module 3/ learning outcomes and assessment -...

Module 3/ Learning Outcomes and Assessment

Dear participant,

This module concentrates on learning outcomes, learning theory and assessment methods.

Please read the following articles as a preparation for the training session. Furthermore, this module

reader also serves as a preparation for the final VALERU VNIL online exam. Try to answer the

questions below to yourself. It helps you to reflect and better understand the content of module 3.

To get an insight on what learning outcomes are and how to use them you start with the article

“Writing and Using Learning Outcomes – a Practical Guide” by Kennedy, Hyland and Ryan.* After

reading it, please take a look at the question 1) and 2) and try to answer them.

The next step is to read the provided fragment of the article “The Zen Art of Teaching:

Communication and Interactions in eEducation” by Peter Baumgartner**, which addresses learning

theory and different modes of teaching and learning. In connection with this article, please try to

answer question 3).

Afterwards, please take a look at the “Compendium of Assessment Methods” by Peter

Baumgartner***. The compendium defines a variety of assessment methods in alphabetical order.

After reading it, try to solve question 4) in connection with content of the first article on learning

outcomes*.

Finally, please read through the article “Anderson and Krathwohl – Understanding the New Version

of Bloom’s Taxonomy” by Leslie Owen Wilson.****

All the best for reading and learning!

Peter and Isabell, trainers of Module 3

Questions:

1) What does the change from teacher-centred to student-centred approach mean?

Advantages, disadvantages?

2) Why are we using verbs and not nouns for learning outcomes?

3) Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the three different modes of teaching and

learning.

4) Discuss and give examples how to assess learning outcomes for the cognitive, affective and

psychomotor domain.

Readings:

*Kennedy, D., Hyland, A., and Ryan, N. (2006): “Writing and using learning outcomes: a practical guide”, article C 3.4-1 in Eric Froment, Jürgen Kohler, Lewis Purser and Lesley Wilson (eds.): EUA Bologna Handbook – Making Bologna Work. Berlin, Raabe Verlag.

**Baumgartner, P. (2004). The Zen Art of Teaching - Communication and Interactions in eEducation. Proceedings of the International Workshop ICL2004, Villach / Austria 29 September-1 October 2004, Villach, Kassel University Press.

***Baumgartner, P (2015): Compendium of Assessment Methods. An Overview of Assessments Methods for VALERU. Krems.

****Wilson, L. (2013): Anderson and Krathwohl – Understanding the New Version of Bloom’s Taxnonomy. A succinct discussion of the revisions to Bloom’s classic cognitive taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl and how to use them effectively. Retrieved from http://thesecondprinciple.com/teaching-essentials/beyond-bloom-cognitive-taxonomy-revised/, April 13, 2016.

2

http://thesecondprinciple.com/teaching-essentials/beyond-bloom-cognitive-taxonomy-revised/

Implementing Bologna in your institution C 3.4-1

Using learning outcomes and competences Planning and implementing key Bologna features

BH 1 02 06 12

Writing and Using LearningOutcomes: a Practical Guide

Declan Kennedy, Áine Hyland, Norma Ryan

Abstract

Given that one of the main features of the Bologna process is the need to improve the traditionalways of describing qualifications and qualification structures, all modules and programmes in thirdlevel institutions throughout the European Higher Education Area should be (re)written in terms oflearning outcomes. Learning outcomes are used to express what learners are expected to achieveand how they are expected to demonstrate that achievement. This article presents a summary ofdevelopments in curriculum design in higher education in recent decades and, drawing on recentpractical experience, suggests a user-friendly methodology for writing modules, courses andprogrammes in terms of learning outcomes.

Content Page

1. Introduction 2

2. What are learning outcomes? 32.1 Defining learning outcomes 42.2 What is the difference between aims, objectives and learning outcomes? 52.3 Learning outcomes and competences 6

3. How can one write learning outcomes? 73.1 Writing learning outcomes in the cognitive domain 83.2 Writing learning outcomes in the affective domain 133.3 Writing learning outcomes in the psychomotor domain 153.4 Practical advice for writing learning outcomes 17

4. How are learning outcomes linked to teaching and assessment? 194.1 Linking learning outcomes, teaching and assessment 204.2 Assessment criteria and learning outcomes 23

5. Towards the future with learning outcomes 245.1 Advantages of learning outcomes 245.2 Potential problems with learning outcomes 275.3 Some concluding points 28

3

C 3.4-1 Implementing Bologna in your institution

Planning and implementing key Bologna features Using learning outcomes and competences

2 BH 1 02 06 12

1. Introduction

Learning outcomes are important for recognition … The princi-pal question asked of the student or the graduate will thereforeno longer be “what did you do to obtain your degree?” butrather “what can you do now that you have obtained your de-gree?” This approach is of relevance to the labour market and iscertainly more flexible when taking into account issues of life-long learning, non-traditional learning, and other forms of non-formal educational experiences. (Purser, Council of Europe,2003)

In June 1999, representatives of the Ministers of Education of 29European countries convened in Bologna, Italy to formulate the Bolo-gna Declaration, aimed at establishing a common European HigherEducation Area (EHEA). The overall aim is to improve the efficiencyand effectiveness of higher education in Europe. The Bologna processspells out a number of “action lines” in which learning outcomesshould play an important role (Adam, 2004, 2006). One of the logicalconsequences is that, by 2010, all programmes and significant con-stituent elements of programmes in third level institutions throughoutthe European Higher Education Area should be based on the conceptof learning outcomes, and that curriculum should be redesigned toreflect this.

At the follow-up meeting in Berlin in 2003, the Ministers for Educa-tion issued a communiqué regarding the state of implementation of theBologna process. They emphasised the creation of a common modelfor Higher Education in Europe, and encouraged national higher edu-cation systems to ensure – through the development of nationalframeworks of qualifications – that degrees (Bachelor and Masters)would also be described in terms of learning outcomes, rather thansimply by number of credits and number of hours of study:

Ministers encourage the member States to elaborate a frame-work of comparable and compatible qualifications for theirhigher education systems, which should seek to describe quali-fications in terms of workload, level, learning outcomes, com-petences and profile. They also undertake to elaborate an over-arching framework of qualifications for the European HigherEducation Area. (Berlin Communiqué 20031)

It is worth noting that defining courses in terms of learning outcomesis not unique to Europe. Gosling and Moon (2001) have indicated thatthe outcomes-based approach to teaching is becoming increasinglypopular at an international level:

1 http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no

4



BH 1 02 06 12

The outcome-based approach has been increasingly adopted withincredit frameworks and by national quality and qualificationsauthorities such as the QAA (Quality Assurance Agency for HigherEducation) in the UK, the Australian, New Zealand and South Afri-can Qualification Authorities. (Gosling and Moon, 2001)

This article draws on the work of the higher education institutionsinvolved in the European University Association (EUA) Quality Cul-ture Network IV – Teaching and Learning2 – during 2004/5, and ofacademic staff from different faculties in University College Cork,Ireland who rewrote all or part of their courses in terms of learningoutcomes during 2005/6.3

2. What are learning outcomes?

The traditional way of designing modules and programmes was tostart from the content of the course. Teachers decided on the contentthat they intended to teach, planned how to teach this content and thenassessed the content. This type of approach focussed on the teacher’sinput and on assessment in terms of how well the students absorbedthe material taught. Course descriptions referred mainly to the contentof the course that would be covered in lectures. This approach toteaching has been referred to as a teacher-centred approach. Amongthe criticisms of this type of approach in the literature (Gosling andMoon, 2001) is that it can be difficult to identify precisely what thestudent has to be able to do in order to pass the module or programme.

International trends in education show a shift from the traditional“teacher centred” approach to a “student centred” approach. This al-ternative model focuses on what the students are expected to be ableto do at the end of the module or programme. Hence, this approach iscommonly referred to as an outcome-based approach. Statementscalled intended learning outcomes, commonly shortened to learningoutcomes, are used to express what it is expected that students shouldbe able to do at the end of the learning period.

The outcome-based approach can be traced back to the work of thebehavioural objectives movement of the 1960s and 1970s in theUnited States. One of the advocates of this type of teaching was Rob-ert Mager, who proposed the idea of writing very specific statementsabout observable outcomes. He called these statements instructional

2 http://www.eua.be3 Copies of the UCC staff handbook on Learning Outcomes are availableon request from Dr Norma Ryan ([email protected]).

Moving from a teacher-centred approach…

… to a student-centredapproach

5



BH 1 02 06 12

objectives (Mager, 1975). Using these instructional objectives andperformance outcomes, he attempted to define the type of learningthat would occur at the conclusion of instruction and how that learningwould be assessed. These instructional objectives later developed intomore precisely defined learning outcomes.

2.1 Defining learning outcomes

A survey of the literature on learning outcomes comes up with a num-ber of similar definitions of the term:

• Learning outcomes are statements of what is expected that the student will be able to do as aresult of learning the activity. (Jenkins and Unwin, 2001)

• Learning outcomes are statements that specify what learners will know or be able to do as aresult of a learning activity. Outcomes are usually expressed as knowledge, skills or attitudes.(American Association of Law Libraries4)

• Learning outcomes are an explicit description of what a learner should know, understand and beable to do as a result of learning. (Bingham, 1999)

• Learning outcomes are statements of what a learner is expected to know, understand and/or beable to demonstrate after completion of a process of learning. (ECTS Users’ Guide, 2005)

• Learning outcomes are explicit statements of what we want our students to know, understand orbe able to do as a result of completing our courses. (University of New South Wales, Australia5)

• Learning outcome: a statement of what a learner is expected to know, understand and/or be ableto demonstrate at the end of a period of learning”. (Gosling and Moon, 2001)

• A learning outcome is a statement of what the learner is expected to know, understand and/or beable to do at the end of a period of learning. (Donnelly and Fitzmaurice, 2005)

• A learning outcome is a statement of what a learner is expected to know, understand and be able todo at the end of a period of learning and of how that learning is to be demonstrated”. (Moon, 2002)

• Learning outcomes describe what students are able to demonstrate in terms of knowledge, skills andattitudes upon completion of a programme. (Quality Enhancement Committee, Texas University6)

• A learning outcome is a written statement of what the successful student/learner is expected tobe able to do at the end of the module/course unit or qualification. (Adam, 2004)

Handout C 3.4-1-1 Some definitions of the term “learning outcomes”

4 http://www.aallnet.org/prodev/outcomes.asp5 http://www.ltu.unsw.edu.au/content/course_prog_support/outcomes.cfm?ss=06 http://qep.tamu.edu/documents/writing_outcomes.pdf

6



BH 1 02 06 12

Thus, we can see that the various definitions of learning outcomes do notdiffer significantly from each other. From these definitions, it is clear that:

• Learning outcomes focus on what the learner has achieved ratherthan the intentions of the teacher;

• Learning outcomes focus on what the learner can demonstrate atthe end of a learning activity.

The following definition (ECTS Users’ Guide, p. 47) of a learningoutcome may be considered a good working definition:

Learning outcomes are statements of what a learner is expected toknow, understand and/or be able to demonstrate after completion of aprocess of learning.

The process of learning could be, for example, a lecture, a module oran entire programme.

2.2 What is the difference between aims, objectivesand learning outcomes?

The aim of a module or programme is a broad general statement ofteaching intention, i.e. it indicates what the teacher intends to cover ina block of learning. Aims are usually written from the teacher’s pointof view to indicate the general content and direction of the module.For example, the aim of a module could be “to introduce students tothe basic principles of atomic structure” or “to provide a general in-troduction to the history of Ireland in the twentieth century”.

The objective of a module or programme is usually a specific state-ment of teaching intention, i.e. it indicates one of the specific areasthat the teacher intends to cover in a block of learning. For example,one of the objectives of a module could be that “students would un-derstand the impacts and effects of behaviours and lifestyles on boththe local and global environments”. (In some contexts, objectives arealso referred to as goals).

Thus, the aim of a module gives the broad purpose or general teachingintention of the module, whilst the objective gives more specific in-formation about what the teaching of the module hopes to achieve.

One of the problems caused by the use of objectives is that sometimesthey are written in terms of teaching intention and other times they arewritten in terms of expected learning, i.e. there is confusion in theliterature in terms of whether objectives belong to the teacher-centredapproach or the outcome-based approach. The situation is nicelysummarised by Moon (2002) as follows:

A working definition

Aims

Objectives

Confusion

7



BH 1 02 06 12

Basically the term ‘objective’ tends to complicate the situation, be-cause objectives may be written in terms of teaching intention or ex-pected learning… This means that some descriptions are of theteaching in the module and some are of the learning… This generallack of agreement as to the format of objectives is a complication, andjustifies the abandonment of the use of the term ‘objective’ in the de-scription of modules or programmes. (Moon, 2002)

Most teachers who have worked on the development of objectives formodules or programmes have encountered the above problem. One ofthe great advantages of learning outcomes is that they are clear state-ments of what the learner is expected to achieve and how he or she isexpected to demonstrate that achievement. Thus, learning outcomesare more precise, easier to compose and far clearer than objectives.From one perspective, learning outcomes can be considered as a sortof “common currency” that assists modules and programmes to bemore transparent at both local level and at an international level.

2.3 Learning outcomes and competences

In some papers in the literature, the term “competence” is used in as-sociation with learning outcomes. It is difficult to find a precise defi-nition for this term. Adam (2004) comments that “some take a narrowview and associate competence just with skills acquired by training”.The EC Tuning project7 which was initiated in 2000 used the term“competence” to represent a combination of attributes in terms ofknowledge and its application, skills, responsibilities and attitudes andan attempt was made to describe the extent to which a person is capa-ble of performing them.

The lack of clarity or agreement in terms of defining the term compe-tence is apparent in the ECTS Users’ Guide (2005), which describescompetences as “a dynamic combination of attributes, abilities andattitudes”. The Guide goes on to state that “Fostering these compe-tences is the object of educational programmes. Competences areformed in various course units and assessed at different stages. Theymay be divided into subject-area related competences (specific to afield of study) and generic competences (common to any degreecourse)”.

7 Tuning Educational Structures in Europe, http://tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu/

Advantages of learningoutcomes

Lack of clear definition

8



BH 1 02 06 12

Since there does not appear to be a common understanding of the termcompetence in the literature, learning outcomes have become morecommonly used than competences when describing what students areexpected to know, understand and/or be able to demonstrate at the endof a module or programme. For that reason, the terms “competence”and “competency” are avoided in this article.

3. How can one write learning outcomes?

The learning outcome approach is, above all, a perspective and a modeof thinking in order to develop valid programmes. While being anessential part of the implementation phase, writing learning outcomesis of course only the visible surface of this perspective, or a conse-quence of its implementation. Having stated that, this article intends touse "writing" as the key word, but the intention is of course that thewriting of these learning outcomes should be preceded by the thinkingnecessary for this change in approach.

The work of Benjamin Bloom (1913 – 1999) was found by the staff ofUniversity College Cork, Ireland, to provide a useful starting pointwhen writing learning outcomes. Bloom studied in Pennsylvania StateUniversity, USA, and graduated with bachelor and master degreesfrom that institution. He then worked with Ralph Tyler at the Univer-sity of Chicago and graduated with a PhD in Education in 1942.

Bloom was a gifted teacher who carried out research on the develop-ment of a classification of levels of thinking during the learning proc-ess. He believed that teachers should design lessons and tasks to helpstudents to meet stated objectives. Bloom identified three domains oflearning – cognitive, affective and psycho-motor – and within each ofthese domains he recognised that there was an ascending order ofcomplexity. His work is most advanced in the cognitive domain wherehe drew up a classification (or taxonomy) of thinking behaviours fromthe simple recall of facts up to the process of analysis and evaluation.His publication Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1, theCognitive Domain (Bloom et al., 1956) has become widely usedthroughout the world to assist in the preparation of curriculum andevaluation materials. The taxonomy provides a framework in whichone can build upon prior learning to develop more complex levels ofunderstanding.

In recent years, attempts have been made to revise Bloom’s Taxonomy(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Krathwohl, 2002) but the originalworks of Bloom and his co-workers are still the most widely quoted inthe literature.

Benjamin Bloom

Three domains oflearning

9



BH 1 02 06 12

Bloom proposed that the cognitive or knowing domain is composed ofsix successive levels arranged in a hierarchy as shown in figure C 3.4-1-1.

1. Knowledge2. Comprehension

3. Application4. Analysis

5. Synthesis6. Evaluation

Fig. C 3.4-1-1 Hierarchy of cognitive domain

Bloom’s taxonomy was not simply a classification – it was an effortby him to arrange the various thinking processes in a hierarchy. In thishierarchy, each level depends on the student’s ability to perform at thelevel or levels that are below it. For example, for a student to applyknowledge (stage 3) he or she would need to have both the necessaryinformation (stage 1) and understanding of this information (stage 2).

When talking about teaching, Bloom always advocated that whenteaching and assessing students one should bear in mind that learningis a process and that the teacher should try to get the thought processesof the students to move up into the higher order stages of synthesisand evaluation.

3.1 Writing learning outcomes in the cognitivedomain

Bloom’s taxonomy is frequently used for writing learning outcomes,since it provides a ready-made structure and list of verbs. It can beargued that the use of the correct verbs is the key to the successfulwriting of learning outcomes. Bloom’s original list of verbs was lim-ited and has been extended by various authors over the years. The listof verbs given in this article has been compiled from a combination ofBloom’s original publication and from the more modern literature inthis area. It is not claimed that the list of verbs suggested for eachstage is exhaustive, but it is hoped that the reader will find the lists tobe reasonably comprehensive.

A hierarchy of thinkingprocesses

Using correct verbs

10



BH 1 02 06 12

In the following section, each stage of Bloom’s taxonomy is consideredand the corresponding list of verbs relating to each stage is proposed.Since learning outcomes are concerned with what the students can do atthe end of the learning activity, all of these verbs are action (active) verbs.

3.1.1 Knowledge

Knowledge may be defined as the ability to recall or remember factswithout necessarily understanding them. Some of the action verbsused to assess knowledge are as follows:

Arrange, collect, define, describe, duplicate, enumerate, examine,find, identify, label, list, memorise, name, order, outline, present,quote, recall, recognise, recollect, record, recount, relate, repeat, re-produce, show, state, tabulate, tell.

Some examples of learning outcomes for courses in various disci-plines that demonstrate evidence of knowledge include the following:

• Recall genetics terminology: homozygous, heterozygous, pheno-type, genotype, homologous chromosome pair, etc.

• Identify and consider ethical implications of scientific investigations.

• Describe how and why laws change and the consequences of suchchanges on society.

• List the criteria to be taken into account when caring for a patientwith tuberculosis.

• Define what behaviours constitute unprofessional practice in thesolicitor – client relationship.

• Describe the processes used in engineering when preparing a de-sign brief for a client.

Note that each learning outcome begins with an action verb.

3.1.2 Comprehension

Comprehension may be defined as the ability to understand and inter-pret learned information. Some of the action verbs used to assesscomprehension are as follows:

Associate, change, clarify, classify, construct, contrast, convert, de-code, defend, describe, differentiate, discriminate, discuss, distinguish,estimate, explain, express, extend, generalise, identify, illustrate, indi-cate, infer, interpret, locate, paraphrase, predict, recognise, report,restate, rewrite, review, select, solve, translate.

Action verbs

Assessing knowledge

Demonstrating evidenceof knowledge

Assessingcomprehension

11



BH 1 02 06 12

Some examples of learning outcomes that demonstrate evidence ofcomprehension are:

• Differentiate between civil and criminal law

• Identify participants and goals in the development of electroniccommerce.

• Predict the genotype of cells that undergo meiosis and mitosis.

• Explain the social, economic and political effects of World War Ion the post-war world.

• Classify reactions as exothermic and endothermic.

• Recognise the forces discouraging the growth of the educationalsystem in Ireland in the 19th century.

3.1.3 Application

Application may be defined as the ability to use learned material innew situations, e.g. put ideas and concepts to work in solving prob-lems. Some of the action verbs used to assess application are shown asfollows:

Apply, assess, calculate, change, choose, complete, compute, con-struct, demonstrate, develop, discover, dramatise, employ, examine,experiment, find, illustrate, interpret, manipulate, modify, operate,organise, practice, predict, prepare, produce, relate, schedule, select,show, sketch, solve, transfer, use.

Some examples of learning outcomes that demonstrate evidence ofapplication are:

• Construct a timeline of significant events in the history of Australiain the 19

th century.

• Apply knowledge of infection control in the maintenance of patientcare facilities.

• Select and employ sophisticated techniques for analysing the effi-ciencies of energy usage in complex industrial processes.

• Relate energy changes to bond breaking and formation.

• Modify guidelines in a case study of a small manufacturing firm toenable tighter quality control of production.

Demonstrating evidenceof comprehension

Assessing application

Demonstrating evidenceof application

12



BH 1 02 06 12

• Show how changes in the criminal law affected levels of incarcera-tion in Scotland in the 19th century.

• Apply principles of evidence-based medicine to determine clinicaldiagnoses.

3.1.4 Analysis

Analysis may be defined as the ability to break down information intoits components, e.g. look for inter-relationships and ideas (under-standing of organisational structure). Some of the action verbs used toassess analysis are as follows:

Analyse, appraise, arrange, break down, calculate, categorise, clas-sify, compare, connect, contrast, criticise, debate, deduce, determine,differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, divide, examine, experiment,identify, illustrate, infer, inspect, investigate, order, outline, point out,question, relate, separate, sub-divide, test.

Some examples of learning outcomes that demonstrate evidence ofanalysis are:

• Analyse why society criminalises certain behaviours.

• Compare and contrast the different electronic business models.

• Debate the economic and environmental effects of energy conver-sion processes.

• Compare the classroom practice of a newly qualified teacher withthat of a teacher of 20 years teaching experience.

• Calculate gradient from maps in m, km, % and ratio.

3.1.5 Synthesis

Synthesis may be defined as the ability to put parts together. Some ofthe action verbs used to assess synthesis are the following:

Argue, arrange, assemble, categorise, collect, combine, compile, com-pose, construct, create, design, develop, devise, establish, explain,formulate, generalise, generate, integrate, invent, make, manage,modify, organise, originate, plan, prepare, propose, rearrange, recon-struct, relate, reorganise, revise, rewrite, set up, summarise.

Assessing analysis

Demonstrating evidenceof analysis

Assessing synthesis

13



BH 1 02 06 12

Some examples of learning outcomes that demonstrate evidence ofsynthesis are:

• Recognise and formulate problems that are amenable to energymanagement solutions.

• Propose solutions to complex energy management problems bothverbally and in writing.

• Summarise the causes and effects of the 1917 Russian revolutions.

• Relate the sign of enthalpy changes to exothermic and endothermicreactions.

• Organise a patient education programme.

3.1.6 Evaluation

Evaluation may be defined as the ability to judge the value of materialfor a given purpose. Some of the action verbs used to assess evalua-tion are:

Appraise, ascertain, argue, assess, attach, choose, compare, conclude,contrast, convince, criticise, decide, defend, discriminate, explain,evaluate, grade, interpret, judge, justify, measure, predict, rate, rec-ommend, relate, resolve,

The following are some examples of learning outcomes that demon-strate evidence of evaluation are:

• Assess the importance of key participants in bringing about changein Irish history Evaluate marketing strategies for different elec-tronic business models.

• Summarise the main contributions of Michael Faraday to the fieldof electromagnetic induction.

• Predict the effect of change of temperature on the position of equi-librium.

• Evaluate the key areas contributing to the craft knowledge of expe-rienced teachers.

Note that the verbs used in the above six categories are not exclusiveto any one particular category. Some verbs appear in more than onecategory. For example, a mathematical calculation may involvemerely applying a given formula (application – stage 3) or it may in-volve analysis (stage 4) as well as application.

Demonstrating evidenceof synthesis

Assessing evaluation

Demonstrating evidenceof evaluation

14



BH 1 02 06 12

3.2 Writing learning outcomes in the affectivedomain

Whilst the cognitive domain is the most widely used of Bloom’s Tax-onomy, Bloom and his co-workers also carried out research on theaffective (“attitudes”, “feelings”, “values”) domain (Bloom et al.,1964). This domain is concerned with issues relating to the emotionalcomponent of learning and ranges from basic willingness to receiveinformation to the integration of beliefs, ideas and attitudes.

In order to describe the way in which we deal with things emotionally,Bloom and his colleagues developed five major categories:

1. Receiving. This refers to a willingness to receive information, e.g.the individual accepts the need for a commitment to service, listensto others with respect, shows sensitivity to social problems, etc.

2. Responding. This refers to the individual actively participating inhis or her own learning, e.g. shows interest in the subject, is willingto give a presentation, participates in class discussions, enjoyshelping others, etc.

3. Valuing. This ranges from simple acceptance of a value to one ofcommitment, e.g. the individual demonstrates belief in democraticprocesses, appreciates the role of science in our everyday lives,shows concern for the welfare of others, shows sensitivity towardsindividual and cultural differences, etc.

4. Organisation. This refers to the process that individuals go throughas they bring together different values, resolve conflicts among themand start to internalise the values, e.g. recognises the need for bal-ance between freedom and responsibility in a democracy, accepts re-sponsibility for his or her own behaviour, accepts professional ethi-cal standards, adapts behaviour to a value system, etc.

5. Characterisation. At this level the individual has a value systemin terms of their beliefs, ideas and attitudes that control their be-haviour in a consistent and predictable manner, e.g. displays selfreliance in working independently, displays a professional com-mitment to ethical practice, shows good personal, social and emo-tional adjustment, maintains good health habits, etc.

Emotional component oflearning

Five major categories

15



BH 1 02 06 12

The major categories of the affective domain and some active verbscommonly used when writing learning outcomes for this domain areshown in Fig. C 3.4-1-2. Some examples of learning outcomes in theaffective domain are:

5. Characterisation

3. Valuing4. Organisation

2. Responding1. Receiving

act, adhere, appreciate, ask, accept,answer, assist, attempt, challenge,combine, complete, conform, cooperate,defend, demonstrate (a belief in),differentiate, discuss, display, dispute,embrace, follow, hold, initiate, integrate,justify, listen, order, organise, participate,practice, join, share, judge, praise,question, relate, report, resolve, share,support, synthesise, value

Fig. C 3.4-1-2 Hierarchy of affective domain and some action verbs

Bloom and his colleagues (and subsequent authors) have linked thevarious levels in the affective domain to specific verbs. However, thislevel of detail will not be explored in this article.

Some examples of learning outcomes relevant to the affective domainare as follows:

• Accept the need for professional ethical standards.

• Appreciate the need for confidentiality in the professional clientrelationship.

• Value a willingness to work independently.

• Relate well to pupils of all abilities in the classroom.

• Appreciate the management challenges associated with high levelsof change in the public sector.

• Display a willingness to communicate well with patients.

• Resolve conflicting issues between personal beliefs and ethicalconsiderations.

• Participate in class discussions with colleagues and with teachers.

• Embrace a responsibility for the welfare of children taken into care.

• Display a professional commitment to ethical practice.

Major affective catego-ries and active verbs

Examples of learningoutcomes

16



BH 1 02 06 12

3.3 Writing learning outcomes in the psychomotordomain

The psychomotor domain mainly emphasises physical skills involvingco-ordination of the brain and muscular activity. From a study of theliterature, it would appear that this domain has been less well devel-oped in the field of education than either the cognitive or affectivedomain. The psychomotor domain is commonly used in areas likelaboratory science subjects, health sciences, art, music, engineering,drama and physical education. Bloom and his research team did notcomplete detailed work on the psychomotor domain as they claimedlack of experience in teaching these skills. However, a number ofauthors have suggested various versions of taxonomies to describe thedevelopment of skills and co-ordination.

For example, Dave (1970) proposed a hierarchy consisting of fivelevels:

1. Imitation: Observing the behaviour of another person and copyingthis behaviour. This is the first stage in learning a complex skill.

2. Manipulation: Ability to perform certain actions by followinginstructions and practicing skills.

3. Precision: At this level, the student has the ability to carry out atask with few errors and become more precise without the presenceof the original source. The skill has been attained and proficiencyis indicated by smooth and accurate performance.

4. Articulation: Ability to co-ordinate a series of actions by com-bining two or more skills. Patterns can be modified to fit specialrequirements or solve a problem.

5. Naturalisation: Displays a high level of performance naturally(“without thinking”). Skills are combined, sequenced and per-formed consistently with ease.

Physical skills

Five levels

17



BH 1 02 06 12

This hierarchy and some examples of action verbs for writing learningoutcomes in the psychomotor domain are shown in figure C 3.4-1-3:

1. Imitation2. Manipulation

3. Precision4. Articulation

5. Naturalisation Adapt, adjust, administer, alter, arrange,assemble, balance, bend, build, calibrate,choreograph, combine, construct, copy,design, deliver, detect, demonstrate,differentiate (by touch), dismantle, display,dissect, drive, estimate, examine, execute, fix,grasp, grind, handle, heat, manipulate,identify, measure, mend, mime, mimic, mix,operate, organise, perform (skilfully), present,record, refine, sketch, react, use.

Fig. C 3.4-1-3 Hierarchy of psychomotor domain and some action verbs

Subsequently, Simpson (1972) developed a more detailed hierarchyconsisting of seven levels:

1. Perception: The ability to use observed cues to guide physicalactivity.

2. Set (mindset): The readiness to take a particular course of action.This can involve mental, physical and emotional disposition.

3. Guided response: The trial-an-error attempts at acquiring a physi-cal skill. With practice, this leads to better performance.

4. Mechanism: The intermediate stage in learning a physical skill.Learned responses become more habitual and movements can beperformed with some confidence and level of proficiency.

5. Complex Overt Responses: Physical activities involving complexmovement patterns are possible. Responses are automatic and pro-ficiency is indicated by accurate and highly coordinated perform-ance with a minimum of wasted effort.

6. Adaptation: At this level, skills are well developed and the indi-vidual can modify movements to deal with problem situations or tofit special requirements.

7. Origination: The skills are so highly developed that creativity forspecial situations is possible.

Other taxonomies

18



BH 1 02 06 12

Other taxonomies in the psychomotor domain have been developed byHarrow (1972) and Dawson (1998). Ferris and Aziz (2005) developeda taxonomy in the psychomotor domain specifically for engineeringstudents.

In general, all of the various taxonomies in the psychomotor domaindescribe a progression from simple observation to mastery of physicalskills.

3.4 Practical advice for writing learning outcomes

Fry et al (2000) when giving practical advice for writing learning out-comes recommend the use of “unambiguous action verbs” and listmany examples of verbs from Bloom’s Taxonomy. In order to showthe differences between the vocabulary used in writing aims andlearning outcomes, the authors listed some examples of verbs asshown in Table C 3.4-1-1.

Table C 3.4-1-1 Examples of verbs used in writing aims andlearning outcomes. (Fry et al., 2000 p. 51)

Aims Outcomes

Know

Understand

Determine

Appreciate

Grasp

Become familiar

Distinguish between

Choose

Assemble

Adjust

Identify

Solve, apply, list

The following guidelines may be of assistance when writing learningoutcomes:

Unambiguous actionverbs

19



BH 1 02 06 12

• Begin each learning outcome with an action verb, followed by the object of the verb followed by aphrase that gives the context.

• Use only one verb per learning outcome.

• Avoid vague terms like know, understand, learn, be familiar with, be exposed to, be acquaintedwith, and be aware of. These terms are associated with teaching objectives rather than learningoutcomes.

• Avoid complicated sentences. If necessary use more one than one sentence to ensure clarity.

• Ensure that the learning outcomes of the module relate to the overall outcomes of theprogramme.

• The learning outcomes must be observable and measurable.

• Ensure that the earning outcomes are capable of being assessed.

• When writing learning outcomes, bear in mind the timescale within which the outcomes are to beachieved. There is always the danger that one can be over-ambitious when writing learningoutcomes. Ask yourself if it is realistic to achieve the learning outcomes within the time andresources available.

• As you work on writing the learning outcomes, bear the mind how these outcomes will beassessed, i.e. how will you know if the student has achieved these learning outcomes? If thelearning outcomes are very broad, they may be difficult to assess effectively. If the learningoutcomes are very narrow, the list of learning outcomes may be too long and detailed.

• Before finalising the learning outcomes, ask your colleagues and possibly former students if thelearning outcomes make sense to them.

• When writing learning outcomes, for students at levels beyond first year, try to avoid overloadingthe list with learning outcomes which are drawn from the bottom of Bloom’s taxonomy ( e.g.Knowledge and Comprehension in the cognitive domain). Try to challenge the students to usewhat they have learned by including some learning outcomes drawn from the higher categories(e.g. Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation).

Handout C 3.4-1-2 Guidelines for writing learning outcomes

20



BH 1 02 06 12

4. How are learning outcomes linked toteaching and assessment?

When writing learning outcomes, it is important to write them in sucha way that they are capable of being assessed. Clearly, it is necessaryto have some form of assessment tool or technique in order to deter-mine the extent to which learning outcomes have been achieved. Ex-amples of direct assessment techniques are the use of written exami-nations, project work, portfolios, grading system with rubrics, theses,reflective journals, performance assessment, etc. Examples of indirectassessment methods are surveys of employers, comparison with peerinstitutions, surveys of past graduates, retention rates, analysis of cur-riculum, etc.

The challenge for teachers is to ensure that there is alignment betweenteaching methods, assessment techniques, assessment criteria andlearning outcomes. This connection between teaching, assessment andlearning outcomes helps to make the overall learning experience moretransparent. Student course evaluations show that clear expectationsare a vitally important part of effective learning. Lack of clarity in thisarea is almost always associated with negative evaluations, learningdifficulties, and poor student performance. Toohey (1999) recom-mends that the best way to help students understand how they mustachieve learning outcomes is by clearly setting out the assessmenttechniques and the assessment criteria.

In terms of teaching and learning, there is a dynamic equilibrium be-tween teaching strategies on one side and learning outcomes and as-sessment on the other side.

It is important that the assessment tasks mirror the learning outcomessince, as far as the students are concerned, the assessment is the cur-riculum: “From our students’ point of view, assessment always definesthe actual curriculum” (Ramsden, 2003). This situation is representedgraphically by Biggs (2003b) as follows:

TeacherPerspectives: Objectives DLOs* Teaching Activities Assessment

StudentPerspectives: Assessment Learning activities Outcomes

* Desired Learning Outcomes

Fig. C 3.4-1-4 Teacher and student perspectives regarding assessment

Assessing learningoutcomes

Aligning teaching,assessment and

learning outcomes

Assessment must mirrorlearning outcomes

21



BH 1 02 06 12

In stressing this point, Biggs (2003) emphasises the strong link be-tween the curriculum and assessment as follows:

To the teacher, assessment is at the end of the teaching-learning se-quence of events, but to the student it is at the beginning. If the cur-riculum is reflected in the assessment, as indicated by the downwardarrow, the teaching activities of the teacher and the learner activitiesof the learner are both directed towards the same goal. In preparingfor the assessment, students will be learning the curriculum. (Biggs2003)

One cannot over-emphasise the importance of assessment in theteaching and learning process. As already stated (Ramsden, 2003) asfar as the students are concerned, the assessment is the curriculum.They will learn what they think will be assessed, not what may be onthe curriculum or even what has been covered in lectures! The oldadage that “assessment is the tail that wags the dog” is very true.

4.1 Linking learning outcomes, teaching andassessment

Assessment is often described in terms of formative assessment orsummative assessment. Formative assessment has been described asbeing assessment FOR learning. It has been described as assessmentthat “refers to all those activities undertaken by teachers, and by thestudents in assessing themselves, which provide information to beused as feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities inwhich they are engaged” (Black and Williams, 1998). In other words,formative assessment helps to inform the teacher and the students asto how the students are progressing. Formative assessment is usuallycarried out at the beginning of a programme or during a programme.The students’ performance on the assessment tasks can help theteacher to make decisions about the direction of the teaching to helpthe learning process. It has been clearly shown (Black and Williams,1998) that by giving feedback to learners, formative assessment canhelp improve the learning and performance of students.

The main characteristics of formative assessment include:

• Identification by teachers and students of the learning outcomesand the criteria for achieving these.

• The provision of clear and rich feedback in an effective and timelyfashion.

• The active involvement of students in their own learning.• Good communication between teacher and students.• The response by the teacher to the needs of the students.

Link between curriculumand assessment

Formative assessment

Main characteristics

22



BH 1 02 06 12

In short, formative assessment is part of the teaching process ratherthan the grading process.

Summative assessment is assessment that tries to summarise studentlearning at some point in time – usually at the end of a module or pro-gramme. Summative assessment has been described as “end-of-courseassessment and essentially means that this is assessment which pro-duces a measure which sums up someone’s achievement and whichhas no other real use except as a description of what has beenachieved” (Brown and Knight, 1994).

Thus, the use of summative assessment enables a grade to be gener-ated that reflects the student's performance. Unfortunately, summativeassessment is often restricted to just the traditional examination paperand does not involve other areas like project work, portfolios or es-says. Because of the nature of summative assessment, not all learningoutcomes can be assessed at any one time. Assessment of just a sam-ple of learning outcomes is common.

In theory, continuous assessment is a combination of summative andformative assessment. In practice, continuous assessment oftenamounts to repeated summative assessments with marks being re-corded but little or no specific feedback being given to students.

Clearly, it is important that the method of assessment that we useshould attempt to test whether or not the learning outcomes have beenachieved. Interestingly, it has been found that the range of assessmentof students is very limited, with approximately 80 % of assessmentbeing in the form of exams, essays and reports of some kind.(Brown,1999). For example, a study of assessment practices in Uni-versity College, Dublin, Ireland found that a random sample of 83teaching staff used a total of 256 assessments when asked to describeone of their courses, i.e. approximately 3 assessments per course. Ofthese assessments, the majority were summative (84 %) and a minor-ity were formative (16 %).

Developing links between learning outcomes, teaching strategies,student activities and assessment tasks is very challenging for theteacher. The following table may be of help in developing these links.

Summative assessment

Continuous assessment

23



BH 1 02 06 12

Table C 3.4-1-2 Linking learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities andassessment

Learning outcomes Teaching and LearningActivities

Assessment

Cognitive

Affective

Psychomotor

Lectures

Tutorials

Discussions

Laboratory work

Clinical work

Group work

Seminar

Peer group presentation

End of module exam

Multiple choice tests

Essays

Practical assessment.

Fieldwork

Clinical practice

Presentation

Project work

There may not be just one method of assessment to satisfy all learningoutcomes and it may be necessary to choose a number of assessmentmethods.

The curriculum should be designed so that the teaching activities,learning activities and assessment tasks are co-ordinated with thelearning outcomes. Biggs (2003) refers to this type of process as in-volving constructive alignment. (The constructive part refers to thetype of learning and what the learner does. The alignment part refersto what the teacher does). Biggs points out that in a good teachingsystem, the method of teaching, learning activities and method of as-sessment are all co-ordinated to support student learning.

Constructive alignment

Demonstrateknowledge

Comprehension

Application

Analysis

Synthesis

Evaluation

Integration ofbeliefs, ideasand attitudes

Acquisition ofphysical skills

24



BH 1 02 06 12

When there is alignment between what we want, how we teach andhow we assess, teaching is likely to be much more effective thanwhen it is not (aligned)… Traditional transmission theories ofteaching ignore alignment. (Biggs 2003a)

It is clear from the above that there are three basic tasks involved inthe constructive alignment of any module:

1. Clearly defining the learning outcomes.

2. Selecting teaching and learning methods that are likely to ensurethat the learning outcomes are achieved.

3. Assessing the student learning outcomes and checking to see howwell they match with what was intended.

4.2 Assessment criteria and learning outcomes

Learning outcomes specify the minimum acceptable standard to enablea student to pass a module. Student performances above this basicthreshold level are differentiated by applying grading criteria. Gradingcriteria are statements that indicate what a student must demonstrate toachieve a higher grade. These statements help to differentiate the levelsof performance of a student. By making these criteria clear to students,it is hoped that students will aim for the highest levels of performance.

Giving a bare grade to a student does not provide adequate feedbackon their performance since the grade simply indicates an overall levelof competence. This overall grade does not identify strengths andweaknesses on specific learning outcomes. However, if the gradingsystem is tied to some form of scoring guide, it can be a very usefulway of identifying areas for improvement that need to be addressed.

A scoring guide that is used in assessment is often referred to as a rubric.A rubric is a grading tool used to describe the criteria used in grading theperformance of students. In general, each ru-bric consists of a set of criteria and marks orgrades associated with these criteria. Thus,rubrics help to define the criteria of the systemof assessment by describing performance atdifferent points on a rating scale.

For example, a scoring rubric used for one ofthe learning outcomes in module ED6001 ofthe Master’s Degree in Science Education atUniversity College Cork, Ireland, is as follows:

Three basic tasks

Grading criteria

Grading tool

Further information on creating and usingdetailed rubrics for various types of studentassessment can be found on the website of theUniversity of Monmouth, USA:

http://its.monmouth.edu/FacultyResourceCenter/rubrics.htm

25



BH 1 02 06 12

Table C 3.4-1-3 Linking learning outcomes and assessment criteria

Learning out-come

Assessment criteria

Grade 1 Grade 2 : 1 Grade 2 : 2 Pass Fail

On successfulcompletion ofthis module,students shouldbe able to:Summariseevidence fromthe scienceeducation lit-erature to sup-port develop-ment of a lineof argument.

Outstandinguse of literatureshowing ex-cellent ability tosynthesiseevidence inanalytical wayto formulateclear conclu-sions.

Very good useof literatureshowing highability to syn-thesise evi-dence in ana-lytical way toformulate clearconclusions.

Good use ofliteratureshowing goodability to syn-thesise evi-dence in ana-lytical way toformulate clearconclusions.

Limited use ofliteratureshowing fairability to syn-thesise evi-dence to for-mulate conclu-sions.

Poor use ofliteratureshowing lack ofability to syn-thesise evi-dence to for-mulate conclu-sions

5. Towards the future with learningoutcomes

As already indicated, international trends in education show a shiftfrom the traditional “teacher-centred” approach to a more “student-centred” approach. While traditionally the focus was on what theteacher did, in recent years the focus has been on what students havelearned and can demonstrate at the end of a module or programme.Among the key characteristics of outcome-based education listed byHarden (2002) are:

• The development of clearly defined and published learning out-comes that must be achieved before the end of the programme.

• The design of a curriculum, learning strategies and learning op-portunities to ensure the achievement of the learning outcome.

• An assessment process matched to the learning outcomes and theassessment of individual students to ensure that they achieve theoutcomes.

5.1 Advantages of learning outcomes

Whilst there has been some criticism of outcome-based education inthe literature, a learning outcomes approach to teaching and learninghas received strong support at an international level. For example,Jenkins and Unwin (2001) assert that learning outcomes:

Key characteristics

26



BH 1 02 06 12

• Help teachers to tell students more precisely what is expected ofthem.

• Help students to learn more effectively: students know where theystand and the curriculum is made more open to them.

• Help teachers to design their materials more effectively by actingas a template for them.

• Make it clear what students can hope to gain from following a par-ticular course or lecture.

• Help teachers select the appropriate teaching strategy matched tothe intended learning outcome, e.g. lecture, seminar, group work,tutorial, discussion, peer group presentation or laboratory class.

• Help teachers to tell their colleagues more precisely what a par-ticular activity is designed to achieve.

• Assist in setting examinations based on the materials delivered.

• Ensure that appropriate teaching and assessment strategies are em-ployed.

When writing about the embracing of learning outcomes in medicaleducation, Harden (2002a) comments that “where it has been imple-mented, outcome based education has had a significant and beneficialimpact. Clarification of the learning outcomes in medical educationhelps teachers, wherever they are, to decide what they should teachand assess, and students what they are expected to learn”. In anotherpaper, Harden (2002b) describes how learning outcomes have beenused to develop a model for use in medical training:

Learning outcomes can be specified in a way that covers the range ofnecessary competences and emphasises the integration of differentcompetences in the practice of medicine. An important feature of thethree-circle model of learning outcomes is that it does just that. In theinner circle are the seven learning outcomes relating to what a doctoris able to do, i.e. the technical competences expected of a doctor(‘doing the right thing’); in the middle circle the learning outcomesrelating to how the doctor approaches his or her task with knowledgeand understanding and appropriate attitude and decision-makingstrategies (‘doing the thing right’); and in the outer circle the ongoingdevelopment of the doctor as an individual and as a professional (‘theright person doing it’). Harden, 2002b, p. 153

Adam (2004) summarises the advantages of learning outcomes under4 main headings:

Learning outcomes inmedical education

27



BH 1 02 06 12

1. Course and module design

Learning outcomes can:

• Help to ensure consistency of delivery across modules and pro-grammes.

• Aid curriculum design by clarifying areas of overlap betweenmodules and programmes.

• Help course designers to determine precisely the key purposesof a course and to see how components of the syllabus fit andhow learning progression is incorporated.

• Highlight the relationship between teaching, learning and as-sessment and help improve course design and the student expe-rience.

• Promote reflection on assessment and the development of as-sessment criteria and more effective and varied assessment.

2. Quality assurance

Learning outcomes:

• Increase transparency and the comparability of standards be-tween and within qualifications.

• Possess greater credibility and utility than traditional qualifica-tions.

• Play a key role by acting as points of reference for establishingand assessing standards.

3. Students

Learning outcomes provide:

• Comprehensive sets of statements of exactly what the studentswill be able to achieve after successful study.

• Clear information to help students with their choice of moduleand programme. This can lead to more effective learning.

• Clear information to employers and higher education institu-tions on the achievements and characteristics associated withparticular qualifications.

28



BH 1 02 06 12

4. Mobility

Learning outcomes:

• Contribute to the mobility of students by facilitating the recog-nition of their qualifications.

• Improve the transparency of qualifications.

• Simplify credit transfer.

• Provide a common format that helps promote lifelong learningand can assist in creating multiple routes through and betweendifferent educations systems.

For further development of the advantages of using learning outcomes,particularly in an educational reform context, please see Adam, S.(2006) An introduction to learning outcomes, Article B.2.3-1 of thisHandbook.

5.2 Potential problems with learning outcomes

One of the main concerns about the adoption of learning outcomes isthe philosophical one that academic study should be open-ended andthat learning outcomes do not fit in with this liberal view of learning(Adam, 2004). This need not be the case if learning outcomes arewritten with a focus on higher-order thinking and application skills.However, if learning outcomes are written within a very narrowframework, this could limit learning and result in a lack of intellectualchallenge to learners.

Other potential problems are:

• There is a danger of an assessment-driven curriculum if learningoutcomes are too confined.

• Learning outcomes could give rise to confusion among studentsand staff if guidelines are not adhered to when drawing up theselearning outcomes.

29



BH 1 02 06 12

5.3 Some concluding points

The international movement away from a “teacher-centred” approachto a more “outcome-based” approach to education has gained in-creased momentum from the Bologna process, with its emphasis onstudent-centred learning and the need to have more precision andclarity in the design and content of curricula. It is clear that learningoutcomes play a key role in ensuring transparency of qualificationsand of qualification frameworks. They are also central to contributingto the implementation of the various action lines of the Bologna proc-ess throughout the European Higher Education Area.

The requirement to make the teaching and learning process moretransparent and more explicit presents a challenge to all involved ineducation. In the short term, this involves preparing for the immediatechallenge of expressing modules and programmes in terms of learningoutcomes. In the longer term, the adoption of the learning outcomesapproach has the potential to help embrace a more systematic ap-proach to the design of programmes and modules.

References

All websites valid as of October 2006.

[1] Adam, S. (2004) Using Learning Outcomes: A consideration of the nature, role,application and implications for European education of employing learning out-comes at the local, national and international levels. Report on United KingdomBologna Seminar, July 2004, Herriot-Watt University.

[2] Adam, S. (2006) An introduction to learning outcomes, in EUA Bologna Hand-book, Froment E., Kohler J, Purser L, Wilson L (Eds), article B.2.3-1. Berlin,Raabe.

[3] Allan, J. (1996) Learning outcomes in higher education, Studies in Higher Edu-cation, 21 (10) p. 93 – 108.

[4] Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning,Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Ob-jectives. New York: Longman.

[5] Biggs, J. (2003a) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham:Open University Press.

[6] Biggs J. (2003b) Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Teachingand Learning in Higher Education: New Trends and Innovations. University ofAveiro, 13 – 17 April 2003.

[7] Bingham, J. (1999), Guide to Developing Learning Outcomes. The Learning andTeaching Institute Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam Uni-versity.

[8] Black, P and William, D (1998) Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards throughClassroom Assessment, London: Kings College.

30



BH 1 02 06 12

[9] Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M., D., Furst, E.J, Hill, W. and Krathwohl, D. (1956)Taxonomy of educational objectives. Volume I: The cognitive domain. New York:McKay.

[10] Bloom, B.S., Masia, B.B. and Krathwohl, D. R. (1964). Taxonomy of Educa-tional Objectives Volume II : The Affective Domain. New York: McKay.

[11] Bloom, B.S. (1975) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1 CognitiveDomain. Longman Publishing.

[12] British Columbia Institute of Technology (1996), Writing Learning Outcomes,British Colombia, Canada: Learning Resources Unit.

[13] Brown, S. (1999) Institutional Strategies for Assessment. In Brown, S. andGlasner, A. (Eds), Assessment Matters in Higher Education. Buckingham:SRHE and OU Press.

[14] Brown, S., and Knight, P. (1994) Assessing Learners in Higher Education. Lon-don: Kogan.

[15] Purser, L. (2003), Report on Council of Europe Seminar on Recognition Issuesin the Bologna Process, Lisbon, April 2002, in Bergan, S. (ed), Recognition Is-sues in the Bologna Process, http://book.coe.int/EN/ficheouvrage.php?PAGEID=36&lang=EN&produit_aliasid=1618

[16] Dave, R. H. (1970). Developing and Writing Behavioural Objectives. (R J Arm-strong, ed.) Tucson, Arizona: Educational Innovators Press.

[17] Dawson, W. R. (1998), Extensions to Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objec-tives, Sydney, Australia: Putney Publishing.

[18] Donnelly, R and Fitzmaurice, M. (2005). Designing Modules for Learning. In:Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching, O’Neill,G et al. Dublin : AISHE.

[19] ECTS Users’ Guide (2005) Brussels: Directorate-General for Education andCulture. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/socrates/ects/doc/guide_en.pdf

[20] Ferris, T and Aziz S (2005) A psychomotor skills extension to Bloom’s Taxon-omy of Education Objectives for engineering education. Exploring Innovation inEducation and Research, March 2005.

[21] Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., Marshall (2000) A Handbook for Teaching and Learningin Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.

[22] Gosling, D. and Moon, J. (2001) How to use Learning Outcomes and Assess-ment Criteria. London: SEEC Office.

[23] Harden, R. M. (2002a). Developments in outcome-based education. MedicalTeacher, 24(2) 117 – 120.

[24] Harden, R. M. (2002b). Learning outcomes and instructional objectives: is therea difference? Medical Teacher, 24(2) 151 – 155.

[25] Harrow, A. (1972) A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain - a guide for devel-oping behavioral objectives. New York: David McKay.

[26] Jenkins, A. & Unwin, D. (2001) How to write learning outcomes. Availableonline: http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/format/outcomes.html

31



BH 1 02 06 12

[27] Krathwohl, David, R. (2002) A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview.Theory into Practice, 41 (4).

[28] Mager, R. F. (1984). Preparing instructional objectives . 2nd ed., Belmont, Cali-fornia: Pitman Learning.

[29] McLean, J and Looker, P. (2006) University of New South Wales Learning andTeaching Unit. Available online: http://www.ltu.unsw.edu.au/content/course_prog_support/outcomes.cfm?ss=0

[30] Moon, J. (2002) The Module and Programme Development Handbook. London:Kogan Page Limited.

[31] O'Neill, G. (2002) Variables that influence a teacher versus student-focusedapproach to teaching. UCD, Centre for Teaching and Learning report.

[32] Osters, S and Tiu, F.( ), Writing Measurable Learning outcomes. Article avail-able on: http://qep.tamu.edu/documents/Writing-Measurable-Learning-Outcomes.pdf

[33] Ramsden, P (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education, London: Routledge.

[34] Shuell, T. J. (1986) Cognitive conceptions of learning, Review of EducationalResearch, 56: 411-436.

[35] Simpson, E. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psycho-motor domain: The psychomotor domain. Vol. 3. Washington, DC: GryphonHouse.

[36] Toohey, S, (1999) Designing Courses for Higher Education. Buckingham:SRHE and OU Press.

[37] University of Central England Educational and Staff Development Unithttp://lmu.uce.ac.uk/OUTCOMES/UCE %20Guide %20to %20Learning %20Outcomes %202006.pdf, http://lmu.uce.ac.uk/outcomes/#4. %20What %20are %20the %20benefits %20of %20Learning %20Outcomes

Biographies:

Dr. Declan Kennedy graduated with a BSc in chemistry from University College Cork (UCC), Irelandin 1976 and subsequently studied for his Higher Diploma in Education (1977) and an MSc in x-raycrystallography (1979). He taught in Colaiste Muire, Cobh from 1976 to 1998 and as a part-timelecturer in the Education Department at UCC from 1980 to 1998. He joined the EducationDepartment at UCC in 1998 as a full time lecturer in science education. He completed his MEd(1999) and PhD (2004) in Education at the University of York, UK.

Áine Hyland has recently retired as Professor of Education and Vice-President of University CollegeCork. She has represented UCC on a number of European and U.S. based teaching and learningprojects, including an EUA Quality Culture Network project and an Institutional Leadership project onTeaching and Learning at the Carnegie Institute for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education inthe U.S.

Dr. Norma Ryan is a lecturer in biochemistry at University College Cork (UCC), Ireland and since1999 has been Director of the UCC Quality Promotion Unit. She is an Irish Bologna Promoter.

32

The Zen Art of Teaching: Communication and Interactions in eEducation Peter Baumgartner

Excerpt from Baumgartner, P. (2004). The Zen Art of Teaching - Communication and Inter-actions in eEducation. In M. E. Auer & U. Auer (Eds.), ICL 2003. Villach: Kassel University Press. Retrieved from http://peter.baumgartner.name/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Baumgartner_2004_The-Zen-Art-of-Teaching.pdf

Abstract: This paper outlines three prototypical modes of teaching and learning and their con-sequences for the design of eLearning environments. I distinguish between transfer of knowledge (mode I), acquisition of knowledge (mode II) and construction of knowledge (mode III). Based on this theoretical framework I will develop the notion of “educational scenarios” and integrate this concept into a three level perspective: sce-narios – interactions patterns – usage of tools.

…

1 Three prototypical models of education

1.1 To transfer knowledge (Teaching I)

In this model the origin of students’ knowledge is based on knowledge possessed by the teacher. Teachers know what students need to learn and it is the teachers’ responsibility to transfer this knowledge into the student’s mind as easily as possible. The transferred knowledge is abstracted knowledge prepared in a special way (the so-called didactical prepa-ration), so that students are able to capture the content not only fast, but also to memorise it on a long term basis. There are some links and relations of this model with behaviourism, a now outdated learning theory: The central tenet of behaviourism is that our behaviour is the product of our condition-ing. So it claims that not our mental processes determine what we do. Learning is therefore a conditioned reflex which takes place through adaptation, a process in which the student’s be-haviour (reaction) simply results from an appropriate stimulus. Searching for appropriate stimuli cause the main theoretical and educational problems according to this theory. These stimuli have to be supported by adequate feedback to emphasise the correct (=desired by the teacher) mode of behaviour. Behaviourism is showing no interest to the specific processes of the brain and considers the brain as a black box, which reacts to an input in deterministic ways. This model presents the brain as a passive container that needs to be filled. Behaviourism mainly focuses on steering behaviour and not on cognitive steering processes. And indeed: In occasions where we want to train some basic skills this model is very successful. The language lab based on drill and practice presents a typical example. A further example of such “brainless” training refers to finger exercises for typing skills. Although the simple stimulus-reaction-scheme has its merits it is already abandoned with re-spect to mental procedures. Nonetheless the image of a brain as a passive container to be filled is still very popular and in fact it is doing well in situations where learners are “new-bies” to a certain domain and need some basic factual knowledge for their orientation. All in

33

all this mode of teaching has legitimate usage when it comes to low level, static knowledge. We will call the teaching strategy of transferring knowledge as “Teaching I”. For the further elaboration of our main argument it is important to note that the organisational structure of the transfer arrangement is unidirectional. Knowledge goes from the teacher to the student; the teacher “gives”, the student has to “take in”, to absorb, to assimilate. Whenev-er a reaction of the student is required it functions as feedback to see if the knowledge transfer has worked successfully and produced the “correct” behaviour. From a systemic point of view we have two clearly defined systems where one system (the teacher) dominates and controls the other system (the learner).

1.2 To acquire, compile, gather knowledge (Teaching II)

This teaching model assumes that learning is an active process, which has to be planned, re-vised and reflected by the learner. The learner itself is an active entity and it is his/her activity, which supports or even is a necessary condition for the learning process. To understand the differences between Teaching I and Teaching II better we have to refine our arguments. Even the simplest form of knowledge transfer (Teaching I) needs some activi-ties by the learner (e.g. attention, listening etc.). The very dumb mode of learning by heart requires already a lot of engagement by the learner (e.g. rehearsal of the material to memo-rise). So even in the teaching model of transferring knowledge nobody will claim that the learner is not a human being in some kind actively involved in learning. The differences are on a more subtle level: In Teaching I the teacher is not interested to control or even observe the actual learning activities undertaken by the learner. What counts are just the results whereas in Teaching II the whole learning process with all its intermediate steps, its difficul-ties and provisional results are under surveillance by the teacher. In Teaching I learners essen-tially get the feedback wrong or true whereas in Teaching II teachers try to help to overcome wrong assumptions, wrong learning attitudes and to assist in the reflection process in order to aid the student to build up a consistent mental model of the subject domain. Teaching II has kinship to cognitivism. The modern and today very likely dominant paradigm of cognitivism emphasizes in contrast to behaviourism an inner processes of the brain seeking to differentiate, investigate and bring these processes into mutual relation. Cognitivism seeks to develop a theoretical model for the processing operations between input and output of the brain, which in this case is not regarded as a black box. In contrast to the behaviouristic ap-proach the brain is not merely regarded as a passive container, but as a “device” with its own processing and information capacity. With respect to learning the basic paradigm of cognitivism consists of problem solving. In Teaching II the teacher provides (and controls) a learning environment where learners are able to withdraw, to collect, to gather, to compile etc. the necessary information to solve the pre-sented problem or task. The learner has with certain required actions actively to acquire the necessary knowledge, the teacher observes the knowledge acquisition and tries to facilitate this learning process. In Teaching II the teacher is a tutor, a facilitator who watches and exam-ines not only the product, but also the process. Under these premises the teacher designs a specific learning environment and includes some “observation points” in order to be able to give feedback during the learning process. As there is no chance to look into the heads of learners teachers have to provide a communication structure. In contrast to Teaching I this communication is based on a dual way channel. Feed-back is not only used to judge (wrong or right), but to provide means to help to find the cor-rect solution. Even if the communication goes into both directions this does not necessarily mean that teachers and learners are on equal terms. In Teaching II the teacher is a kind of moderator or

34

panel chairman, who directs the discussion. But in contrast to Teaching I it is a real discus-sion, the moderator (teacher) considers carefully what the student has to say and as a result changes his/her attitude accordingly. Please keep in mind that our description of the different teaching model is conceptual. So the apparently differences between these two models could be very small. Concerning Teaching I it could even happen that there are tasks and problems presented, but just presented. There are no built in observation points to facilitate the learning process. On the other hand in modern curricula nowadays we have permanent test situations meaning that a complex learning pro-cess is divided into many small learning products. In our understanding these “observation points” are test situations to judge the learning product. They give learners hints if they are on the right or wrong track, but these check points do not serve as an individual help provided by the teacher. They are just interim judgements. Even if teacher do react (for instance if many students have failed) by providing (e.g. presenting) additional information their teaching mode remains in the boundaries of model Teaching I. There is a central difference to check points in Teaching I compared to Teaching II. Observa-tion points serve in the first model to improve the transfer of knowledge (more precise, more concise, more effective etc.) to the audience, whereas in the second model the individual learner is supported to progress. To get the required status information from the learner a spe-cial learning mood has to be generated. Learners must trust teachers that they do not exploit their bad performance to their disadvantage.

1.3 To develop, to invent, to construct knowledge (Teaching III)

In the model of Teaching II all problems and tasks are presented by teachers. This has various consequences:

• Only the teacher practices the art of inventing and presenting problems. The stu-dent is taught to solve problems but not to “invent” and present them.

• For pedagogical reasons the problems chosen have only one clearly defined solu-tion.

• For didactical reasons the problems are clearly cut and cleaned up so that the taskat hand is evident and the solution is straight forward so that the problem can besolved in the limited time the curriculum guarantees.

In real life advanced knowledge especially professional knowledge [1,2] is irreducible com-plex, uncertain, instable, unique and governed by value conflicts, which are not solved by reason but by power. Without going into details [3] the characteristics of professional knowledge mentioned above assumes that we live in an inherently turbulent environment with indeterminate problematic situations, which “are not in the book”. This supposition generates a paradox: How can we teach problems nobody ever has confront-ed let alone solved? How can teachers teach so that students become better teachers than the ones they learned from? In a wonderful short science fiction story Isaac Asimov [4] reflects on this apparent paradoxi-cal situation: Children brought up in a futuristic society have to undergo a special test where it is determined which profession they are going to practice. All the knowledge of former gener-ations is transferred directly in their brains by a special tape during the so-called Reading Day. Only the protagonist of the story is not treated by tapes but moved to a secret but won-derful and lazy environment where he is supposed to go around, to read, to talk to other per-sons who weren’t treated by the tape either. Shame and pain characterized the feeling of the protagonist who was seemingly treated so different from all his friends and who was not edu-

35

cated (“tapped”) for a special profession. What surprise as he learned that his apparently non-education was a special education for a special profession: He was supposed to become a tape builder, a profession responsible for new knowledge programmed into the tapes to guarantee the advancement of this futuristic society. Sure, this analogy must not be taken literally: If we want to teach students to step onto the shoulders of teachers, to invent new things and to produce and generate new knowledge we have to provide a special learning environment. In this respect the analogy still holds. But instead of a lazy environment it has to be a challenging environment, which is sufficiently complex, uncertain, instable and unique so that old traditional knowledge or solutions do not work anymore. In a certain way this teaching model is not any more a teaching model at all. There is no com-plete control of the learning situations by the teacher anymore. Teachers and learners alike have to immerse into a situation where the outcome is not predetermined. They both have to master situations at hand and the differences between teachers and learners maybe are only more experiences and more meta knowledge on how to reflect on complex situations (e.g. how to design local experiments) on the teacher’s side. Teaching III has strong links to constructivism. Constructivism refuses a so-called “objective” description (representation) or explanation of reality. Reality is considered as an interactive conception where observer and observation object are mutually and structurally linked. Even pure observation itself is a kind of activity, which influences the observed thing. In this aspect reality is observer relative as we can see not only in social science (e.g. to observe a human changes its behaviour) but also in physical science (e.g. relativity and quantum theory). In order to avoid misunderstandings it is important to s ee that constructivism does not neglect the external world, does not support the philosophical theory of solipsism. Constructivism only says that there is no reality “out there” which can be perceived without a subject, the human mind. There is no “objective” god’s eye, independent from a perceiving human mind. Neurophysiological studies show that our sensory organs do not just transfer the inputs form the outer world to our mind, but already come up with structures and interpretations during the processing stages. We see not colours and shapes but gestalt. From a constructivist point of view learning is considered as an active process in which peo-ple construct their knowledge by relating it to their previous experiences in complex and real situations in life. In their practical lives people are confronted with unique, unpredictable situ-ations the problems of which are not yet obvious. Therefore, in contrast to cognitivism, the solving of already existing problems is not the main priority, but the independent generating of the problem. These must be searched for in confusing, insecure, unpredictable and partly chaotic situations. As in Teaching II where teachers try to help individual learners in their learning process there is a individual component in Teaching III as well. Students are constructing their knowledge by relating it to their previous experiences and lives. In that respect it is by no means Objec-tive Knowledge in the Popperian sense [5] but Personal Knowledge as Michael Polanyi has coined it [6]. Teaching III requires a special two-way communication structure very different as in Teach-ing II. In Teaching I the communication is preset and controlled by the teacher whereas in Teaching II and III the communication is on equal terms. But there is a crucial difference in Teaching II and III: While the communication in Teaching II is predominantly verbally in Teaching III most of the time there is no linguistic representation. The teacher shows the stu-dent how to do it! Either the taught thing is too complex, too multifaceted to express it in the serial structured language or the action process itself has inner qualities (body feelings, holis-tic indivisible characteristics), which prevent an adequate verbal representation. There are many thinkers and philosophers who have worked out the limitation of the linguis-tic representation [7,8,9]. One example may illustrate their line of reasoning: The famous

36

dancer Isadora Duncan was asked after one of her performances what the dance did mean. She answered: “If I could tell you what it meant, there would be no point in dancing it.” [7, p137 and 464]. Whenever we can’t express the meaning verbally we have to show it in real actions. The teacher has to show what s/he means and has to develop a special language, which is able to represent some aspects of the unspeakable. Language in this meaning does not necessarily mean linguistic expressions, it could be also e.g. the notation system of music, the notation system of check players, the graphic representation of buildings of architects, the so-called “body language” etc. In Teaching II both teacher and learner are not only mentally but also bodily structurally cou-pled e.g. they function as intertwined systems. They learn from each other at the same time as they teach each other. The teacher can fail in mastering the situation and has his or her author-ity only by virtue of the greater experience and the trust the learner has to the teacher’s guid-ance. The teacher takes the role of a “coach” or panel member in a discussion and thus loses his seemingly infallibility. A football trainer, for example, may not always successfully kick goals, or even be one of the best players of the team. Accordingly a teacher is confronted with the criticism of the reality, of practical situations. Teachers make use of their teaching func-tions by their experience and capabilities of assisting others dealing with complex situations.

1.4 Summary and applications

The following graphic summarises and compares the three different prototypes of education. As one can see these tree different types of teaching modes are neutral concerning the subject domain. Each teaching model can be used for humanities like sociology but also for technical sciences like electrical engineering. Clearly enough the problems are in each domain different and maybe their construction presents different levels of difficulty for the teacher. So it may be for instance not easily realisable (or even feasible) to construct a social laboratory where clear cut social problems are to be solved (Teaching II). The humanity type of domains tends to be complex, uncertain, unstable e.g. it is easier to construct situations for the model of Teaching III. But it is realistic to imagine a social situation where we design some isolated communication problems and present them – for instance in a (theatre) play like situation – to students. On the other hand it is sometimes dangerous to immerge students in real situations where they have to master technical problems. But think of the flight simulator as a prototypi-cal model how media can be used to provide the required teaching model. On the other hand all teaching models are also neutral against the media they use. So we can imagine computer software for all three models ranging from programmed instruction (Teach-ing I) to problem solving software (Teaching II) to complex simulations and/or so-called mi-cro worlds (Teaching III). It is said that the inherent nature of the Internet brings the real world into the classrooms and with the chaotic hyperlink structure it clearly advocates model Teaching III. But note: The Internet can also be used for Teaching I (transmitting PDF-Files or presenting web pages without hyperlinks or a narrow set of predefined sets of hyperlinks). Also keep in mind, that so-called interactive software not necessarily belongs to Teaching II or III. The crucial point is not interactivity itself (e.g. the interaction with the software), but if the interaction is watched either by the human teacher or the programme to give feedback to the student to improve his or her performance.

37

TransferTransfer TutorTutor CoachCoach

• factual knowledge,“know-that”

• Transfer ofpropositionalknowledge

• to know, toremember

• Production ofcorrect answers

• Verbal knowledge,Memorisation

• to teach, to explain

• procedural knowledge,"know-how"

• Presentation of pre-determined problems

• to do, to practice• Selection of correct

method and its use

• Skill, Ability• to observe, to help, to

demonstrate

• social Practice,"knowing-in-action"

• Action in real(complex and social)situations

• to cope, to master• Realisation of

adequate actionstrategies

• Social Responsibilty• to cooperate, to

support

Teaching ITeaching I Teaching IITeaching II Teaching IIITeaching III

Fig. 1: Teaching modes

…

2 References: [1] Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. New York,

Basic Books. [2] Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating The Reflective Practitioner. Toward a New Design for Teaching

and Learning. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. [3] Baumgartner, P. (1993). Der Hintergrund des Wissens. Vorarbeiten zu einer Kritik der program-

mierbaren Vernunft. Klagenfurt, Kärntner Druck- und Verlagsges.m.b.H... [4] Asimov, I. (1986). Profession. In: The Mammoth Book of Short Science Fiction Novels. I. Asimov,

M. H. Greenberg und C. G. Wuagh. London, Robinson Publishing: 1-45. [5] Popper, K. R. (1979). Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford, Clarendon Press. [6] Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago/London,

Chicago Press. [7] Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. A Revolutionary Approach to Man’s Understand-

ing of Himself. New York, Ballantine Books. [8] Langer, S. K. (1984). Philosophie auf neuem Wege. Das Symbol im Denken, im Ritus und in der

Kunst. Frankfurt/M., Fischer. [9] Wittgenstein, L. (1984). Tractactus logico-philosophicus. Works, Volume. 1. Frankfurt/M., Suhr-

kamp.

…

38

Module: Learning Outcomes/Assessment (DUK)

Compendium of Assessment Methods

Peter Baumgartner (for VALERU) May 4th 2015

39


An Overview of Assessment Methods

Based on literature research within several scientific fields different assessment methods were analysed. These specific assessment methods were generalised

so they can also be applied in other scientific disciplines. The compendium below defines a variety of assessment methods in alphabetical order.

Name Description

Artefact Creating a product that demonstrates competence and learning development (a thing, a picture, software, a piece of music).

Article Writing an article, that meets scientific standards (to introduce a problem, to describe the state-of-the-art, to formulate a research

question, present results, etc.).

Briefing Oral description of an open issue and several action strategies for solving this issue. Can be followed by a discussion and

defending the strategies.

Case presentation Oral or written work handling a reconstructed practical case.

Case-based Discussion A formal discussion between a candidate and an assessor about a case that the candidate has managed and been directly

responsible for. During the discussion, the candidate refers to the case records. The assessor will probe the candidate’s depth of

understanding, decision-making and judgement. The candidate has the opportunity to talk about any issues that arose and

explain decisions.

Defence / Disputation A topic or a thesis is defended within a scientific disputation in front of a committee.

Direct Observation of

Procedural Skills (DOPS)

The Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) is specifically designed to assess practical skills in a workplace setting. A

candidate is observed and scored by an assessor while performing a routine practical procedure during his / her normal work.

Essays A short literary composition on a particular theme or subject, usually in prose and generally analytic, speculative, or interpretative.

An essay can be used in-course and completed over several days/weeks or under timed exam conditions.

Extended Matching

Questions (EMQs)

EMQs are designed to test more complex understanding than MCQs. The EMQ format has four components and starts with a title

or theme statement defining the subject area. The title is followed by the list of ‘options’ (numbered or lettered) that are the

possible answers to the question/s or ‘item/s’ that follow. A lead-in statement then provides instructions and links the list of

answers (options) to the question/s (item/s).

Glossary Subjects are defined and described as written statements within a glossary (a catalogue of item definitions for looking up, similar

to a dictionary).

Group work After a temporary session of group work a group presents results of their cooperation.

Handbook, instruction Descriptions of actions for solving a problem.

Letter of reference Written argumentation for a problem solution in form of a letter addressed to responsible institutions. (Persons in charge,

politics…)

40


Longitudinal Evaluation of

Performance (LEP)

This is similar in format to the mini-PEX but evaluations are performed more frequently.

Mini-Practical Evaluation

Exercise (Mini-PEX)

Short encounter (15-20 minutes) in a real setting, which is observed by an experienced professional.

Multi-source Feedback (MSF),

360º Feedback

The so-called multi-source feedback (360°, MSF) involves collecting information about a candidate’s performance in the workplace

from those working with that person. It includes staff that is more senior, more junior, peer and also customers (4 x 90°=360°).

Multiple Choice Questions

(MCQs)

A multiple choice question (MCQ) consists of a lead-in question or statement (stem) followed by a list of options (usually five) from

which the examinee selects one answer. At the most basic level, only one of the options is correct. At higher levels, examinees are

asked to choose the ‘best answer’, with several options being potentially correct but one being a better match to the stem than

the others. MCQs are used to test knowledge (factual recall) objectively and efficiently.

Newspaper article A journalistic written comment on a current issue or event.

Objective Structured

Practical Examination (OSPE)

The exam consists of multiple mini-stations (typically 10 – 20) commonly lasting 5 (but up to 15) minutes. Examinees rotate round

stations in sequence completing a variety of tasks that test a range of skills. The examinee reads the scenario, then enters the

station and undertakes the task. Each station is marked using a checklist, with or without a global rating scale for the examiner to

make a more subjective assessment. The examiner acts in a purely observational role ticking a checklist but not asking questions

in the traditional sense.

Objective Structured Long

Examination Record (OSLER)

The examinee spends a period of time (typically 30 minutes to an hour) with a specific case or a real problem setting and reports

the findings to the examiner/s.

Observation on Rotation Candidates are observed and assessed during different task at their work. The assessment is based on performance over a

period of time (days to weeks) and a number of skills can be rated from basic factual knowledge to technical skills as well as other

aspects of professional behaviour.

Oral The examinee is questioned by one or more examiners using an interview or discussion-like format, typically to ascertain

knowledge of a subject area or the ability to handle practical issues. This is followed by discussion and a questioning to probe the

examinee’s depth and breadth of knowledge, understanding, reasoning, and decision-making process.

Portfolio A portfolios is a paper-based or electronic collection of work developed as a cumulative ‘body of evidence’ to demonstrate the

candidate’s learning and achievements. It is not an assessment method in its own right, rather a repository containing a mixture

of materials. Each piece may be assessed individually and/or a mark or grade is awarded to the portfolio as a whole.

Poster A scientific statement is presented to an interested audience. The communication of the content is supported by visual, written

and oral means of communication.

Practical Assessment, („Spot“,

Timed Station, Bellringer)

The format usually has examinees moving around a series of stations. They show their competences at each station.

41


Practical Evaluation Exercise

(PEX)

The exam format involves a relatively long (typically 2 hour) pre-planned single customer encounter in a specific setting. An

experienced professional observes the encounter. The examinee presents the findings. Additionally, a written report is produced.

The examiner gives feedback. For reasons of practicality and reliability, the PEX has been superseded by the mini-PEX

Presentation Presenting a topic within a time frame given, supported by audio-visual means of communications.

Project Solving a temporary, innovative, complex and risky task under specific circumstances (e.g. limited resources).

Report A written, objective description of a process or a subject area. (Who? Where? When? What? Why? Which information source?

Which consequences?).

Review Written review criticising a subject or topic of interest. The subject itself and also its process of development is described,

analysed and evaluated.

Script Concordance Test (SCT) The SCT is a written exam that starts with a practical scenario or vignette that summarises the case. The SCT investigates the case,

evaluates possible outcomes and proposes actions to be taken.

Short-Answer Questions

(SAQs)

A written test consisting of a series of questions that require students to supply or formulate an answer rather than choose from

a list of options (as in MCQs). The answer format is quite heterogeneous.

Weblog A journalistic series of written comments on current events or issues, which are published online via a weblog.

42

1/37

Know-

ledge

Cognitive Processes

Remember

(1)

Under-

stand (2)

Apply

(3)

Analyze

(4)

Evaluate

(5)

Create

(6)

Facts (A)

Concepts

(B)

Proce-

dures (C)

Meta-

cognitive

(D) 43

2/37

Know-

ledge

Cognitive Processes

Remember

(1)

Under-

stand (2)

Apply

(3)

Analyze

(4)

Evaluate

(5)

Create

(6)

Facts (A)

Concepts

(B)

Proce-

dures (C)

Meta-

cognitive

(D)

MC

Qs

EMQ

s

SA

Qs

O

ral/

Essa

ys

Case-based Discussion

Script Concordance Test Practical Assessment

DOPS, (mini)-CEX, LEP Observation on Rotation

OSCE, OSLER, 360° FB 44

3/37

Know-

ledge

Cognitive Processes

Remember

(1)

Under-

stand (2)

Apply

(3)

Analyze

(4)

Evaluate

(5)

Create

(6)

Facts (A)

Concepts

(B)

Proce-

dures (C)

Meta-

cognitive

(D)

Mu

ltip

le C

ho

ice

Written Examination Oral Examination

Written Examination

Essay Oral Defensio 45

Anderson and Krathwohl - Understanding the New Version of Bloom's Taxonomy

A succinct discussion of the revisions to Bloom's classic cognitive taxonomy by

Anderson and Krathwohl and how to use them effectively

©Leslie Owen Wilson (2013, 2005, 2001)

Background:

Although revisions were published in 2001, surprisingly there are still educators who have never heard of Anderson and Krathwohl or their important revisions to Bloom's Taxonomy. Here in the United States, from the late 1950s into the early 1970s, there were attempts to dissect and classify the varied domains of human learning - cognitive (knowing, or head), affective (feelings, or heart) and psychomotor (doing, or kinesthetic, tactile, haptic or hand/body). The resulting efforts yielded a series of taxonomies for 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 were arranged hierarchically, proceeding from the simplest functions to those that are more complex. In 2000-01 one of the original authors, David Krathwohl, and a student of Bloom's, Lorin Anderson, spearheaded an effort to revise the original cognitive taxonomy. Here is an overview of the changes.

While all of the taxonomies above have been defined and used for many years, there came about at the beginning of the 21st century in a new version of the cognitive taxonomy, known commonly before as Bloom’s Taxonomy. You can also search the Web for various references on the different taxonomies. There are many valuable discussions on the development of these hierarchies, as well as examples of their usefulness and applications in teaching. (There are PDFs of this page and an example of use at the bottom.)

The Cognitive Domain:

The following chart includes the two primary existing taxonomies of cognition - the original one from 1956 and the 2001 revision. Learning about the old taxonomy has been a teaching essential for years, however learning about the revisions and how to use them effectively seems to be gradually taking over. Please note in the table below, 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 almost 60 years old. The taxonomy on the right is the more recent adaptation and is the redefined work of Bloom in 2000-01. That one is labeled Anderson and Krathwohl. The group redefining Bloom’s original concepts, worked from 1995-2000. This group was assembled by Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl and included people with expertise in the areas of cognitive psychology, curriculum and instruction, and educational testing, measurement, and assessment. The new adaptation also took into consideration many of Bloom’s own concerns and criticisms of his original taxonomy.

As you will see the primary differences are not in the listings or rewordings from nouns to verbs, or in the renaming of some of the components, or even in the re-positioning of the last two categories. The major differences lie 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. This melding can be charted to see how one is teaching at both knowledge and cognitive process levels.

Please remember the chart goes from simple to more complex and challenging types of thinking.

46

Taxonomies of the Cognitive Domain

Bloom’s Taxonomy 1956 Anderson and Krathwohl’s Taxonomy 2001

1. 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 recognize acquire

1. Remembering:

Recognizing or recalling knowledge from memory. Remembering is when memory is used to produce or retrieve definitions, facts, or lists, or to recite previously learned information.

2. Comprehension: The ability to grasp or construct meaning from material. Examples of verbs that relate to this function are:

restate locate report recognize explain express

identify discuss describe discuss review infer

illustrate interpret draw represent differentiate conclude

2. Understanding:

Constructing meaning from different types of functions be they written or graphic messages or activities like interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, or explaining.

3. 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

organize employ restructure interpret demonstrate illustrate

practice calculate show exhibit dramatize

3. Applying:

Carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or implementing. Applying relates to or refers to situations where learned material is used through products like models, presentations, interviews or simulations.

4. Analysis: The ability to break down or distinguish the parts of material into its components so that its organizational structure may be better understood. Examples of verbs that relate to this function are:

analyze compare probe inquire examine contrast categorize

differentiate contrast investigate detect survey classify deduce

experiment scrutinize discover inspect dissect discriminate separate

4. Analyzing:

Breaking materials or concepts into parts, determining how the parts relate to one another or how they interrelate, or how the parts relate to an overall structure or purpose. Mental actions included in this function are differentiating, organizing, and attributing, as well as being able to distinguish between the components or parts. 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 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 generalize document combine relate

propose develop arrange construct organize originate derive write propose

5. 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, evaluating comes before creating as it is often a necessary part of the precursory behavior before one creates something.

6. 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 criticize infer

6. Creating:

Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, or producing. Creating requires users to put parts together in a new way, or synthesize parts into something new and different creating a new form or product. This process is the most difficult mental function in the new taxonomy.

Table 1.1 – Bloom vs. Anderson/Krathwohl

______________________________________________________________________________ 47

(Diagram 1.1, Wilson, Leslie O. 2001)

Note: After creating the cognitive taxonomy one of the weaknesses noted by Bloom himself was that there is was a fundamental difference between his “knowledge” category and the other 5 levels of his model as those levels dealt with intellectual abilities and skills in relation to interactions with types of knowledge. Bloom was very aware that there was an acute difference between knowledge and the mental and intellectual operations performed on, or with, that knowledge. He identified specific types of knowledge as:

• Terminology • Specific facts • Conventions • Trends and sequences • Classifications and categories • Criteria • Methodology • Principles and generalizations • Theories and structures

Levels of Knowledge - The first three of these levels were identified in the original work, but rarely discussed or introduced when initially discussing uses for the taxonomy. Metacognition was added in the revised version.

• Factual Knowledge - The basic elements students must know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems.

• Conceptual Knowledge – The interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together.

• Procedural Knowledge - How to do something, methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods.

• Metacognitive Knowledge – Knowledge of cognition in general, as well as awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition. (29)

(Summarized from: Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D.R., et al (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.)

48

http://thesecondprinciple.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/changes-from-ppt.jpg

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. 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. (See PDF link below for a sample.)

As stated before, 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. Another rather gross lapse in common teacher training over the past 50+ years is teachers-in-training are rarely made aware of any of the criticisms leveled against Bloom’s original model.

Please note that in the updated version the term "metacognitive" has been added to the array of knowledge types. For readers not familiar with this term, it means thinking about ones thinking in a purposeful way so that one knows about cognition and also knows how to regulate one’s cognition.

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, or 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 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)

49

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

http://thesecondprinciple.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/bloom-knowledge-chart.jpg

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

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002) A Revision of Bloom's Taxxonomy. (PDF) in Theory into Practice. V 41. #4. Autumn, 2002. Ohio State University. Retrieved @ http://www.unco.edu/cetl/sir/stating_outcome/documents/Krathwohl.pdf

• Wilson's PDF Anderson and Krathwohl

• Wilson's PDF Example of using revised taxonomy

The Anderson/Krathwohl text has numerous examples of how these concepts can be used for K-12 teachers. Since I have used this material in my teaching (a special topics graduate course on taxonomies and their uses entitled Beyond Bloom's,) and have also presented on this topic in several national conferences, I have artifacts and examples of how these revisions can be used effectively in college teaching. While I have a link above to an artifact, to be fully understood you might need to view the original assignment and the supportive documents. I would be happy to provide those and discuss them more fully. I am always happy to share information with other educators.

Originally published in ED 721 (2001) course handbook, and at:

http://www4.uwsp.edu/education/lwilson/curric/newtaxonomy.htm (2001, 2005), revised 2013

Contact Leslie – [email protected]

50

http://www.unco.edu/cetl/sir/stating_outcome/documents/Krathwohl.pdf

http://thesecondprinciple.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Anderson-and-Krathwohl.pdf

http://thesecondprinciple.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Example-of-using-revised-taxonomy.pdf

mailto:[email protected]

module 3/ learning outcomes and assessment -...

Documents