You cannot understand a concept if you do not first

remember it; similarly you cannot apply knowledge and concepts if you do not understand

them’.

The hierarchy of learning behaviours was categorised into three interrelated and

overlapping learning domains:

1. Cognitive (knowledge)

2. Affective (attitude)

3. Psychomotor (skills)

2.1 The Cognitive Domain

The cognitive domain is exhibited by a person’s intellectual abilities. Cognitive

learning behaviours are characterised by observable and unobservable skills, such

as comprehending information, organising ideas, and evaluating information and

actions. The cognitive domain is knowledge or mind based, and it has three practical

instructional levels: fact, understanding, and application. The fact level is a single

concept and uses verbs such as define, identify, and list. The understanding level

combines two or more concepts, and the application level puts two or more concepts

together to form something new. Delivery in this domain is typically a lecture, and

evaluation includes subjective and objective test items.

These skills are arranged into six hierarchical levels, beginning from the

simple and building to the most difficult. These six categories are arranged on scale

of difficulty, meaning that a learner who is able to perform at the higher levels of the

taxonomy demonstrates a more complex level of cognitive thinking.

6

2.2 The Affective Domain

The affective domain addresses a learner’s emotions towards learning

experiences. A learner’s attitudes, interests, attention, awareness, and values are

demonstrated by affective behaviours. The affective domain is based on behavioural

aspects and may be labelled as beliefs. The three levels in this domain are awareness,

distinction, and integration. The first two levels are cognitive, whereas integration is

behavioural and requires the learner to evaluate and synthesise.

2.3 The Psychomotor Domain

The psychomotor domain refers to the use of basic motor skills, coordination, and

physical movement. Bloom’s research group did not develop in-depth categories

of this domain, claiming lack of experience in teaching these skills. However, Dave

(1967), Simpson (1972), and Harrow (1972) developed psychomotor categories to

support Bloom’s domain. The psychomotor domains defined by Harrow and Simpson

are better suited for certain adult training and for teaching young adults and children.

The psychomotor domain is skill based, and in this domain the student produces a

product. The three practical instructional levels include imitation, practice, and

habit. The psychomotor domain is steeped in delivery of demonstrations. Thus, the

first level—imitation—is simply a repeat of the demonstration under the watchful eye

of the instructor. The practice level is a proficiency-building experience that may be

conducted by the student without direct oversight of the instructor. The habit level

is reached when the student can perform the skill in twice the time that it takes the

instructor or an expert to perform.

7

2.4 Classification under Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a multi-tiered model of classifying thinking according to six

cognitive levels of complexity. It is a continuum from lower order thinking skills (LOTS)

to higher order thinking skills (HOTS), as shown in the diagram below.

The definitions of each of these six levels are as follows:

Knowledge: Remembering or retrieving previously learned material. Examples of verbs that

relate to this function are: know, identify, relate, list, define, recall, memorize, repeat, record,

name recognise, and acquire.

Comprehension: The ability to grasp or construct meaning from material. Examples of verbs

that relate to this function are: restate, locate, report, recognise, explain, express, identify,

discuss, describe, review, infer, conclude, illustrate, interpret, draw, represent, differentiate,

and conclude.

Application: The ability to use learned material or to implement material in new and concrete

situations. Examples of verbs that relate to this function are: apply, relate, develop, translate,

use, operate, organise, employ, restructure, interpret, demonstrate, illustrate, practice,

calculate, show, exhibit, and dramatize.

Analysis: The ability to break down or distinguish the parts of material into its components so

that its organisational structure may be better understood. Examples of verbs that relate to this

function are analyse, compare, probe, inquire, examine, contrast, categorise, differentiate,

investigate, detect, survey, classify, deduce, experiment, scrutinise, discover, inspect, dissect,

discriminate, and separate.

The First Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956)

Higher Order Thinking Skills

Lower Order Thinking Skills

Evaluation

Synthesis

Analysis

Application

Comprehension

Knowledge

8

Synthesis: The ability to put parts together to form a coherent or unique new whole. Examples

of verbs that relate to this function are: compose, produce, design, assemble, create, prepare,

predict, modify, tell, plan, invent, formulate, collect, set up, generalise, document, combine,

relate, propose, develop, arrange, construct, organise, originate, derive, and write.

Evaluation: The ability to judge, check, and even critique the value of material for a given

purpose. Examples of verbs that relate to this function are: judge, assess, compare, evaluate,

conclude, measure, deduce, argue, decide, choose, rate, select, estimate, validate, consider,

appraise, value, criticise, and infer.

The revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy created by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) defines

the six levels as follows:

Remembering: Retrieving, recalling, or recognising knowledge from memory. Examples of verbs

that relate to this function are: recognising, listing, describing, identifying, retrieving, naming,

locating, and finding.

Understanding: Constructing meaning from different types of functions be they written

or graphic messages. This involves activities such as: interpreting, summarising, inferring,

paraphrasing, classifying, comparing, explaining, and exemplifying.

Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or implementing. Applying

related theory and concepts and refers to situations where learned material is used through

products like models, presentations, interviews or simulations. Examples of verbs that relate to

this function are: implementing, carrying out, using, and executing.

Analysing: Breaking material or concepts into parts and determining how the parts relate or

interrelate to one another or to an overall structure or purpose. Mental actions included in

this function are differentiating, organising and attributing, as well as being able to distinguish

Bloom’s Taxonomy as Revised by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)

Higher Order Thinking Skills

Lower Order Thinking Skills

Evaluating

Creating

Analysing

Applying

Understanding

Remembering

9

between the components or parts. When one is analysing, he/she can illustrate this mental

function by creating spreadsheets, surveys, charts, diagrams, or graphic representations.

Examples of verbs that relate to this function are: comparing, organising, deconstructing,

attributing, outlining, finding, structuring, and integrating.

Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and

critiquing. Critiques, recommendations, and reports are some of the products that can be

created to demonstrate the processes of evaluation. In the newer taxonomy, evaluation

comes before creating, as it is often a necessary part of the precursory behaviour prior to

creating something. Examples of verbs that relate to this function are: checking, hypothesising,

critiquing, experimenting, judging, testing, detecting, and monitoring.

Creating: Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganising

elements into a new pattern or structure by generating, planning, or producing. Creating

requires users to put parts together in a new way or to synthesise parts into something new and

different to create a new form or product. This process is the most difficult mental function in

the new taxonomy. Examples of verbs that relate to this function are: designing, constructing,

planning, producing, inventing, devising, and making. This skill was #5 in Bloom’s Taxonomy,

which was labelled ‘synthesis’.

The changes to Bloom’s Taxonomy can be seen in the diagram below:

One of the aspects that differentiates the new model from that of the 1956 original

is that it lays out components clearly so they can be considered and used. While the levels of

knowledge were indicated in the original work – factual, conceptual, and procedural -- 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

Noun Verb

Remember

Understand

Apply

Analyse

Evaluate

Create

Knowledge

Comprehension

Application

Analysis

Synthesis

Evaluation

1956 2001

10

verbs. The updated version has added ‘metacognitive’ to the array of knowledge types.

Using a simple cross impact grid or table like the one below, one can easily match activities

and objectives to the types of knowledge and to the cognitive processes (Table 2).

Figure 1 shows the continuum of knowledge dimensions from procedural knowledge to factual

knowledge and from conceptual knowledge to metacognitive knowledge.

Knowledge Dimensions 1. Remember 2. Understand 3. Apply 4. Analyse 5. Evaluate 6. Create

Factual

Conceptual

Procedural

Metacognitive

Knowledge that helps students to do something specific to a discipline-methods of inquiry, very specific or finite skills, algorithms, techniques and methodologies

Knowledge that is basic to specific disciplines –facts, terminology,

details or elements students must know in order to

understand a discipline or solve a problem in it.

Knowledge of classifications, principles, generalizations,

theories, models or structures pertinent to a particular

disciplinary area.

Information/awareness of one’s own cognition and particular cognitive processes-reflective knowledge about how to go about solving problems, cognitive tasks, to include contexual and conditional knowledge and knowledge of self.

ProceduralKnowledge

FactualKnowledge

ConceptualKnowledge

MetacognitiveKnowledge

Figure 1: The knowledge dimensions

KNOWLEDGE COMPREHENSION APPLICATION ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS EVALUATION

Define Convert Apply Analyse Arrange AppraiseLabel Describe Compute Appraise Assemble Argue List Discuss Demonstrate Calculate Collect Assess

Name Distinguish Employ Categorise Compose Justify

Table 3. Verbs used in stating cognitive outcomes (Bloom’s Taxonomy, 1956)

Table 2. Knowledge dimensions

11

3 Buckwalter’s Educational Taxonomy

In the medical and health sciences, a further modification of Bloom’s Taxonomy was

introduced by Buckwalter in 1981 to evaluate the cognitive performance of medical students.

The taxonomy was subsequently refined by other authors, notably Irwin and Bamber (1982) to

explore the cognitive structure of modified essay questions (MEQ). More recently, the refined

Buckwalter’s Taxonomy was utilised by Edward and Peter (2007) to examine the assessment

of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate medical education; they used it to determine

the levels of cognitive ability tested by MEQ versus multiple choice questions (MCQ).

Palmer and Devitt reduced the six levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy to three levels: recall or

recognition, interpretation, and problem solving.

Level 1: Covering knowledge (recall of information);

Level 2: Covering comprehension and application (understanding and being

able to interpret data); and

Level 3: Covering problem solving (using knowledge and understanding in

new circumstances).

3.1 Application of Buckwalter’s Cognitive Taxonomy

Buckwalter’s Cognitive Taxonomy is now increasingly being used in the medical

and health sciences, in particular in the assessment of higher order cognitive skills in

Stopand Think

Stopand Think

Can you think of any more verbs to state cognitive objectives and outcomes?

Lower Order Questions (e.g. fill-in-the-blank, MCQ) Higher Order Questions (e.g. MEQ, PMP)

12

undergraduate medical education. The modified taxonomy was developed mainly

to assess medical students’ cognitive competencies at the higher levels of Bloom’s

Taxonomy. The major use of Buckwalter’s Taxonomy is to review MEQ, a popular

assessment tool in problem-based learning.

BUCKWALTER’S COGNITIVE TAXONOMY LEVELS1. Recognition and recall of isolated information;

2. Comprehension and interpretation of data; and

3. Application of knowledge to the solution of a specific problem.

3.2 Application of Buckwalter’s Taxonomy

Level 1: Tests recognition and recall of isolated information

Requires students to demonstrate: learning and recall of isolated information

Level 2: Tests comprehension and interpretation of data

Requires students to demonstrate: understanding of the data by making use of it.

Level 3: Tests the application of knowledge to the solution of a specific problem.

Requires students to demonstrate: analysis of the problem, recall of relevant information and principles, and application of these to the solution of a specific problem.

Stopand Think

Stopand Think

Examples of Various Cognitive Levels Detected in Written Tests

1. A patient with acute abdominal pain is found to have an elevated serum

amylase level. List three causes of an elevated serum amylase level (Level 1)

2. A patient presents edema of the arm following radical mastectomy. Discuss

the pathogenesis of edema of the arm (Level 2)

3. A patient presents a mobile lump in the right breast, which on fine needle

biopsy is found to contain malignant cells. Discuss the further steps you would

take in the management of this patient (Level 3)

13

4 ConclusionAlthough there are many learning taxonomies, Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revision

of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Buckwalters’ Taxonomy for the Health and Medical Sciences (1981)

were introduced in this chapter, as they are best suited to the SCL taxonomies.

QuizQuiz

For each of the statements below, select the most appropriate

cognitive level based on Buckwalter’s Taxonomy.

1. A cigarette smoker was admitted with coarse crepitations

heard over the midzone of his left lung. Detail the underlining

pathophysiology of the crepitations.

Answer:_________________________________________________

2. A 55-year-old heavy smoker who was diagnosed

with lobar pneumonia secondary to chronic obstructive airway

disease (COAD) was treated with an initial dose of antibiotics

and ventolin inhalation. Elaborate on the advice you would

provide to this patient on discharge and his follow up care.

Answer:__________________________________________________

3. A heavy cigarette smoker was found to have hyperventilated

lungs on chest radiography. List two main causes of

hyperventilated lungs on a chest X-ray.

Answer:___________________________________________________

14

References & Further Reading

Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and

Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational

goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.

Buckwalter J. A., Schumacher R., Albright J.P., & Cooper, R.R. (1981) Use of an educational

taxonomy for evaluation of cognitive performance. Journal of Medical Education. 56(2):115-

21.

Dave, R. H. (1975). Developing and writing behavioral objectives. (R. J. Armstrong, ed.). Tucson,

Arizona: Educational Innovators Press.

Edward, J. P., & Peter G. D. (2007). Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate

education: modified essay or multiple choice questions? Research paper, BMC Medical

Education. Vol 7: 49.

Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and

Winston.

Harrow, A. (1972) A Taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral

objectives. New York: David McKay.

Hilgard, E. R. (1980). The trilogy of mind: Cognition, affection and conation. Journal of the

History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16, 107–117.

Irwin W. G., & Bamber J. H. (1982). The cognitive structure of the modified essay question.

Medical Education, 16(6): 326-31.

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives:

The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York, Longman.

Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design

theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 279–333). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

15

Reigeluth, C. M. & Moore, J. (1999). Cognitive education and the cognitive domain. In C.

M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional

theory (pp. 51–68). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Simpson, E. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain:

The psychomotor domain. Vol. 3. Washington, DC: Gryphon House.

Thambi, D., Kalsukar, S., Ahmad, Z., & Jaafar, R. (July 1990). An appraisal of modified essay

questions, Diagnosa, 74–78.

Comparison of Learning Taxonomies at http://heybradfords.com/moonlight/files/CV/

ProfSampleFiles/CDWS/Grounded%20Learning%20Taxonomies%20Compared.pdf. Retrieved

on the 1 December 2011.