Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a Revised Bloom's Taxonony
Similar a Revised Bloom's Taxonony (20)
Último
Último (20)
Revised Bloom's Taxonony
- 1. Why Was the Original Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised? • Cognitive research revealed that learning was not linear. It did not always occur in this designated order (e.g., analysis may have to precede understanding…). • Over the years, too many verbs were used (and misused) to describe the levels. • Type of knowledge makes a difference. • The original taxonomy was not designed for K-12 curricula. Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 1
- 2. Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBT) The RBT tables are found in the … • Textbook: See Table 4.1 (knowledge dimension) inside the front cover of the book, Table 5.2 (cognitive dimension) inside the back cover. • Participant’s Guide • Laminated Tables 1, 2, and 3 Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 2
- 3. The Knowledge Dimension Types of Knowledge • Factual Knowledge • Conceptual Knowledge • Procedural Knowledge • Metacognitive Knowledge Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 3
- 4. Knowledge Dimensions See Table 4.1 for Knowledge Dimensions. Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 4
- 5. A. Factual Knowledge Factual Knowledge: Basic elements students must know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems in it. Examples: • William Shakespeare • 1812 • 4 x 3 = 12 • > Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 5
- 6. B. Conceptual Knowledge Conceptual Knowledge: The interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enables them to work together. – In other words, a category or group of things with features (attributes). Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 6
- 7. What is the difference between facts and concepts? • Conceptual knowledge has to be taught by defining the attributes and with multiple examples and non-examples (some of which are near-misses); can be abstract or concrete. – Examples: • Table • Love • Justice • Equal parts Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 7
- 8. C. Procedural Knowledge Procedural Knowledge: How to do something: methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods Examples: • In math, algorithms for performing long division • In science, methods for designing experiments • In English/Language Arts, procedures for spelling words Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 8
- 9. D. Metacognitive Knowledge Metacogntive Knowledge: Knowledge of cognition in general as well as awareness and knowledge of one's own cognition (thinking about your thinking) Examples: • Knowing when to use mnemonic strategies, paraphrasing, summarizing, questioning, note-taking, or outlining to attain a learning goal. • Realizing that your study session will be more productive if you work in the library rather than at home. Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 9
- 10. How do you know you are dealing with metacognitive knowledge? • Assessments will be subjective and divergent. • It would not be directly assessed on a standardized test. • Difficult to measure via paper and pencil tests - best done through classroom discussion and observation or examination of individual student work. Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 10
- 11. So Let’s Practice! • Identify the knowledge dimension for these examples taken from our own work: – Example 1: Define rigor. – Example 2: What steps are taken to determine cognitive complexity? – Example 3: Describe your comfort level in determining the rigor of assessments. – Example 4: Compare analysis with evaluation. • Now create an example for each type of knowledge to share with others. Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 11
- 12. Cognitive Processes See Table 5.1 for definitions and examples of cognitive processes. Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 12
- 13. 1. Remember • Retrieving relevant knowledge from long term memory (verbatim, unchanged by student) Cognitive Processes: 1.1 Recognizing (identifying) 1.2 Recalling (retrieving) Remembering is essential for meaningful learning and problem-solving and used in more complex tasks. Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 13
- 14. Line of Demarcation in the 6 Cognitive Categories Remember = Rote Learning All Others = Meaningful Learning Rote learning requires students to remember what they learned. Transfer, meaningful learning, as evidenced in the other five cognitive processes, requires students to remember and also make sense of what they have learned. Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 14
- 15. 2. Understand • Constructing meaning from instructional messages, including oral, written, and graphic communication. – More cognitive processes are associated with this category than any other category. – Most represented category in state standards. – Critical for all further learning. PG 16 Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 15
- 16. 2. Understand (continued) 2.1 Interpreting: clarifying, paraphrasing, representing, translating 2.2 Exemplifying: illustrating, instantiating 2.3 Classifying: categorizing, subsuming 2.4 Summarizing: abstracting, generalizing 2.5 Inferring: concluding, extrapolating, interpolating, predicting 2.6 Comparing: contrasting, mapping, matching 2.7 Explaining: constructing causative models Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 16
- 17. 3. Apply • Carry out or use a procedure in a given situation. Cognitive Processes: 3.1 Executing (carrying out) – using a procedure on familiar tasks (exercises); has a fixed sequence of steps. 3.2 Implementing – using a procedure on unfamiliar tasks (problems); student has to select technique or method and often change sequence (e.g., flowchart) Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 17
- 18. 4. Analyze • Break material into its constituent parts and determine how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose. Cognitive Processes: 4.1 Differentiating – distinguishing the relevant from the irrelevant parts 4.2 Organizing – identifying ways that elements fit or function within the overall structures 4.3 Attributing – determining the underlying purpose or perspective Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 18
- 19. 5. Evaluate • Make judgments based on criteria and standards. Cognitive Processes: 5.1 Checking – testing for internal consistencies or fallacies in an operation or product 5.2 Critiquing – judging a product or operation based on externally imposed criteria and standards Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 19
- 20. 6. Create • Put elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; recognize elements into a new pattern or structure. Cognitive Processes/Phases: 6.1 Generating – hypothesizing, meeting certain criteria 6.2 Planning – designing, devising a solution 6.3 Producing – constructing, creating an original product based on 6.1 and 6.2 Assessing Academic Rigor - Based on SREB Learning-Centered Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation 20
Notas del editor
- Purpose: Introduce reasons for revision of the original Bloom’s Taxonomy.Tools:Key Points: In the ‘70s & ‘80s, Bloom’s Taxonomy fell into disrepute when the cognitive psychologists realized that the path of learning was much more complicated. Each level of learning did not have to be mastered before you could learn or teach the next one. In fact, in both teaching and learning, sometimes you had to go to a higher level of learning in order to demonstrate a lower level (e.g., analyzing a piece of literature so you can identify the tone of it). We also realized that there was no mention in the old taxonomy of what had to be learned - and content made a lot of difference when we were looking at those cognitive levels. The old taxonomy was never designed for K-12. It was done at the request of the military in the late 1940’s. They asked college assessment faculties to help them categorize learning for use on the tests the Army gave. So, the work of revising the taxonomy began, and in 2001, Lorin Anderson (a professor emeritus at USC and one of Bloom’s students at the University of Chicago) became the lead editor for a new framework - one that would fix the problems with the first one and, more importantly, be more teacher-friendly and useable for aligning standards, instruction, and assessment – what is written, with how it is taught, and with how well it is taught.
- Purpose: Introduce the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBT). Tools: A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing © 200, Tables 4.1 and 5.2; Tables 1, 2, and 3 on laminated card stock, copies of Tables 1, 2, and 3 in the Participant’s Guide. Key Points: Since Bloom’s time, we have learned more about the way that humans learn. During the 1990's, Lorin Anderson, a former student of Benjamin Bloom, led a team of cognitive psychologists in revisiting the taxonomy, incorporating the recent research in cognitive science, including the role of types of knowledge in learning and the relevance of the taxonomy for the twenty-first century. This new two-dimensional taxonomy can help instructional designers and teachers to write and revise learning objectives, especially for units of study. Because of its six levels of thinking, the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (RBT) can provide a framework for planning units that incorporates low to high-level thinking activities. Therefore, when we use the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (RBT) as a planning framework, we can plan for student thinking at all levels. Facilitator’s Tip: Be sure to refer participants to Table 1 and Table 2 in the textbook, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing © 2001, and in the Participant’s Guide as well as on the laminated card stock. Take time to let participants find the tables.
- Purpose: Introduce the Knowledge Dimension, which was added to the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.Tools: A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 4, pp 38 - 62Key Points: Be sure to clearly define the four categories of the Knowledge Dimension on the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBT), which is on Table I.Factual Knowledge is knowledge that is basic to specific disciplines. This dimension refers to essential facts, terminology, details or elements students must know. Conceptual Knowledge is knowledge of classifications, principles, generalizations, theories, models, or structures. Procedural Knowledge refers to information or knowledge that helps students to do something specific. It also refers to methods of inquiry, very specific or finite skills, algorithms, techniques and particular methodologies. Metacognitive Knowledge is strategic or reflective knowledge about how to go about solving problems, cognitive tasks, including contextual and conditional knowledge and knowledge of self. Facilitator’s Tip: Facilitators are encouraged to review Chapter 4 of the text, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing © 2001, carefully for their own preparation and refer to elements in the chapter to increase use of book by participants in increasing their own understanding of the Knowledge Dimension.
- Purpose: Introduce the Knowledge Dimension. Tools: A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing © 2001 – Table 4.1 inside front cover, copy of Table 4.1 in Participant’s Guide, and laminated Table 1 – Knowledge Dimension. Key Points: This table appears on the first page of Dr. Anderson’s book, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing © 2001, as Table 4.1 as well as provided to participants in their guide and on the laminated card stock. Let’s look at the structure of the table first. The major types and sub-types of knowledge are listed on the left (note how the letters show types and sub-types). Examples are shown on the right. Keep in mind that types of knowledge refers to all content. What knowledge is worth teaching in the classroom? The four general types of knowledge we will address can help teachers across subject areas and grade levels determine what is most important to teach. The types lie along a continuum from concrete (factual) to abstract (metacognitive).Facilitator’s Tip: Facilitators are encouraged to review Chapter 4 of the text, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing © 2001, carefully for their own preparation and refer to elements in the chapter to increase use of book by participants in increasing their own understanding of the Knowledge Dimension.
- Purpose: Define and provide examples of factual knowledge.Tools: A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 4, pp 45-48Key Points: Factual knowledgeis composed of the discrete, isolated, bits of information.Teachers must determine which facts are basic (and must be learned) andthe level of precision at which they must be learned.Sub-types: Aa. Knowledge of terminology – specific verbal and nonverbal labels or symbols, the basic language of the discipline (which the novice must learn) e.g., alphabet, scientific terms, vocabulary of music, map symbols Ab. Knowledge of specific details & elements – events, locations, people, dates, sources of information - e.g., names, places, dates, sources, eventsFacilitator’s Tip: Facilitators are encouraged to review Chapter 4 of the text, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing © 2001, carefully for their own preparation and refer to elements in the chapter to increase use of book by participants in increasing their own understanding of the Knowledge Dimension. Participants should work directly with Chapter 4 – pp 45-48.
- Purpose: Define and provide examples of conceptual knowledge.Tools: A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 4, pp 48-52; Laminated Handout – Table 1Key Points: Conceptual knowledgeincludes schemas, mental models, or implicit or explicit theories that individual has about how particular subject matter is organized and structured---how the parts are connected or function together (the relationships between the parts). This is the way experts in the field think about phenomena in that area, e.g., the scientific explanation for the occurrence of the seasons. Sub-types: (see pages 48 and 49 of textbook) Ba. Knowledge of classifications and categories – more general and abstract than knowledge of terminology, often specific to the subject, determines the connecting links between and among specific elements (page 49 in the text) - e.g., knowledge of variety of types of literature, knowledge of parts of sentences, knowledge of different periods of geologic time. Bb. Knowledge of Principles and Generalizations – dominates academic disciplines. These are broad ideas that are often difficult for students to understand because they are not familiar with the material the principles and generalizations are intended to summarize and organize; - e.g., fundamental laws of physics, principles of federalism. Bc. Knowledge of theories, models, and structures – most abstract formulations; shows interrelationships and organization of many specific details, classifications, categories, principles, and generalizations; differs from Bb in that it requires understanding of often apparently unrelated principles and generalizations to form a model, theory, or structure – e.g., knowledge of theory of plate tectonics, genetic models.Facilitator’s Tip: Facilitators are encouraged to review Chapter 4 of the text, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing © 2001, carefully for their own preparation and refer to elements in the chapter to increase use of book by participants in increasing their own understanding of the Knowledge Dimension. Participants should work directly with pp 48-52.
- Purpose: Assure understanding of the difference between factual and conceptual knowledge.Tools: A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 4, pp 40-42Key Points: Concepts have to be taught by their attributes; the more abstract the concept, the more examples and non-examples are needed. A concept CANNOT be taught with a single example. Sometimes we assume too quickly that we’ve taught the concept. Look at the last one: equal parts. How many kids still think this refers only to halves? Understanding concepts is frequently the problem in math. The results of standardized tests show that students typically can carry out a procedure (e.g., adding, subtracting) but can demonstrate little understanding of the concepts involved. Thus, students often do well on the computation parts of math tests, but less well on the parts requiring conceptual understanding.Typical classroom assessments of concepts might look like this: 1. What is a republic? 2. What makes a spider a spider? 3. Give me an example of a rational number.Facilitator’s Tip: Facilitators are encouraged to review Chapter 4 of the text, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing © 2001, carefully for their own preparation and refer to elements in the chapter to increase use of book by participants in increasing their own understanding of the Knowledge Dimension. Participants should look closely at pp 40-42.
- Purpose: Define and provide examples of procedural knowledge.Tools: Participant’s Guide, p 15; A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 4, pp 52-55Key Points: You know you’re dealing with procedural knowledge if kids have to know sequence, steps, or use a particular approach; if words like now, then, or next are used in the teaching. Keep in mind that we are just talking here about students’ knowledge of the procedure, not their ability to use it to do anything. Factual and conceptual knowledge represent the what of knowledge (i.e., product); procedural knowledge is the how (i.e., process). Sub-types: Ca. Knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms; e.g., knowledge of procedures for multiplying fractions; knowledge of skills used in painting with water colors; skills involved in performing the high jump; knowledge of skills used to determine word meaning from structural analysis. Cb. Knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods: Result is less fixed then with the first sub-type (correct answer can vary as with scientific method procedures used in experimental design - the experiments will vary); includes methods that are result of consensus, agreement or norms (how experts would do it) e.g., knowledge of methods for evaluating health concepts; knowledge of methods of literary criticism. Cc. Knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures. Student have to know when to use the procedures, which usually involves knowledge of how the procedures were used in the past (what has been used in similar inquiries). What are the criteria for deciding that this procedure is correct for this type of problem? E.g., Knowledge for determining method to use in solving algebraic equations; knowledge of criteria for determining which technique to apply to create a desired effect in a particular water color painting.Facilitator’s Tip: Facilitators are encouraged to review Chapter 4 of the text, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing © 2001, carefully for their own preparation and refer to elements in the chapter to increase use of book by participants in increasing their own understanding of the Knowledge Dimension. Participants should work directly with pp 52-55.
- Purpose: Define and provide examples of metacognitive knowledge.Tools: Participant’s Guide, p 15; A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 4, pp 55-62Key Points: Sub-types:Da. Strategic Knowledge – knowledge of general strategies for learning, thinking, and problem-solving 3 categories of strategic knowledge Rehearsal (most effective for rote learning; not as effective for higher levels of learning Elaboration (e.g., mnemonics, summarizing, paraphrasing, finding main idea – deeper processing) Organizational (e.g., outlining, drawing cognitive maps, concept-mapping, note-taking) Knowledge of strategies useful in planning, monitoring own cognition General strategies for problem solving and thinking: general heuristics such as means-ends analysis of working backwards from goal; inductive and deductive thinking, e.g., making appropriate inferences, avoiding circular arguments, evaluating the validity of logical statements. Metacognitive strategies are sequential strategies that one uses to ensure that a cognitive goal (e.g., understanding a text) has been met. This might be knowledge about how to learn something, how to attack a certain kind of problem/situation, or even knowledge about own strengths and weaknesses with regard to a certain kind of learning. Db. Knowledge about cognitive tasks, including contextual and conditional knowledge - knowledge about which tasks are more difficult, what their demands are; conditional knowledge is about when, under what conditions, particular metacognitive knowledge may be relevant; e.g.: knowledge that recall tasks make more demands on memory than recognition tasks; knowledge that a primary source book may more difficult to understand than a textbook Dc. Self-knowledge – knowledge of one’s own strengths and weaknesses with regard to learning; beliefs about own motivation: self-efficacy beliefs (capability), reasons for doing tasks, and values and interests Accuracy of self-knowledge is crucial (don’t build false self-esteem) e.g., knowledge of one’s goals for performing tasks; accurate knowledge of one’s capability to perform tasksFacilitator’s Tip: Facilitators are encouraged to review Chapter 4 of the text, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing © 2001, carefully for their own preparation and refer to elements in the chapter to increase use of book by participants in increasing their own understanding of the Knowledge Dimension. Participants should focus on pp 55-62.
- Purpose: Provide clarity in metacognitive knowledge.Tools:Key Points: Highlight points on slide. Metacognitive knowledge is considered the most rigorous knowledge level.
- Purpose: Provide practice in identification of dimensions of knowledge.Tool: Table 4.2 inside the front cover of the text, laminated handoutKey Points: Share each example below orally and have individuals/pairs/triads/tables determine the knowledge dimension – factual, conceptual, procedural, or metacognitive. Example 1 – Define rigor: Aa – requires definition of technical vocabulary Example 2 – What steps are taken to determine cognitive complexity?: Ca – identification of specific skills/steps to determine cognitive complexity. Note that some may see this as Cb; what is important is that they identify it as C – Procedural Knowledge. Example 3 – Describe your comfort level in determining the rigor of assessments: Db – identification of cognitive tasks. Note that some may also identify this as Dc; what is important is that they identify it as Metacognitive Knowledge. Example 4 - Compare analysis with evaluation: Ba– requires the classification or identification of interrelationships of two categories. Now have individuals/pairs/triads/tables create an example of each knowledge dimension – factual, conceptual, procedural, or metacognitive – and share with others, who can then identify and provide rationale for their answer.Facilitator’s Tip: As individuals share their answers and/or examples, focus on the major dimensions of knowledge, rather than the specific sub-type as answers may vary with appropriate rationales.
- Purpose: Introduce participants to the table for definitions and examples of cognitive processes.Tool: A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5, pp 63-92, and specifically Table 5.1 inside the back cover; laminated handout Refer participants to Table 5.1 in the taxonomy book or to the laminated handout. Emphasize that this table is very helpful and should always be used to classify objectives or standards. The horizontal dimension of the taxonomy table is known as the Cognitive Process Dimension. Make and emphasize the following points about the cognitive process dimension: The cognitive process dimension contains 6 major cognitive categories each of which are identified by numbers: 1. Remember, 2. Understand, 3. Apply, 4. Analyze, 5. Evaluate, and 6. Create. The 6 major cognitive categories are associated with more specific cognitive processes. There are nineteen specific cognitive processes. These 19 specific cognitive processes are described by gerunds, ending in ing. For example, recognizing and recalling are associated with Remember. Table 2, “The Cognitive Process Dimension,” lists alternate names or synonyms for each specific cognitive process. For example, identifying is a synonym for recognizing. See Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 of textbook for additional information. Facilitator’s Tip: Facilitators should study carefully in advance Chapter 5 and refer to specific elements in the chapter that would help participants better understand the cognitive process dimension. Participants should become very familiar with the information on pages 63-92 in A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5. Provide a few minutes for participants to review and become familiar with the table of the cognitive process dimension.
- Purpose: Define and provide examples of the cognitive process remember.Tools: Laminated handout of Table 2, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5, pp 66-70 Key Points: Highlight the category, remember, and the key words of recognizing and recalling. Note the alternate names of identifying and retrieving, and the corresponding definitions and examples. 1.1 Recognizing – Retrieving relevant knowledge from long-term memory in order to compare it with presented information. Alternative name: Identifying Example: The student learned the English equivalent of 20 Spanish words. A test of remembering could involve requesting the student to match the Spanish words in one list with their English equivalents in a second list. 1.2 Recalling – Retrieving relevant knowledge from long-term memory when given a prompt to do so. Alternative name: Retrieving Example: The student who learned the English equivalent of 20 Spanish words is asked to write the corresponding English word next to each of the Spanish words presented on a list. Example: A standard can be classified as Remember when the intent of that standard is to promote retention of the presented material in much the same form as it was taught. It is more difficult for students to recall information than recognize information. Remember is typically used in conjunction with Factual Knowledge (See the Knowledge Dimensions), which is often simply memorized information. Sometimes it’s unconnected to prior knowledge and unorganized. It’s simply stored in the brain. The student may be completely unaware of where it “fits” within the larger discipline.Facilitator’s Tip: You may want to begin to emphasize the importance of intent, as intent guides decisions for the cognitive processes and their alignment with curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Facilitators should study carefully in advance Chapter 5 and refer to specific elements in the chapter that would help participants better understand the cognitive process dimension. Participants should become very familiar with the information on pages 66-70 in A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5.
- Purpose: Emphasize the difference of the first category, remember, from the other five categories, which focus on transfer of learning.Tools: A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5, pp 63-65, Laminated Handout Table 2Key Points: Two of the most important educational goals are to promote retention and to promote transfer, which when it occurs indicates meaningful learning. The cognitive process category Remember emphasizes retention and the other five categories (i.e., Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create) while they facilitate retention, emphasize transfer. Retention is the ability to remember materials at some later time in much the same way as it was presented during instruction. Example: After students read a textbook lesson on Ohm’s law, a retention test might ask them to write the formula for Ohm’s law. Transfer is the ability to use what was learned to solve new problems, to answer new questions, or to facilitate learning new subject matter. Example: A transfer test might ask students to rearrange an electrical circuit to maximize the rate of electron flow or to use Ohm’s law to explain a complex electric circuit. Facilitator’s Tip: Facilitators should study carefully in advance Chapter 5 and refer to specific elements in the chapter that would help participants better understand the cognitive process dimension. Participants should become very familiar with the information on pages 63-65 in A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5.
- Purpose: Define and provide background of the cognitive process understand.Tools: Laminated handout for Table 2, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5, pp 70 - 76Key Points: Students understand when they build connections between the new knowledge to be gained and their prior knowledge. Incoming knowledge is integrated with existing schemas and cognitive frameworks.Facilitator’s Tip: Facilitators should study carefully in advance Chapter 5 and refer to specific elements in the chapter that would help participants better understand the cognitive process dimension. Participants should become very familiar with the information on pages 70-76 in A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5.
- Purpose: Define and provide background of the cognitive process understand.Tools: Laminated handout for Table II, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5, pp 70-76.Key Points: 2.1 Interpreting – when a student is able to convert information from one representational form to another. Alternative terms: clarifying, paraphrasing, representing, translating. Example: Ask students to convert words to pictures, words to words or paraphrasing. 2.2 Exemplifying – when a student is able to give a specific example or instance of a general concept or principle. Alternative terms: Illustrating, instantiating. Example: Ask students to select which of three presented triangles is an isosceles triangle. 2.3 Classifying – begins with a specific instance or example and requires the student to find a general concept or principle. Alternative terms: Categorizing, subsuming. Example: Give students pictures of prehistoric animals with instructions to group them with others of the same species. Note: Classifying is a complementary process to exemplifying. Exemplifying begins with a general concept or principle and requires the student to find a specific instance or example. 2.4 Summarizing – a single statement that represents presented information or abstracts a general theme. Alternative terms: Abstracting, generalizing. Example: Students read a scene in a play and are asked to summarize the important points of the scene. 2.5 Inferring – finding a pattern within a series of examples or instances. Inferring focuses solely on the issue of inducing a pattern based on presented information. Alternative terms: concluding, extrapolating, interpolating, predicting. Example: Ask students to distinguish the pattern in this series of numbers: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21. 2.6 Comparing – detecting similarities and differences between two or more objects, events, ideas, problems, or situations. In “mapping” a student must show how one object/idea/problem/situation corresponds to (or maps to) each part of another. Alternative terms: Contrasting, mapping, matching. Example: Students are asked to determine how a current political scandal is like a historical political scandal. 2.7 Explaining - constructing and using a cause-and-effect model of a system. Note that this is a different usage from the usual. It does NOT mean discuss. It implies a causal relationship. Alternative terms: Constructing models. Example: Another example: Students may be asked to answer “Why does air enter a bicycle tire pump when you pull up on the handle?”Facilitator’s Tip: You may want to relate to other work district/building has done that is connected to these (e.g., Marzano, Classroom Instruction that Works; Dimensions of Learning).Facilitators should study carefully in advance Chapter 5 and refer to specific elements in the chapter that would help participants better understand the cognitive process dimension. Participants should become very familiar with the information on pages 70-76 in A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5.
- Purpose: Define and provide examples of the cognitive process apply.Tools: Laminated handout for Table 2, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5, pp 77 - 79Key Points: Apply typically occurs together with procedural knowledge; students must use a procedure to perform exercises or solve problems. An exercise is a task for which the student already knows the proper procedure to use, so the student has a routinized approach to it. A problem is a task for which the student initially does not know what procedure to use, so the student must locate a procedure to solve the problem. This category has two cognitive processes: 3.1 Executing – Occurs when a student routinely carries out a procedure when confronted with a familiar task (exercise). Executing is more associated with the use of skills and algorithms than with techniques and methods. Skills and algorithms consist of a sequence of steps that are generally followed in a fixed order. When steps are performed correctly, the end result is a predetermined answer. An alternative term: Carrying out. 3.2 Implementing – Occurs when a student selects and uses a procedure to perform an unfamiliar task. Student must understand the type of problem encountered as well as the range of procedures that are available. Two hints: Like a “flow chart” rather than a fixed sequence of steps and there is often no single, fixed answer that is expected when the procedure is applied correctly. Alternative term: Using.Facilitator’s Tip: Facilitators should study carefully in advance Chapter 5 and refer to specific elements in the chapter that would help participants better understand the cognitive process dimension. Participants should become very familiar with the information on pages 77-79 in A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5.
- Purpose: Define and provide examples of the cognitive process analyze.Tools: Laminated handout for Table 2, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5, pp 79-83Key Points: Analyze deals with “parts” and “wholes.” The whole can be as small as a sentence or as large as a novel which provides the context within which the student analyzes. 4.1 Differentiating – distinguishing the parts of a whole structure in terms of their relevance or importance; determining how parts fit into the overall structure or whole. Alternate terms: discriminating, selecting, distinguishing, and focusing. Example: Select the main steps in a written description of how something works. 4.2 Organizing – identifying the elements of a communication or situation and recognizing how they fit together into a coherent structure. Students build systematic and coherent connections among pieces of presented information. Alternative terms: structuring, integrating, finding coherence, outlining, and parsing. Example: Students write an outline that shows which facts in a passage on American history support and which facts do not support the conclusion that the American Civil War was caused by differences in the rural and urban composition of the North and South. 4.3 Attributing – occurs when a student is able to ascertain the point of view, biases, values, or intention underlying communications. In contrast to interpreting, in which the student seeks to understand the meaning of presented material, attributing involves an extension beyond basic understanding to infer the intention or point of view underlying the presented material. Alternate term – deconstructing. Example: In reading a passage on the battle of Atlanta in the American Civil War, students must determine whether the author takes the perspective of the North or the South. Facilitator’s Tip: You may want to have participants come up with examples of differentiating, organizing, and attributing. They could do this with school examples or examples from their hobby. Facilitators should study carefully in advance Chapter 5 and refer to specific elements in the chapter that would help participants better understand the cognitive process dimension. Participants should become very familiar with the information on pages 79-83 in A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5.
- Purpose: Define and provide examples of the cognitive process evaluate.Tools: Laminated handout for Table 2; A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5, pp 83-84Key Points: Evaluation is based on the use of standards of performance with clearly defined criteria. For example: Is this process sufficiently effective? Is this product of sufficient quality? Criteria: quality, effectiveness, efficiency, and consistency. Generally determined by the student or by others. Standards: For use with the criteria - may be either quantitative or qualitative. 5.1 Checking - involves testing for internal inconsistencies or fallacies in an operation or a product. Alternative terms: testing, detecting, monitoring, and coordinating. Example: Do data support or disconfirm a hypothesis? 5.2 Critiquing – involves judging a product or operation based on externally imposed criteria and standards. Critiquing is often compared to summative evaluation. Alternative term: Judging. Example: Judge the merits of a particular solution to the problem of acid rain in terms of its likely effectiveness and its associated costs. Note: Not all judgments are evaluative. For example, students judge whether something belongs in a category or whether two objects are similar or different. Facilitator’s Tip: Facilitators should study carefully in advance Chapter 5 and refer to specific elements in the chapter that would help participants better understand the cognitive process dimension. Participants should become very familiar with the information on pages 83-84 in A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5.
- Purpose: Define and provide examples of the cognitive process create.Tools: Laminated handout for Table 2; A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5, pp 84-88Key Points: Createinvolves students making a new product by mentally reorganizing some elements or parts into a pattern or structure not clearly present before. Students create by producing their own synthesis of information or materials to form a new whole, as in writing [not writing that represents the remembering of ideas or the interpretation of materials], painting, sculpting, building, etc. When creating, students synthesize material into a whole (i.e., the construct of an original product) and employ multiple types of knowledge. Three phases of the cognitive category create. 6.1 Generating – student attempts to understand the task and generate possible solutions (divergent thinking) that meet certain criteria. Alternative term: hypothesizing. Example: Students are asked to write as many hypotheses as they can to explain strawberries growing to extraordinary size. The teacher should establish clearly defined criteria for judging the quality of the responses and give them to the students. 6.2 Planning – involves devising a solution method that meets a problem’s criteria. Planning stops short of carrying out the steps to create the actual solution for a given problem. When planning the student may establish sub-goals, or break a task into subtasks to be performed when solving the problem. Alternative term: Designing. Example: Prior to writing a research paper on the causes of the American Revolution, submit an outline of the paper, including the steps they intend to follow to conduct the research. 6.3 Producing – involves carrying out a plan for solving a given problem that meets certain specifications. Alternative term: Constructing. Example: Design sets for plays. A corresponding assessment task for this objective asks students to design the set for a student production of Driving Miss Daisy. The specifications are used as the criteria for evaluating student performance relative to the objective.Facilitator’s Tip: The cognitive processes of create have order; first one hypothesizes, then designs, and ultimately creates or constructs the product.Facilitators should study carefully in advance Chapter 5 and refer to specific elements in the chapter that would help participants better understand the cognitive process dimension. Participants should become very familiar with the information on pages 84-88 in A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing – Chapter 5.