Week 6: Domains Of Learning And Writing Learning Objectives
With the mid-term assignments and examination cleared, I finally have time to blog (it has been almost a month since I last blog!).
~
There are mainly three domains of learning; cognitive, affective, and psychometric. As Benjamin Bloom believes that instructors should have a goal in mind when planning a lesson, the three domains are based on the premise that the categories are ordered in degree of difficulty and that each category must be mastered before progressing to the next. Skills in the cognitive domain revolve around knowledge, comprehension, and “thinking through” a particular topic. According to Bloom, there are six major categories; knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Traditional education tends to emphasize the skills in this domain, particularly the lower-order objectives.
Somewhat less intuitive as compared to the cognitive domain is the affective domain. Skills in the affective domain describe the way people react emotionally and their ability to feel another’s pain or joy. Basically, if the teaching purpose is to change attitudes/behavior rather than to transmit/process information, then the instruction should be structured to progress through the five levels in the affective domain; receiving, responding, valuing, organizing, and characterizing.
Lastly, the psychomotor domain includes physical movement, coordination, and use of the motor-skill areas. The suggested areas for use are speech development, reading readiness, handwriting, and physical education. The education system in Switzerland tends to emphasize psychomotor development through the introduction of vocational trainings in the nation’s education curriculum. Although Bloom never did manage to create subcategories for skills in the psychomotor domain, other educators have since created seven levels in this domain; perception, set, guided responses, mechanism, complex overt responses, adaptation, and origination.
In evaluating Bloom’s taxonomy, I feel that there is limited need for the use of a taxonomy in the psychomotor domain. After all, in an industrial context, the exact skills required to perform on the job are usually identified directly from the job and task analyses. In addition, Bloom’s taxonomy presumes that logic and rationality can pursue cause and effect to the root of a problem. Yet is this necessarily true? Science has proven that there are severe and well understood limits to the chain of rationality and that the predictability of most systems in which we participate in, diverge exponentially with time, resulting in increasing unpredictability. Still, it is undeniable that Bloom’s taxonomy serves as a useful conceptual framework for the evaluation of a learner’s progress in the development of a skill.
Dear Bridget,
Again, the Derridian deconstruction is evident in your reflection!
Bloom’s taxonomy aids in helping instructional/learning designers write behavioural objectives for the purpose measuring the outcomes of learning; its principal benefit really is just that. Most textbook have LO/BOs if you noticed?
I don’t understand this statement: “After all, in an industrial context, the exact skills required to perform on the job are usually identified directly from the job and task analyses.”
The output of task analysis are written behavioural / performance objectives, which would then make reference to the three domains taxonomies to help the instructional/learning designer write behavioural / performance objectives that can be measured?
Indeed, there is an assortment of three main taxonmies that serves as tools to help instructional/learning designers write objectives:
Bloom for cognitive domain
Krathwohl for affective domain
Harrows for psychomotor domain
Alfred Low
March 13, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Hi Alfred,
Hmm is that a good or bad thing?
I agree that Bloom’s taxonomy orientates educators as to “what to look for”, but it does not aid educators with regard to how to instruct or as to what methods should be used (perhaps as you’ve highlighted that that is not its principal benefit). In the industrial training context, the development of instructional objectives usually follows the output-input route, starting from the analysis of the job into the tasks to be performed. As such, this helps to outline the essential physical skills or knowledge needed. In turn, no taxonomy is needed to classify the types of skills or knowledge to be taught since the exact skills required to perform on the job are usually identified directly from the job and task analyses.
Bridget Chang
March 22, 2009 at 1:03 pm