Applying Bloom's taxonomy revision to student assessment and learning objectives

School administrators often stress the need for teachers to set learning objectives on the highest domain. Is it appropriate for teachers to set standards only at the highest cognitive domain (create/metacognitive) or are there practical, pedagogical uses for the lower domains?

It is not only appropriate for teachers to create standards at the lower domains; it is often essential. Learning is progressive and often only if there is a foundation set at the lower domains of basic comprehension is higher-level learning possible. In general, learning domains are classified into three basic areas: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor (Nitko & Brookhart 2011: 25). Within each domain are different levels, for example, at the cognitive domain knowledge is the foundation of the learning pyramid. While comprehension of knowledge is necessary to apply the concepts and move up the learning pyramid to the final state of evaluation, without the basic building block of correct knowledge, it is impossible to progress. The problem only arises if too much of learning is focused on factual, knowledge-based data without calling upon students to apply higher-level concepts.

Reference

Nitko, A & Brookhart, S. (2011). Educational Assessment of Students. Pearson.

Question 2:

Haladyna, Downing, & Rodriguez (2002) call for cognitive psychology to, "produce a new cognitive taxonomy that helps us write items that satisfy various cognitive demands" (p. 327). Haladyna et al. (2002) also describe the need to consider assessment takers age, gender, reading level, etc. To present assessment items that are on the appropriate cognitive level for students to eliminate the effects of test-wiseness and construct-irrelevant factors. How might the application of Anderson and Krathwohl's (2001) Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives be applied to assessment, and not just learning objectives, to satisfy these two requests?

The revision of Bloom's Taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl's (2001) substituted remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and above all creating for Bloom's traditional domains. Perhaps the final domain of 'creating' is the most important revision at all, given it places the student squarely in control of the process of determining what he or she needs from the act of learning. This is one way to take into account what Haladyna, Downing, & Rodriguez (2002) call for when they note that learning must be tailored to the needs of age, gender, and other levels. Adult learners often bring different (more hands-on, practical) needs to the process of learning, even higher-level college learning and are usually more vocationally driven in a specific manner. What they create from the final product of their learning might be different than that of a college age student and this should be reflected in evaluation. Similarly, different learning styles may need to be accommodated in the evaluation process: visual learners may wish to create a more visually-driven final product, based upon what they have learned that satisfies their personal objectives and goals. So long as this final project reflects higher-level processes in the taxonomy, the teacher may wish to consider allowing such an option.

Question 3:

Rodriguez (2005) concluded that 3 MC items suffice and are in fact beneficial to the reliability, validity and efficiency of the assessment (p. 11). With this empirical conclusion in mind, why do you believe many standardized assessments continue using 4 items in their answer choices?