Mary Pat Wenderoth Department of Biology University of Washington

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

2. Research Design OLDLearning design Your students Student learning Post- Biology Scholars 2010 Your research question NEWLearning design Your students Student learning

3. Research Design OLDLearning design Your students Student learning SAME ??? NEWLearning design Your students Student learning

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

5. Research Design OLDLearning design Your students Student learning Design or instructor ? NEWLearning design Your students Student learning

6. 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

7. Research Design OLDLearning design Your students Student learning How to assess? NEWLearning design Your students Student learning

8. 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

9. Major Learning Taxonomies 1- SOLO, Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes Biggs & Collis 1982 2- Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains cognitive (knowledge) affective (attitudes) psychomotor (skills) Bloom & Krathwohl 1956

10. TheSOLO 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

11. Unistructural questions Facts • 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. Response student Quality QuestioningUsing the SOLO Taxonomy solo-taxonomy-1204838403126960-5.ppt

12. Multistructural questions 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. Response student

13. Relational questions Facts 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 student

14. Extended abstract questions Facts 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 student

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

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

17. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Domains 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)

18. Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Domains NEWORIGINAL Create Evaluation- critique Evaluate Synthesis - create Analyze Analysis- compare and contrast Apply Application-- solve Understand Comprehension-- define Recall Knowledge-- facts Bloom, B.S., Krathwohl, D.R., and Masia, B.B. (1956)

19. Revised Bloom’s 2001 Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001)

20. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Domains 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)

21. Bloom words • 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.

22. 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.

23. Developed a rubric based on Bloom’s Crowe, Dirks & Wenderoth 2008. CBE- Life Science Education 7:368.

24. Science-specific skills Crowe, Dirks & Wenderoth 2008. CBE- Life Science Education 7:368.

25. Blooming Biology Tool Crowe, Dirks & Wenderoth 2008. CBE- Life Science Education 7:368.

26. Science-specific skills

27. Why Bloom a test?

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

29. OLDLearning design Your students Student learning NEWLearning design Your students Student learning • 3. Assessment • use the same test • use isomorphic questions • use the same Bloom or SOLO level of questions

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

31. Bloom Index for exam exam pts Bloom pts 20 pts * 1= 20 20 pts * 2= 40 20 pts * 3= 60 20 pts * 4= 80 20 pts * 5= 100 Exam Total = 100 300 = Bloom Total Bloom Index = Bloom total/exam total = 300 / 100 = 3

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

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

34. Take one conceptCreate questions at each level of Bloom’s Physiology: Cardiac Output (MP Wenderoth) Cell Biology: Nuclear transport (Alison Crowe) Immunology: Virology (Clarissa Dirks) Crowe, Dirks & Wenderoth 2008. CBE- Life Science Education 7:368.

35. 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 2008. CBE- Life Science Education 7:368.

36. Synthesis Create a summary sheet that is a pictorial depiction/ flow diagram of how changes in cardiac output influence mean arterial blood pressure. 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? Crowe, Dirks & Wenderoth 2008. CBE- Life Science Education 7:368.

37. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Domains Higher Order Analysis Synthesis Evaluation Application Comprehension Lower Order Knowledge Bloom, B.S., Krathwohl, D.R., and Masia, B.B. (1956)

38. SOLO Bloom • Prestructural Knowledge/Recall • UnistructuralComprehension • Multistructural Application • RelationalAnalysis • Extended abstractSynthesis/Evaluation Lower Order Higher Order

39. References- Bloom’s • 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 • http://www.coun.uvic.ca/learning/exams/blooms-taxonomy.html • http://www.polyu.edu.hk/assessment/arc/links/reference_g_blooms.htm • http://www.kurwongbss.eq.edu.au/thinking/Bloom/blooms.htm

40. References- SOLO • http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/solo.htm • http://www.slideshare.net/jocelynam/solo-taxonomy • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_Observed_Learning_Outcome • Biggs FILM • http://www.daimi.au.dk/~brabrand/short-film/

41. How People Learn NationalResearchCouncil1999 Three major findings: 1. Addressstudent’spreconceptions. 2. Build BOTH a deep foundation of factual knowledge & strong conceptual framework. 3. Enhance student’s ability to monitor their learning. (metacognition)

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