Different Learning Taxonomies Handout
A further training event for new teachers will focus on learning taxonomies. Prepare a handout for the teachers which compares and contrast different learning taxonomies
Compare And Contrast Learning Taxonomies
Used a clear comparison paragraph/ chart / table with specified similarities and differences between the different learning taxonomies
Number Of Taxonomies Compared
Compared more than 3 ( 4 is enough) learning taxonomies with extensive notes about each taxonomy
Different learning Taxonomies: Comparison and Contrast
While developing the teaching curriculum, an educator focuses on particular learning outcomes, including competencies and skills that should be developed. To accomplish this, an educator needs educational aims, goals, outcomes and objectives. These are achieved through learning taxonomies that help educators to create specific skills that need to assessed (Magno, 2011). There are several learning taxonomies that guide educators to develop learning outcomes for the learners. For example, Bloom’s, Bloom’s revised, Finks’ Taxonomy, SOLO, Six Facets of Understanding, De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats, Marzano’s, Dimension of Learning, Stiggins and Conklin’s Taxonomy and Gagne’s taxonomy. This handout will only focus on the four taxonomies: Bloom-revised Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain, Six Facets of Understanding and Fin’s Taxonomy of Significant Understanding and Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO). Comparison and contrast will be carried out to test the effectiveness of the four taxonomies on the new learner’s development.
| Taxonomy | Description | Compare | Contrast |
| Bloom’s-revised | Bloom’s-revised taxonomy is the revised version of the original Bloom. It was revised by Anderson et al. (2001) to capture the contemporary understanding of how new learners learn. The revised model presents six steps of student learning, which comprises of evaluating, analyzing, applying, understanding and remembering. | -Bloom-revised, Six Facets of understanding and SOLO all follow a hierarchy whereby the learning is achieved by following certain steps in order. For example, Bloom’s and Six Facets of Understanding follow six steps, whereas SOLO follows five steps. The three taxonomies present learning as a process that should follow a specific order.
-The purpose of all the four models is to help an educator to create specific learning outcomes. -All four taxonomies define various aspects and layers of knowledge. -The taxonomies recognize learning as a process of remembering or memorizing and evaluating information for the appropriate application. – All the taxonomies have common objectives of guiding course curriculum development, assessments and instructional methods.
|
-Bloom, unlike the other three taxonomies, has action verbs that can be used to develop learning objectives to guide the learner to learn.
-Fink’s taxonomy is not hierarchical like other taxonomies. -Fink’s taxonomy also differs with other taxonomies in that it extends beyond cognitive process to include additional objectives of teaching, including introducing the concepts of changing the learner’s feelings, caring as well as human dimension. -Six Facets of Understanding differ with other taxonomies in that it helps educators to include foundational knowledge while designing imbalanced and superficial understandings-based learning experiences.
|
| Six Facets of Understanding | This taxonomy is based on the perception that when the learner understands, they can explain, interpret, apply, have perspective, empathize and have self-knowledge (Wiggins & McTighe, 2001). It emphasizes the teachers understanding before they can engage in teaching. | ||
| Fink’s | Fink’s taxonomy views learning from the changing perspective. In other words, the model assumes that for learning to take place, the learner experiences a certain change. Fink’s presents learning in six forms: foundational knowledge, application, integration, human dimensions, caring and learning to learn (Fink, 2013). | ||
| SOLO | SOLO presents a systematic way that shows the development of a learner understanding from simple assignments to complex tasks when learning different subjects (Biggs, Edward, & Collis, 1977). It is based on five levels of understanding: prestructural, unistructural, multistructural, relational, extended abstract. |
References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., . . . Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Abridged Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Group.
Biggs, J. B., Edward, A. J., & Collis, K. F. (1977). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The Solo Taxonomy: Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (Educational Psychology). Academic Press.
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. Jossey-Bass.
Magno, C. (2011). A Closer Look at other Taxonomies of Learning: A Guide for Assessing Student Learning. The Assessment Handbook, 5(2011), 50-64.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2001). Understanding By Design. Pearson.