Using Bloom’s Taxonomy as a Grouping Mechanism for Student Feedback By: Brian Pinney, Ph.D. Educational Specialist Bloom’s Taxonomy was initially envisioned as more than a mere measurement tool. Bloom believed it could serve as a means for determining the congruence of educational objectives, activities and assessments in a unit or course, and a basis for which the breadth and depth of a particular academic endeavor could be contrasted (Bloom, 1956, p.212). In the spirit of extending the utility of Bloom’s Taxonomy, I propose an alternative use for coding exam items using Bloom’s as a feedback mechanism for students and faculty. For this approach, it is not important that one code to all levels of Bloom’s but rather a simplified approach that is typically made by determining “lower-order cognitive” and “higher-order cognitive” groups. “Remembering”, “Understanding”, and “Applying” are considered lower-order cognitive skills while “Creating”, “Evaluating”, and Analyzing” are considered higher-order cognitive skills. I would encourage dividing the lower-order group into “Recall” and other lower-order skills. We know that straight recall is different than Application and that Application often requires practice in context. Ability to recall is often is determined by students seeing something a sufficient number of times. Below is a sample graph that could result from post-test data. While these are explicitly drawn to make a point, there are some issues to point out. Student A has a decent mastery of content understanding and application as evidenced by their relatively high proportion of correct responses within those categories. However, their marked under performance in Recall demonstrates this student has not spent sufficient time practicing retrieval of information. Things like Quizlet, Anki, concept mapping, or answering objectives from memory could help. Student B has the opposite problem; they likely have spent little time considering the implications of what they are studying and may also struggle to see main ideas or connections between material. However, they are doing well with straight recall. Student C represents a balanced scenario. For individual student feedback, this can be powerful. But this approach can also provide insight into your objectives or your teaching approach as well. Do your objectives undervalue or misrepresent the level you expect your students to reach? Can you encourage more clinical connections by providing extra examples in class? On the other hand, it’s also possible you can under stress (or over test on) recall. Ultimately, generating this kind of data is the starting point of the potential conversation. The data itself does not resolve a potential issue but it can help highlight one that may have otherwise gone unnoticed.
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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorCenter for Teaching and Learning staff Archives
May 2017
|