Using the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives to Create Effective Assessments

Contrary to popular belief, assessments are valuable for far more than a simple measure of students' acquired level of knowledge. Assessments serve a variety of functions including directing attention/focus, highlighting conceptual errors, motivating students' interaction with course material, and, finally, determining students' grades. The importance of assessments is often overshadowed by the time and energy invested into classroom activities; but, as discussed by McKeachie, "what students learn depends as much on your tests as your teaching" (1999, p. 85). Ideally, an effective assessment will reflect the educational goals in relationship to the content areas of a designated course.

As highlighted in the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom, 1956), learning goals vary according to the level of understanding and/or skill desired. Consequently, learning begins at the bottom of the hierarchy (with simple knowledge) and cumulatively builds toward a deep understanding (as evident through the ability to evaluate information). Learning objectives include:

• Knowledge. Knowledge involves the remembering of terminology, facts, and methods. Typical knowledge assessments ask learners to define, describe, identify, label, list, match, or name.
• Comprehension. Comprehension requires an understanding of the meaning of conceptual information. An assessment of comprehension requires students to classify, convert, describe, discuss, estimate, generalize, or give examples.
• Application. Application involves the use of previously learned information in novel situations. To measure application knowledge, an instructor might ask students to chart, compute, construct, develop, implement, or predict.
• Analysis. The ability to understand the organizational structure of information is referred to as analysis. Typical analysis assessments ask students to break down information into component parts, develop divergent conclusions, or make inferences.
• Synthesis. Synthesis involves the creative application of prior knowledge and skills to produce an original entity. To measure synthesis understanding, an assessment might ask learners to adapt, create, design, generate, or revise.
• Evaluation. Evaluation is the ability to judge the relative value of information based on prior knowledge. An evaluative assessment involves the ability to compare and contrast, criticize, critique, defend, or judge.

While many instructors have the goal of promoting higher-order cognitive abilities, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and novel application, typical assessments are often unable to effectively measure these skills.

Research has repeatedly found that students' attention and focus are driven by the assessment measures not the educational goals of a course. Thus, if assessments focus primarily on the correct identification of factual information, students will devote their time and effort toward the shallow memorization of facts and definitions. On the other hand, if assessments require students to demonstrate a more complex understanding, students will concentrate their effort on acquiring the relevant skills. This leaves the instructor with the task of implementing measures that accurately reflect the desired educational objectives.

When designing assessments, instructors are faced with the dilemma of coordinating educational goals with an acceptable test format. While open-ended items, such as essay and fill-in-the-blank questions, often promote higher-order thinking, they are time-consuming to grade and are often not feasible for large-enrollment courses. Conversely, response-limited items, such as true-false and multiple-choice, can be easily graded but may limit the ability to assess higher-order learning. The variety of question types available allows educators to implement structured assessments that reflect their true learning goals. Key to the effective application of these various question types, is the instructional design of the questions. While learning goals and the taxonomy of learning provide an excellent structure for designing assessment items, the educational impact of any assessment still rests in the content of individual questions.

Resource Links:

• Learning Skills Program: Bloom's Taxonomy
• Learning Domains of Bloom's Taxonomy

References:

• Aiken, L. R. (2000). Psychological Testing and Assessment (10^thEdition). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, R. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
• Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1995). Cognitive Psychology and Instruction (2^ndEdition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
• Chatterji, M. (2003). Designing and Using Tools for Educational Assessment. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Gronlund, N. E. (2003). Assessment of Student Achievement (7^thEdition). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Meaningful Assessment: A Manageable and Cooperative Process. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• McKeachie, W. J. (1999). Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers (10^thEdition). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
• Popham, W. J. (2000). Modern Educational Measurement: Practical Guidelines for Educational Leaders (3^rdEdition). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Trice, A. D. (2000). A Handbook of Classroom Assessment. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

-------------------

Questions concerning the Park University Faculty Development: Quick Tips website should be directed to Dr. Jean Mandernach jean.mandernach@park.edu.

Reference citation:

Mandernach, B. J. (2003). insert appropriate page title. Retrieved insert date, from Park University Faculty Development Quick Tips.

^ Back to the Top

---------------------------------

University Resources