Open AccessBEYOND BLOOM’S: USEFUL CONSTRUCTS FOR DEVELOPING GRADUATE ATTRIBUTE INDICATORS
Author(s) -
Susan McCahan,
Lisa Romkey
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
proceedings of the ... ceea conference
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2371-5243
DOI - 10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3613
Subject(s) - categorization , taxonomy (biology) , process (computing) , concept learning , cognition , cognitive dimensions of notations , dimension (graph theory) , domain (mathematical analysis) , computer science , concept map , psychology , cognitive science , artificial intelligence , mathematics education , ecology , mathematical analysis , mathematics , neuroscience , pure mathematics , biology , operating system
What do we want our students to learn from an experience? This is the central question that underpins learning objectives. Learning objectives attempt to describe the manifestations of learning that we would like to see by the end of a learning experience (e.g. a course or a learning module). Traditionally areas of knowledge that are the target of learning objectives are described as domains. Typically knowledge is described as cognitive, affective, or psychomotor and there are other domains such as interpersonal1-4. The domain describes the nature of the learning. Has the student learned a new cognitive process, or learned to care about something new? The organization of learning into these domains helps us to make sense of the types of knowledge that our students are learning. A domain is like a country, it defines a piece of the knowledge landscape. A taxonomy of learning attempts to map that landscape. It creates categories that describe ways of knowing. Just as a map describes the landscape using categories (e.g. roads, parks, towns), a taxonomy categorizes ways of knowing so that we can better define the manifestation of learning that we want our students to achieve. Most taxonomies are meant to be thorough maps of one domain. For example Bloom’s taxonomy describes ways of knowing within the cognitive process domain1. It attempts to categorize all of the different levels of learning in this domain. When Anderson and Krathwohl later updated Bloom’s taxonomy they added a second dimension, the knowledge dimension, which breaks apart the domain into 4 parts: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge5. Their taxonomy applies the same levels of learning (i.e. cognitive processes) to each of these four pieces of the domain. Bloom’s (or Anderson’s) do not describe everything that a student should learn. They are only meant to describe one type of learning: cognitive process. Other taxonomies map other domains and some taxonomies cut across domains.