85CHAPTER 5

Using Contextual Curriculum Design With Taxonomies to Promote Critical Thinking

Lori Candela

OBJECTIVES

Upon completion of Chapter 5, the reader will be able to:

OVERVIEW

Taxonomy refers to classification. An educational taxonomy provides a way for educators to view, develop, and evaluate learning objectives via a classification system. It is suitable for use at course and curricular levels. For more than 60 years, educators have turned to taxonomies to provide the terminology for objectives that could be behaviorally measured. Initially, educational taxonomies focused on the cognitive or thinking aspects of learning. Later, the affective (values) and psychomotor (physical skills) domains of learning were more fully developed.

The role of critical thinking is directly applicable to educational taxonomy. Even in its earliest version, taxonomy developers acknowledged the need to assess reasoning and problem solving abilities of students. Some argue that only the upper levels of the taxonomy include critical thinking, while others see all levels as influential in the development process.

86Central to the development of critical thinking skills is the degree to which the student engages with the content. This can best be achieved through the use of well thought out, structured active learning strategies.

Curriculum developers must consider the global context in which students learn and develop their critical thinking abilities This requires consideration of multiple factors including the learners and educators, program framework and underlying philosophy, resources, larger institution alignment, the community, local and global health care environments, and the dynamic nature of society at large. The ability to consider these factors in a logical way can be enhanced through the understanding of the contextual nature in which learning occurs. A contextual model to assist in thinking through curriculum design that uses a taxonomy was developed by this author and is presented for consideration in this chapter.

THE USEFULNESS OF EDUCATIONAL TAXONOMIES

Taxonomy provides a common language and framework for classifying, categorizing, and defining educational goals. The use of taxonomy over the past several decades facilitated a shift in focus from what is taught to what students are expected to learn. Educators at every level use taxonomy to develop, communicate, and evaluate learning objectives. Curriculum developers and evaluators use taxonomy as a method for mapping the progression of student learning toward larger program outcomes.

OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

The use of objectives in education can be traced back to when Ralph Tyler (1949) published a little book with great influence titled Basic Principles of Education and Instruction. Tyler argued that education should center on the learner and that changes in learner behavior be measured by statements or objectives. Prideaux (2000) noted that Tyler had a “broad view of the nature of objectives …” (p. 168). Ralph Mager later advocated that those learner behaviors needed to be stated in very specific terms. These became known as behavioral objectives that replaced verbs such as “understand” with verbs like “identify” (Pridaeaux).

Many terms have been used over the years to describe how and what students should learn. Terms such as learning objectives, learning targets, behavioral objectives, instructional objectives, and learning outcomes have inadvertently caused confusion among educators (Marzano, 2013). Some have argued that there is no difference between objectives and outcomes (Harden, 2002). Even today the verbiage used varies among nursing programs.

Particular confusion seems to exist regarding the use of the term learning “outcome” versus “objective.” The outcome-based education movement of recent years advanced the need for clearly articulated intended learner goals. But many educational programs merely tinkered with small word or title changes instead of truly considering the differences. A quick review of 25 bachelor of science in nursing (BSN) programs on the Internet revealed the use of “terminal objectives,” “learning objectives,” “end-of-program objectives,” and “learning outcomes.” Harden (2002) argued that there are definite differences between objectives and outcomes. 87Both describe products of learning but objectives are more specific and detailed, delineated into learning domains (knowledge, skills, attitudes), stated as intentions, and are more owned by individual instructors. Simply put, “Outcomes relate directly to professional practice; objectives relate to instruction” (Glennon, 2006, p. 55).

It may be clearer to consider an outcome as the essential, significant learning that the student achieves at the end of a course or at the end of the program (most often, the term outcome is used at the program vs. course level). Objectives are the behaviors (knowledge, skills, and attitude) that are to be demonstrated at the end of a unit of instruction (such as a learning module or course). What is most important is that each nursing program has clarity and consistency in whatever term is decided upon in order to avoid confusion or reluctance when educators attempt to distinguish and align curriculum outcomes or objectives to courses (Noble, 2004).

THE CONNECTION OF OBJECTIVES TO LEARNING THEORY

Most educational objectives are rooted in behaviorism. The behavioral view posits that learning does not occur if the desired behavior produced by education is not observable or measurable. This served nursing education well, particularly in terms of skill acquisition. However, the complexity and pace of new information assures that not every skill can be taught. Students must learn to construct new knowledge throughout their lives in order to adapt and thrive in unknown, ambiguous situations.

The constructivist view is that reality is built, or constructed, by the person. New information that is taken in is then integrated within the context of previous knowledge, experiences, and perceptions to form new learning and insight (Goudreau et al., 2009; Hagstrom, 2006). Constructivist, behavioral, or other theories of learning can be readily adapted for use with educational taxonomy.

DOMAINS OF LEARNING WITHIN TAXONOMIES

Without question, the work of Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues in the late 1940s and 1950s to develop a common taxonomy will forever be viewed as one of the most important achievements in education in the 20th century (Granello, 2001). Bloom’s taxonomy is certainly the most familiar and, most likely, one of the most common educational taxonomy frameworks in use by educators today. It has been translated into every language for use in in academic settings from elementary through postsecondary schools (Wineburg & Schneider, 2010). The ideas behind the taxonomy were first discussed by Bloom and a group of colleagues attending the American Psychological Association conference in 1948 (Bloom, 1994). The group was looking to develop a common framework to promote sharing of ideas for examination materials, research on the examinations, and their connection to education. The group determined that this framework could best be achieved if it included “a system of classifying the goals of the educational process using educational objectives” (Bloom, 1994, p. 2).

The group continued meeting regularly for the next several years. It became apparent that the best way to develop a comprehensive taxonomy suitable for the 88evaluation of learning was to consider it through three categories (domains) that affect the process of learning: cognitive behavior, affective behavior, and psychomotor behavior (Halawi, Pires, & McCarthy, 2009). Each domain was conceived as a category and the categories were arranged in a simple to complex hierarchical order. Mastery of behaviors in each lower category was prerequisite to mastery of the next level. Also, every level was a part of the next higher level. This early work was considered as an aid for “studying, understanding, and solving educational problems” (Krathwohl & Anderson, 2010, p. 64). The first and most complete work occurred in the cognitive domain. This was logical as it was most closely related to the types of examinations occurring at that time (Bloom, 1994). The work of the group culminated with the publication of The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain (Bloom, 1956).

THE COGNITIVE DOMAIN OF BLOOM

The first level of the taxonomy is knowledge. For Bloom (1956) and his group, knowing was considered to be foundational to all other levels. It is remembering what is known and demonstrating it by recitation or recall. The second level is comprehension. Comprehension goes beyond knowledge as the person is able to grasp, understand, and make some sense of information. The understanding may not be complete but is indicative of being able to do something with what you know. Bloom (1994) points out three types of comprehension: (1) translation (putting the information into a different language “in your own words”), (2) interpretation (reordering the information, considering the importance of the concepts, summarizing, generalizing), and (3) extrapolation (making predictions or forecasts).

The third level of the six-tier taxonomy is application. At this level, the student can solve a problem or issue that is new by applying what is known and understood from other experiences. Bloom points out that application is different and more complex than extrapolation at the comprehension level. Extrapolation is based on “what is given” versus the abstraction necessary in application, such as applying a general rule or principle to a new situation. The fourth level is analysis, in which one knows, understands, and can apply information well enough to then break it down into component parts, examine how it is organized and the relationships that exist among the parts. Bloom considered this analysis as a necessary “prelude” to being able to evaluate the sixth and final level.

The fifth level is synthesis. This involves the ability to take parts, such as pieces of information and put them together to form something that was not “clearly present” before. This level is most closely linked with creativity. However, it is not viewed as complete freedom of expression since there are generally some set guidelines or restrictions.

The sixth and final level of the taxonomy is evaluation. This level incorporates all of the previous levels in order to judge (quantitatively and/or qualitatively) the value of what is being studied. Criteria or standards are used in making such judgments. This clearly differentiates it from opinions, which may exist without full awareness or conscious use of logical criteria. Bloom did not see evaluation as the last step of the cognitive levels but as the real connection to the affective domain, which is 89concerned with values. Sousa (2005) noted the connection between the affective and cognitive domains as a way of developing the higher order thinking skills of students.

According to Sousa (2005), the lower three cognitive levels involve convergent thinking in which learners apply what they remember and understand to solving new problems. The upper three levels use more divergent or higher order thinking to develop new insights (Sousa, 2005). Bissell and Lemons (2006) believe that higher order thinking is also present at the application level.

Bloom’s taxonomy is widely used in primary, secondary, and postsecondary education to both establish and evaluate learning (Athanassious, McNett, & Harvey, 2003; Cochran, Conklin, & Modin, 2007). McNeill, Gosper, and Hedberg (2011) describe the use of Bloom’s taxonomy in connecting course outcome indicators to program level evaluation. The taxonomy is used across various educational levels and disciplines (Manton, English, & Kernek, 2008). It has been translated into at least 22 languages (Krathwohl, 2002) and is referenced in citations nearly 100 times per year (Bloom, 1994). The taxonomy provides a structure for educators to consider learning and the products of learning.

One of the more recurring criticisms of the original taxonomy is that it is simplistic (Kuhn, 2008). The hierarchal structure of the taxonomy is unidirectional and presumes that each simpler category, such as, comprehension, must be “mastered” before the next level; in this case, application (Krathwohl, 2002; Paul, 1993). It has been argued synthesis may not necessarily be more complex than evaluation (Asim, 2011). Another criticism of the taxonomy revolved around the category of knowledge. The verbs associated with the knowledge category, such as recall and recite, suggested that knowledge was simplistic, little more than memorization (Booker, 2008; Paul, 1993).

As the use of learning theories such as constructivism became more prominent, the entire notion of how a student learns by building on previous learning to structure new knowledge may not fit neatly into the hierarchical format of the taxonomy. New information and research into the areas of learning and cognition led to a significant revision to the original taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).

The Revised Taxonomy

In 2001, Anderson and Krathwohl published a significant revision to Bloom’s taxonomy. Rationale for the revision included the need to again think of the impact of the original taxonomy on education and how visionary it was at the time. Second, there was a need to revise as new knowledge regarding thinking and learning became available (Bumen, 2007). Even as the original handbook was being published, Bloom advocated for updates and changes to the taxonomy as new knowledge became available. Bloom actually collaborated with others to revise the taxonomy prior to his retirement (Pickard, 2007).

The original taxonomy was one-dimensional (cognitive process), while the revised taxonomy was considered to be two-dimensional: knowledge and cognitive process and differed in three areas. The first change was one of terminology. The knowledge category was renamed remember; comprehension was renamed understand. The second change was to move the synthesize level to the top and rename it “create.” The third change was to add a second dimension. The revised taxonomy 90retained the cognitive process dimension and added a knowledge dimension (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The knowledge dimension consists of factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive levels (Roberts & Inman, 2007). The revision allowed for the cognitive category to focus on the noun aspect of an objective “principles of sterile technique,” while the knowledge dimension focused on the verb portion “remember” (Krathwohl, 2002).

Factual knowledge includes the basics that students need to know to be acquainted with the discipline such as knowledge of terminology or specific details. Conceptual knowledge involves understanding the interrelationships of parts within a structure (knowledge of classifications or categories, principles and generalizations, theories and models). Procedural knowledge includes knowing how to do something such as knowledge of criteria for determining which procedure to use, proper steps in performing a procedure, or developing algorithms/concept maps for patient-specific care. Metacognitive knowledge is knowledge of cognition in general as well as having a personal awareness and knowledge of cognition, such as strategic knowledge, knowledge about cognitive tasks within different contexts, and self-knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002).

The first level of the cognitive dimension, remember, involves retrieving relevant knowledge. This is typified by verbs such as recall and recognize. The second level is to understand or be able to discern the meaning of information. Verbs in this category include interpreting, classifying, summarizing, comparing, explaining, inferring, and exemplifying. At the apply level, the learner is able to use what he or she remembers and understands to carry out an action in a given situation (verbs: execute, implement). To be able to analyze (level 4) is to be able to break something down into parts, examine relationships between, them and determine how each part relates to the whole (verbs: differentiate, organize, attribute). The fifth level, evaluate, represents the ability to make judgments based on criteria and includes verbs such as checking and critiquing. The final level is create and includes the ability to put elements together to form new, original products (verbs: generate, plan, produce) (Krathwohl, 2002).

OTHER EDUCATIONAL TAXONOMIES

The Affective Domain of Krathwohl

Krathwohl, who was a member of the original taxonomy group, further delineated the affective domain of the taxonomy. The affective domain is concerned with feelings or emotions that are expressed as values and interests. This domain includes ethical and moral behaviors and features five levels. According to O’Neill (2010, p. 2), “learners move from being aware of what they are learning to a stage of having internalized the learning so that it plays a role in guiding their actions.”

Receiving involves being conscious of phenomena and to another’s expression of ideas or beliefs. Verbs such as attends, shares, selects, prefers, describes, follows, names, observes, and replies are typical in this category. Subcategories include awareness (becoming aware of something), willingness to receive (ability to suspend judgment or maintain neutrality), and controlled or selected attention in which one is able to differentiate and make selections regarding various stimuli, such as, alertness to human values and judgments about living wills.

91Responding is the verbal and nonverbal reactions that indicate a response to a phenomenon ranging on a continuum from compliance to satisfaction. The subcategories range from acquiescence (compliance) in responding to a willingness to respond (voluntarily responding without fear of recrimination) to satisfaction with the response (expressing satisfaction with the response). An example objective for this is, “The first level nursing students express enjoyment when participating in student nurse association activities” (Krathwohl, 2002).

In valuing, students make choices and internalize the value of that choice. It implies that something has worth. Subcategories include acceptance of a value by being able to consistently describe its worth; preference of the value by seeking it out to fulfill a desire for it; and commitment, which is activated when the learner develops deep convictions about the value to the point of trying to convince others of the value, for example, “right to life” or “right to choose.” The final level is organizing, in which the learner is able to examine values, determine the most significant values, and organize them, even if some conflict with others (Krathwohl, 2002).

By the time a person reaches the highest level of the affective domain, he or she has internalized values and placed them into an internal organized system. Behaviors are consistent and in tune with those values. This is a gradual process and may take a lifetime to achieve. One method to help educators assess learner progression is through writing activities, such as articulating a life philosophy. If done early in the program, it could then be repeated near the end of the program to examine development and differences of thought.

The Psychomotor Domain of Simpson, Dave, and Harrow

There are three psychomotor taxonomies in education. The first was proposed by Simpson (1966) and consists of:

Harrow (1972) developed a taxonomy based on reflex movement, basic fundamental movements, perceptual abilities, skilled movements, and nondiscursive communication. The taxonomy is organized by degree of coordination. At the lowest level, reflex movements include automatic reactions. The next level, basic fundamental movement, involves simple movements that can build to more complex sets of movements. At the perceptual level, environmental cues are used to adjust movements. Perceptual abilities at this level are described as tactile, visual, kinesthetic, visual, auditory, and coordinated, whereas physical abilities are described as 92agile, flexible, endurance, and strength. The level of nondiscursive communication is expressive and interpretive, as in the use of body language.

Dave (1970) published a taxonomy on constructivism including imitate, manipulate, precision, articulation, and naturalization. The taxonomy was based on neuromuscular movement and coordination and underlies criteria proposed by Reilly and Oermann (1990), which were based on a developmental approach to competency. The criteria for each level, according to Reilly and Oermann, are:

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Join