1. Redesigning A Lifespan Development Course Based On Fink’s Taxonomy Carolyn R. Fallahi, PhD, Central Connecticut State University Abstract Fink’s taxonomy of significant learning (Fink, 2003) can be used as a method for designing or redesigning a course by aligning all important aspects of the course (eg, goals, activities, feedback) with Fink’s six domains (ie, foundational knowledge, application, integration, human dimension, caring, learning how to learn). Fink’s taxonomy was applied to an undergraduate Lifespan Development course, which was previously taught in traditional lecture format. Comparisons were made between the two teaching formats. Students completed identical pre- and post-tests that measured the students’ ability to apply and integrate basic course content, empathy, self-learning, and other advanced learning skills. Students who took the redesigned course showed statistically significant improvements in foundational knowledge, application, integration, and human dimension (p <.05). The findings from this study demonstrate that Fink’s taxonomy enables the design or redesign of a course based on the goals of learning and the measurement of changes in domains of advanced learning. Background According to L. Dee Fink, significant learning results in a permanent change in the student that includes “learning how to learn, leadership and interpersonal skills, ethics, communication skills, character, tolerance, and the ability to adapt to change” (Fink, 2003). Fink’s taxonomy is different from other taxonomies, such as Benjamin Bloom’s widely recognized and utilized taxonomy (Bloom et al, 1956), in that Fink seeks to pursue broader and more lasting kinds of learning (ie, significant learning) that goes beyond mastery and application of content.. Background (continued) Fink’s taxonomy is bidirectional, not step-wise. Changes in any given domain enable students to improve their functioning in the other domains. The six domains in Fink’s taxonomy are: Foundational knowledge: understanding and remembering information and ideas Application: using technical skills and critical and creative thinking when managing projects Integration: connecting ideas, people, and realms of life Human dimension: learning about self or others Caring: developing new feelings, interests, and values Learning how to learn: becoming a better student, inquiring about a subject, achieving self-directed learning. Fink’s taxonomy was applied to the Lifespan Development course at Central Connecticut State University. Lifespan Development is a required course for undergraduate psychology and education majors. An inherent difficulty with this course is an ambitious syllabus covering the major developmental milestones and theories. This course is taught as a traditional lecture course, which allows students to superficially learn a large quantity of information. The objective of the redesign was to provide a teaching format that is more conducive to students applying and integrating advanced learning concepts than the traditional lecture format. Changes made to the course included: Less emphasis on course content More emphasis on active learning Incorporating course lessons into life lessons Application of course content to real-life problems. Study Questions Does Fink’s taxonomy allow an instructor to design or redesign a course in line with the objectives for that course? Can this taxonomy guide the outcome and lead to significant learning? Can this learning be quantified? Is the redesigned course significantly superior to the traditional lecture format in creating significant learning experiences? Methods Participants Students were voluntarily recruited from two Lifespan Development courses taught by the same instructor (CRF) during the Fall 2004 (n=54 out of 60) and Fall 2005 (n=28 out of 34) semesters. Students received extra credit for their participation. Procedures The instructor was blind to the participants in the study. A research assistant coded all of the study data. The Fall 2004 course was taught in the same format (ie, traditional lecture) as in previous years. The Fall 2005 course was taught in the redesigned format following Fink’s taxonomy. Students completed a pre- test at the beginning of the semester and an identical post-test at the end of the semester. Pre-test and Post-test Evaluation Foundational knowledge: 28-question multiple choice test that sampled course content Application: two case studies on rejection and bullying; students summarized an article and listed as many pertinent areas of lifespan development as possible Integration: students used the case of the bullied child to explain what interventions were possible given their knowledge of child and adolescent development Human dimension: students indicated to what extent they agreed or disagreed with statements about themselves and human beings in general Caring: students indicated the degree to which they were interested in or cared about topics within lifespan development Learning how to learn: students responded to statements about the validity of the article on bullying and methods that they would use to learn more about the case and related information. Results Mean differences were calculated for the 6 domains on the pre- and post-tests for each semester (data not shown). An independent samples t-test was computed to compare the between-semester mean differences in pre- and post-test scores. Significance was defined as p <.05. Students who took the redesigned course in the Fall 2005 semester showed statistically significant improvements in foundational knowledge, application, integration, and human dimension compared with students who took the traditional lecture course in the Fall 2004 semester (p <.05) (see Table 1). Students who took the redesigned course had lower scores in the domains of caring and learning how to learn than students who took the traditional lecture course (p =ns). Table 1. Independent Samples t-test Comparison Across Semesters DomainSemesterMean DifferenceStandard Deviation FoundationalFall 2004 5.154.08 knowledge Fall 2005 10.23*3.02 ApplicationFall 2004 1.54.93 Fall 2005 2.39*.74 IntegrationFall 2004 1.54.87 Fall 2005 2.43* 1.17 Human Fall 2004 1.67 3.59 dimensionFall 2005 11.84* 5.07 CaringFall 2004 2.93.59 Fall 2005 2.08.54 Learning Fall 2004 2.20 5.92 how to learnFall 2005 1.56 7.06 * p <.0001 versus Fall 2004 semester. Conclusions Fink’s taxonomy of significant learning provides a valid structure for aligning course goals with assessment outcomes Students taught a Lifespan Development course designed according to Fink’s taxonomy achieved statistically significantly higher scores in foundational knowledge, application, integration, and human dimension than students taught the course in traditional lecture format Students taking the redesigned course achieved slightly lower scores in the domains of caring and learning how to learn than students taking the traditional lecture course. Two possible explanations for these findings are that the sample size may not have been large enough and/or the outcome measures may not have been sufficiently sensitive to detect differences between the two courses. References Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York, NY: David McKay Company, Inc. Fink, L.D. (2003). Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Poster presented at 12th Annual New England Conference for Teachers in Psychology, October 20, 2006, at Southern New Hampshire University, Manchester, N. H. Correspondence to: Carolyn R. Fallahi; Fallahic@ccsu.edu.