Welcome to the Dance: Partnering Up Taxonomies and Research

In theory, authors of major learning taxonomies used the same body of work to classify learning outcomes, yet they have wide variations in terminology and classifications.

The session began with group information about four taxonomies and brief dialogue about their origins: Bloom and “new Bloom,” Webb, Marzano, and Gagné and Briggs. Most were familiar with Bloom, unfamiliar with “new Bloom;” one was familiar with and using Webb; one was familiar with and using Gagné and Briggs; none were familiar with Marzano.

The purpose and architecture of each taxonomy was reviewed, after which one participant aptly described the differences in terms of producing "cognitive dissonance" and another suggested that the taxonomies simply could not be integrated.

Bloom: The committee of educational psychologists that developed the Bloom’s taxonomy did so for the purpose of improving assessment; the “revised Bloom” shifts the focus to learning processes that can then be applied to different types of knowledge; for example, one can “remember procedures,” “understand procedures,” “apply procedures,” “analyze procedures,” “evaluate procedures,” and “create procedures” (evaluate is not the top level, but now second from the top). There were three domains: cognitive (remember, understand, etc.), psychomotor (perform or execute…), and affective (develop a commitment to a set of behaviors). Forehand provides a “Cliff Notes on Bloom’s Taxonomy.”

Webb: Webb’s model originated to assess the alignment of test items with targeted learning levels in curriculum standards. Webb developed a “depth of knowledge” (DOK) taxonomy with four levels: (1) recall; (2) skill or concept, (3) strategic thinking, and (4) extended thinking. (Webb’s DOK is one of six dimensions in determination of alignment.) Webb’s DOK has been used with at least ten states and multiple subject areas. The Wisconsin Center for Education Research describes the DOK levels and the alignment process. This model does not have a separate classification scheme for the affective or psychomotor domain.

Marzano: In 1988, Marzano’s framework had five dimensions of thinking: (1) metacognition, (2) critical and creative thinking, (3) thinking processes, (4) core thinking skills, and (5) connecting thinking to content. Since that time, the Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL), with Marzano as CEO, has reframed these dimensions: (1) attitudes and perceptions, (2) acquire and integrate knowledge, (3) extend and refine knowledge, (4) use knowledge meaningfully, and (5) productive habits of mind. This approach integrates affective with cognitive domains of learning. It does not explicitly address the psychomotor domain.

Gagné & Briggs: Kowch at the University of Calgary provides a summary of the “varieties of learning” and theory background. The main varieties are: (1) intellectual skills, (2) motor skills, (3) verbal information, (4) cognitive strategy (how to learn), and (5) attitudes. Intellectual skills develop in a hierarchy and include: (1) discriminations, (2) concrete concept, (3) defined concept, (4) rule, (5) higher order rule (include metacognitive and complex problem solving here).

These taxonomies evolved from analysis of educational research, not from the research per se. For example, although Gagné and Briggs often conducted or used educational research in teaching and training applications, Gagné’s development of the taxonomy evolved from years of analysis of learning into its categories. And, Bloom, the typology with which most are familiar evolved over an eight year period from the analysis of a group of psychologists. As another example, Marzano and others have published classroom instructional strategies that work. But the “dimensions of learning” don’t align directly with the categories of “what works” in the classroom.

In small groups, session participants tackled the question of whether the taxonomies bear a reasonable relationship to each other; one of the groups saw a clear connection of Webb to several parts of Bloom, another saw some relationship of Gagné & Briggs to some of Bloom, and another found some relationship of Marzano to some of Bloom.

Another question was whether the educational studies that have been conducted since before Bloom, can or should inform a stronger and more coherent description of learning outcomes? And, if so, what would be the value of doing so?

Session participants were provided with a summary of educational research for the past twenty years organized into different types of learning outcomes to show the types of instructional and assessment strategies that fit with each, as an example of one approach to integrating the research with the types of learning outcomes.

After the session, two of the participants wanted to know why I considered Dee Fink's approach as a "course design framework" rather than a taxonomy for learning. They suggested that Dee Fink's classification should be considered a major taxonomy, and one of them plans to formulate the logic for this consideration and send forth her notes, with the possibility of our future collaboration on this analysis.

Presenter: Ludwika Goodson, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University of Science and Technology