Seminar01102003/workshop on cognitive attainment01102003.ppt Dr Charles C. Chan 28 Sept 2001 Dr Charles C. Chan 28 Sept 2001 Assessing APSS Students Learning.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Focus on Higher-Order Thinking Skills
Advertisements

Bloom's Taxonomy.
Level 1 Recall Recall of a fact, information, or procedure. Level 2 Skill/Concept Use information or conceptual knowledge, two or more steps, etc. Level.
Learning Objectives  Three Domains of Learning Objectives   Cognitive Domain   Affective Domain   Motor-Skills Domain.
Consultation on Senior Cycle Science Anna Walshe Brendan Duane
Making Assignment Expectations Clear: Create a Grading Rubric Barb Thompson Communication Skills Libby Daugherty Assessment FOR Student Learning 1.
教育目標的分類 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
Creating an SLO or PLO Statement Presented by ORIE Team Summer 2013 Academy for Planning, Assessment, and Research.
OF THE COGNITIVE DOMAIN
Differentiating the Curriculum Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (Benjamin Bloom) Elements of Depth and Complexity (Sandra Hall Kaplan)
Formulating objectives, general and specific
Learning Outcomes at the University of North Alabama Dr. Andrew L. Luna Institutional Research, Planning, and Assessment.
Goals and Objectives.
Critical Thinking and Argumentation
Bloom’s Critical Thinking Questioning Strategies
Lesson Planning. Teachers Need Lesson Plans So that they know that they are teaching the curriculum standards required by the county and state So that.
Writing Student Learning Outcomes Consider the course you teach.
Presentation by : Kesang Tshering
1 Issues in Assessment in Higher Education: Science Higher Education Forum on Scientific Competencies Medellin-Colombia Nov 2-4, 2005 Dr Hans Wagemaker.
Quick Flip Questioning for Critical Thinking Kobets S.A. Lyceum №87.
Educational Objectives
Writing Objectives Including Bloom’s Taxanomy. Three Primary Components of an Objective Condition –What they’re given Behavior –What they do Criteria.
Writing Student-Centered Learning Objectives Please see Reference Document for references used in this presentation.
D ESCRIBING Y OUR L EARNING Unit 5 Seminar. Agenda Unit Objectives Bloom’s Taxonomy Learning Statements Questions 2.
Bloom’s Taxonomy USSF Referee Instructor CourseITIP United States Soccer Federation.
Questioning. Questions, whether self-initiated or "owned," are at the heart of inquiry learning. While questions are also a part of the traditional classroom,
Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Bloom’s Taxonomy. What is it??? Bloom’s Taxonomy is a chart of ideas Named after the creator, Benjamin Bloom A Taxonomy is an arrangement of ideas or.
Blooms Taxonomy Margaret Gessler Werts Department of Language, Reading, and Exceptionalities.
BBI3420 PJJ 2009/2010 Dr. Zalina Mohd. Kasim.  Bloom’s taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956) provides 6 levels of thinking and questioning. A close.
Bloom’s Critical Thinking Questioning Strategies A Guide to Higher Level Thinking Adapted from Ruth Sunda and Kyrene de las Brisas.
Levels of thinking and questioning. Knowledge Recalling memorized information What are some of the things that Goldilocks did in the bear's house?
BLOOM’S TAXONOMY OF THE COGNITIVE DOMAIN. BLOOM’S TAXONOMY Benjamin Bloom (et al.) created this taxonomy for categorizing levels of abstraction of questions.
BLOOM’S TAXONOMY Mrs. Eagen A, A. Bloom identified six levels within the cognitive domain, from the simple recall or recognition of facts,
Higher Order Thinking Skills
IS 551 October 17, Upcoming high school visits ·Issues ·Language/situations in YA fiction ·Costs of reference materials and databases ·Monitoring.
Unit 5 Seminar D ESCRIBING Y OUR L EARNING. Agenda Unit Objectives Bloom’s Taxonomy Learning Statements Questions.
INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
D ESCRIBING Y OUR L EARNING Unit 5 Seminar. Agenda Unit Objectives Bloom’s Taxonomy Learning Statements Questions.
Bloom’s Taxonomy Dr. Middlebrooks. Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Bloom’s Taxonomy The Concept of “Levels of Thinking”
A Guide to Higher Order Thinking Questions. Bloom’s Taxonomy Benjamin Bloom (1956) developed a classification of levels of intellectual behavior in learning.
Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy Creating Higher Level Discussions.
©2007 RUSH University Medical Center Writing Effective Learning Objectives Chris Zakrzewski, MS Ningchun Han, EdD.
Writing Learning Outcomes Best Practices. Do Now What is your process for writing learning objectives? How do you come up with the information?
Lesson Plan Design & Bloom’s Taxonomy EnhanceEdu.
Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Bloom’s Taxonomy.
POWERPOINT PRESENATTION BLOOM’S TAXONOMY Presented by Ms
TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning
Innovative measures in teaching
EDU704 – Assessment and Evaluation
TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES
Chapter 10: Bloom’s Taxonomy
A Focus on Higher-Order Thinking Skills
85. BLOOM’S TAXONOMY “Bloom’s Taxonomy is a guide to educational learning objectives. It is the primary focus of most traditional education.”
Outcome Based Education
Bloom's Taxonomy Prepared by: Maridalys López Melissa Torres
Writing Learning Outcomes
BBI3420 PJJ 2009/2010 Dr. Zalina Mohd. Kasim
Writing Learning Outcomes
Higher Order Thinking Skills
Bloom’s Taxonomy Higher Order Thinking HOT
Bloom’s Taxonomy.
A Focus on Higher-Order Thinking Skills
Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Our goal is to be thinking at a higher level.
Presentation transcript:

seminar /workshop on cognitive attainment ppt Dr Charles C. Chan 28 Sept 2001 Dr Charles C. Chan 28 Sept 2001 Assessing APSS Students Learning Outcomes

seminar /workshop on cognitive attainment ppt

Action In addition to traditional assessment e.g., GPA Development of a multiple domain structure of student learning outcomes in social work education –Cognitive attainment –Behavioral competence –Mortal/ethical judgment Cognitive Behavioral Moral/ ethical Learning Outcomes

seminar /workshop on cognitive attainment ppt Student learning outcome: Cognitive attainment

seminar /workshop on cognitive attainment ppt Across Levels Grade (Norm-referenced)

seminar /workshop on cognitive attainment ppt Across Levels Cognitive Attainment (Criterion-referenced)

seminar /workshop on cognitive attainment ppt Cognitive attainment and the Bloom’s taxonomy The six categories are in hierarchical order, each representing one kind of cognitive functioning Comprehensive: the taxonomy has included six different kinds of cognitive functioning which can review a broader picture of student learning outcomes Mutually exclusive: each category has a clear definition and avoid the occurrence of overlapping of categories, hence reduce ambiguity when using it to evaluate student learning outcome The taxonomy can be applied to student’s written work of all different lengths, subjects and topics. The application scope is wide.

seminar /workshop on cognitive attainment ppt Knowledge Recalling memorized information. May involve remembering a wide range of material from specific facts to complete theories. Represents the lowest level of learning outcomes in the cognitive domain. Learning objectives at this level: know common TERMS, know specific FACTS, know methods and procedures, know basic concepts, know principles. Comprehension The ability to grasp the meaning of material. Translating material from one form to another (words to numbers), interpreting material (explaining or summarizing), estimating future trends (predicting consequences or effects). Goes one step beyond the simple remembering of material, and represent the lowest level of understanding. Learning objectives at this level: understand facts and principles, interpret verbal material, interpret charts and graphs, translate verbal material to mathematical formulae, estimate the future consequences implied in data, justify methods and procedures.

seminar /workshop on cognitive attainment ppt Application The ability to use learned material in new and concrete situations. Applying rules, methods, concepts, principles, laws, and theories. Learning outcomes in this area require a higher level of understanding than those under comprehension. Learning objectives at this level: apply concepts and principles to new situations, apply laws and theories to practical situations, solve mathematical problems, construct graphs and charts, demonstrate the correct usage of a method or procedure. Analysis The ability to break down material into its component parts. Identifying parts, analysis of relationships between parts, recognition of the organizational principles involved. Learning outcomes here represent a higher intellectual level than comprehension and application because they require an understanding of both the content and the structural form of the material. Learning objectives at this level: recognize unstated assumptions, recognizes logical fallacies in reasoning, distinguish between facts and inferences, evaluate the relevancy of data, analyze the organizational structure of a work (art, music, writing).

seminar /workshop on cognitive attainment ppt Synthesis The ability to put parts together to form a new whole. This may involve the production of a unique communication (theme or speech), a plan of operations (research proposal), or a set of abstract relations (scheme for classifying information). Learning outcomes in this area stress creative behaviors, with major emphasis on the formulation of new patterns or structure. Learning objectives at this level: write a well organized paper, give a well organized speech, write a creative short story (or poem or music), propose a plan for an experiment, integrate learning from different areas into a plan for solving a problem, formulate a new scheme for classifying objects (or events, or ideas). Evaluation The ability to judge the value of material (statement, novel, poem, research report) for a given purpose. The judgments are to be based on definite criteria, which may be internal (organization) or external (relevance to the purpose). The student may determine the criteria or be given them. Learning outcomes in this area are highest in the cognitive hierarchy because they contain elements of all the other categories, plus conscious value judgments based on clearly defined criteria. Learning objectives at this level: judge the logical consistency of written material, judge the adequacy with which conclusions are supported by data, judge the value of a work (art, music, writing) by the use of internal criteria, judge the value of a work (art, music, writing) by use of external standards of excellence.

seminar /workshop on cognitive attainment ppt Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 1. Do we need take into consideration the level of cognitive attainment in calculating the final mark for the subject? No, the cognitive attainment scale is to be used as supplementary measurements scheme that parallel the present grading system. The attained level in this scheme can be seemingly different from that of the final grading of the subject for many good reasons. The level obtained in cognitive attainment would not be counted as part of the students' GPA.

seminar /workshop on cognitive attainment ppt 2. Should I correlate the levels of cognitive attainment and the final mark for the assignment? No, as the grading system is a norm-referenced scale while the cognitive attainment scale is a criterion-referenced measurement tool, marks obtained in these two scales can be very different. These two scales should be used independently and markings of one scale should not affect the other one. 3. Should I show the results of cognitive attainment to the students? Yes, indeed it gives additional feedback to students and let them plan their learning objectives.

seminar /workshop on cognitive attainment ppt 4. Why should I use the cognitive attainment scale on top of the usual general grading? The existing grading system has taken into consideration many cross-setting, between students and even cross-level issues in student performance assessment. It is the most familiar and smooth system in operation for APSS; despite its limitations, many of which, perhaps is inherent in the required structure of a norm-referenced assessment system. The main reason to use the criterion-based cognitive attainment scheme parallel to the existing system is to enhance the present system with a criterion-referenced taxonomy, promised to bring into the teacher-student dyad an added dimension of learning objectives. If administered skillfully, this will have a positive impact on a student's learning motivation and direction, beside the general concern for reaching a higher grade, particularly toward the end of their work.