Mary Pat Wenderoth Department of Biology University of Washington Learning Taxonomies What are they? Why use them? Scholars 2010

Research Design OLD Learning design Your students Student learning NEW Learning design Your students Student learning Post- Biology Scholars 2010 Your research question

Research Design OLD Learning design Your students Student learning NEW Learning design Your students Student learning SAME ???

Research Design Control for ◦ 1. Students---are they “the same” academically?  Compare entering GPA, SAT other academic indicators  Pre-test

Research Design OLD Learning design Your students Student learning NEW Learning design Your students Student learning Design or instructor ?

Research Design Control for ◦ 1. Students--are they “the same” academically?  Compare GPA, SAT, other academic indicators  Pre-test 2. Instructor you teach both sections of course control for years of experience teaching philosophy monitor teaching style

Research Design OLD Learning design Your students Student learning NEW Learning design Your students Student learning How to assess?

Research Design Control for ◦ 1. Students--are they “the same” academically?  Compare GPA, SAT, other academic indicators  Pre-test 2. Instructor you teach both sections of course control for years of experience teaching philosophy monitor teaching style 3. Assessment use the same test use isomorphic questions use the same Bloom or SOLO level of questions

Major Learning Taxonomies 2- Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains cognitive (knowledge) affective (attitudes) psychomotor (skills) Bloom & Krathwohl SOLO, Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes Biggs & Collis 1982

The SOLO model consists of 5 levels of understanding Prestructural – the student acquires bits of unconnected information that have no organisation and make no sense. Unistructural – students make simple and obvious connections between pieces of information Multistructural – a number of connections are made, but not the meta-connections between them Relational – the students sees the significance of how the various pieces of information relate to one another Extended abstract – at this level students can make connections beyond the scope of the problem or question, to generalise or transfer learning into a new situation

To answer the question students need the knowledge or use of only one piece of given information, fact, or idea, that they can get directly from the problem. Unistructural questions Quality Questioning Using the SOLO Taxonomy solo-taxonomy ppt student Response Facts

Students need to know or use more than one piece of given information, fact, or idea, to answer the question, but do not integrate the ideas. This is fundamentally an unsorted, unorganised list. Multistructural questions Response Facts student

Relational questions These questions require students to integrate more than one piece of given knowledge, information, fact, or idea. At least two separate ideas are required that, working together, will solve the problem. Response Facts student

Extended abstract questions These questions involve a higher level of abstraction. The items require the student to go beyond the given information, knowledge, information, or ideas and to deduce a more general rule or proof that applies to all cases. Response Facts student

A C D E Prestructural = D Unistructural = C Multistructural = B Relational = E Extended abstract = A B

A C D E Prestructural = D Unistructural = C Multistructural = B Relational = E Extended abstract = F B

Evaluation- critique Synthesis - create Analysis- compare and contrast Application-- solve Comprehension-- define Knowledge-- facts Bloom, B.S., Krathwohl, D.R., and Masia, B.B. (1956)

NEWORIGINAL CreateEvaluation- critique EvaluateSynthesis - create AnalyzeAnalysis- compare and contrast ApplyApplication-- solve UnderstandComprehension-- define RecallKnowledge-- facts Bloom, B.S., Krathwohl, D.R., and Masia, B.B. (1956)

Revised Bloom’s 2001 RecallUnderstandApplyAnalyzeEvaluateCreate Factual knowledge Conceptual knowledge Procedural knowledge Metacognitive knowledge Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001)

Evaluation- critique Synthesis - create Analysis- compare and contrast Application-- solve Comprehension-Understand-- define Knowledge-Recall-- facts Bloom, B.S., Krathwohl, D.R., and Masia, B.B. (1956)

 Knowledge--Recall Memorize, name, recognize, label, list, locate, order, repeat, reproduce, state, select.  Comprehend--Understand Define, describe, translate, give example, restate.  Apply Predict, calculate, solve, use, demonstrate, dramatize, sketch. Bloom words

 Analyze Compare and contrast, infer, differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, question, test.  Synthesis/create Create, assemble, construct, design, develop, organize, propose, write.  Evaluate Critique, appraise, assess, defend, judge, rate, value. Bloom words

Crowe, Dirks & Wenderoth CBE- Life Science Education 7:368.

Bloom’s levelGRAPHING Knowledge Identify the parts of graphs and recognize different types of graphs (e.g., identify the X axis, identify a histogram) Comprehension Describe the data represented in a simple graph Application Draw a graph based on a given set of data; predict outcomes based on data presented in graph Analysis Read and interpret a complex graph having multiple variables or treatments and explain biological implications of data Synthesis Create a graphical representation of a given biological process or concept Evaluation Assess the relative effectiveness of different graphical representations of the same data or biological concept Crowe, Dirks & Wenderoth CBE- Life Science Education 7:368.

Why Bloom a test?

Bloom’s distribution of exam questions Align your teaching and testing

3. Assessment use the same test use isomorphic questions use the same Bloom or SOLO level of questions NEW Learning design Your students Student learning OLD Learning design Your students Student learning

Bloom Index for exam Recall = 1 (knowledge) Understand = 2 (comprehension) Apply = 3 Analysis = 4 Synthesis = 5 Evaluate= 6

Bloom Index for exam exam pts Bloom pts 20 pts * 1= pts * 2= pts * 3= pts * 4= pts * 5= 100 Bloom Index = Bloom total/exam total = 300 / 100 = = Bloom TotalExam Total = 100

1. Bloom Index of exam 2. Level of difficulty of question easy moderate hard

How to Bloom a test? Ask a colleague Buy them coffee Have them “Bloom” your exam

Physiology: Cardiac Output (MP Wenderoth) Cell Biology: Nuclear transport (Alison Crowe) Immunology: Virology (Clarissa Dirks) Crowe, Dirks & Wenderoth CBE- Life Science Education 7:368.

Physiology: cardiac output Knowledge-Recall Which two variables determine cardiac output for an animal? Comprehension-Understanding Define cardiac output and why it is significant. Application Lance Armstrong has a normal resting cardiac output 6L/min yet his resting heart rate is only 40 beats/min. What is his stroke volume? Analysis Compared to a normal resting male of the same height and weight, Lance Armstrong’s stroke volume is greatly increased. Provide a physiological explanation for a large stroke volume. Crowe, Dirks & Wenderoth CBE- Life Science Education 7:368.

Evaluation If an enlarged heart was observed on a CT scan of patient, how would you determine if this enlarged heart was pathological or not? Synthesis Create a summary sheet that is a pictorial depiction/ flow diagram of how changes in cardiac output influence mean arterial blood pressure. Crowe, Dirks & Wenderoth CBE- Life Science Education 7:368.

Bloom, B.S., Krathwohl, D.R., and Masia, B.B. (1956) Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation Higher Order Lower Order

SOLOBloom PrestructuralKnowledge/Recall Unistructural Comprehension MultistructuralApplication Relational Analysis Extended abstract Synthesis/Evaluation Lower Order Higher Order

 Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition, New York : Longman.  Anderson, L.W., & Sosniak, L.A. (Eds.). (1994). Bloom's taxonomy: a forty- year retrospective. Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Pt.2., Chicago, IL., University of Chicago Press.  Bloom, Benjamin S. & David R. Krathwohl. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York, Longmans.  Crowe, A., Dirks,C, & Wenderoth, M.P. (2008) Bloomin’ Biology CBE- Life Science Education 7:368    References- Bloom’s

    Biggs FILM  References- SOLO

National Research Council Address student’s preconceptions. Three major findings: 2. Build BOTH a deep foundation of factual knowledge & strong conceptual framework. 3. Enhance student’s ability to monitor their learning. (metacognition)

“To achieve these ambitious goals, we will need much more emphasis on both science education and the “science of education”. Science Jan 2, 2009