Any who are planning to submit a proposal for a new course or change to existing
course should note that said proposals be accompanied by a statement of student
learning OUTCOMES along with the sample syllabus that meets the Senate criteria.
These should explain in a set of “bullets” what it is students will come to KNOW by
taking the course; what they should be able to DO as a result of taking the course; and
how the course will enhance their ability to THINK.
The statement of student learning outcomes is a SACS mandate, and is required.
Many thanks for your cooperation on this matter.
Associate Dean for Academic Programs
Here’s a brief example of what SACS has in mind:
TA 267: LIGHTING AND SOUND TECHNOLOGY
Student Learning Outcomes for Course Objectives
Upon completion of this course, a student should be able to:
Explain the function of lighting and sound in the visual and aural communication of
dramatic ideas
Demonstrate the proper use and maintenance of typical lighting and theatrical sound
systems
Analyze given photometric data to determine the correct use of instruments in a variety
of situations
Apply the information to solve basic lighting and sound problems in theatrical situations
Information from two helpful web sources follow.
http://www.acu.edu/academics/adamscenter/resources/coursedev/taxonomies.html#bloom1
Cognitive Domain – Bloom’s Taxonomy
Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational
Goals (New York: David McKay, 1956).
Knowledge is defined as the remembering of previously learned material. This may
involve the recall of a wide range material, from specific facts to complete theories, but
all that is required is for the student to bring to mind the appropriate information.
Knowledge represents the lowest level of learning outcomes in the cognitive domain.
(Teaching/Course) Objectives: Know common terms, specific facts, methods,
procedures, basic concepts, principles.
Verbs for expressing (student) learning outcomes: define, describe, identify, label, list,
match, name, recall, reproduce, select, state.
Comprehension is defined as the ability to grasp the meaning of material. This may be
shown by translating material from one form to another (words to numbers), by
interpreting material (explaining or summarizing), and by estimating future trends
(predicting consequences or effects). These learning outcomes go one step beyond the
simple remembering of material, and represent the lowest level of understanding.
(Teaching/Course) Objectives: Understand facts and principles. Interpret verbal material,
charts, graphs. Translate verbal material to mathematical formulas. Estimate future
consequences implied by data. Justify method and procedures.
Verbs for expressing (student) learning outcomes: convert, defend, distinguish, estimate,
explain, infer, paraphrase, predict, rewrite, summarize.
Application refers to the ability to use learned material in new and concrete situations.
This may include the application of such things as rules, methods, concepts, principles,
laws, and theories. Learning outcomes in this area require a higher level of understanding
than those under comprehension.
(Teaching/Course) Objectives: Apply concepts and principles to new situations. Apply
laws and theories to practical situations. Solve mathematical problems. Construct charts
and graphs.
Verbs for expressing (student) learning outcomes: change, compute, demonstrate,
discover, manipulate, prepare, produce, relate, show, use.
Analysis refers to the ability to break down material into its component parts so that its
organizational structure may be understood. This may include the identification of the
parts, analysis of the relationships between parts, and recognition of the organizational
principles involved. Learning outcomes here represent a higher intellectual level than
comprehension and application because they require an understanding of both the content
and the structural form of the material. Differentiate.
(Teaching/Course) Objectives: Recognize unstated assumptions and logical fallacies in
reasoning. Distinguish between facts and inferences. Evaluate the relevancy of data.
Analyze the organizational structure of a work.
Verbs for expressing (student) learning outcomes: break down, diagram, differentiate,
discriminate, distinguish, outline, point out, relate select, separate, sub-divide.
Synthesis refers to the ability to put parts together to form a new whole. This may
involve the production of a unique communication (theme or speech), a plan of
operations (research proposal), or a set of abstract relations (scheme for classifying
information). Learning outcomes in this area stress creative behaviors, with major
emphasis on the formulation of new patterns of structures. Integrate.
(Teaching/Course) Objectives: Write a well-organized theme or give a well-organized
speech. Propose a plan or create a new work or writing, music, art. Integrate learning
from different areas into a plan to solve new problems. Formulate or develop new
schemes for classifying.
Verbs for expressing (student) learning outcomes: compile, compose, create, devise,
design, generate, modify, organize, plan, rearrange, reconstruct, relate, revise, rewrite,
write.
Evaluation is concerned with the ability to judge the value of material (statement, novel,
poem, research report) for a given purpose. The judgments are to be based on definite
criteria. These may be internal criteria (organization) or external criteria (relevance to the
purpose), and the student may determine the criteria or be given them. Learning
outcomes in this area are highest in the cognitive hierarchy because they contain elements
of all of the other categories, plus conscious value judgments based on clearly defined
criteria.
(Teaching/Course) Objectives: Judge the logical consistency, the adequacy of
conclusions, the value of a work by use of internal criteria, the value of a work by use of
external standards.
Verbs for expressing (student) learning outcomes: appraise, compare, conclude, contrast,
critique, justify, interpret, relate, support.
file://///as.uky.edu/as/Admin/rhanson/share/Course%20Schedules/BloomsRevisedTaxonomy_files/Bl
oom'sTaxonomyVerbs.htm
Bloom et al.'s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain
Citation: Huitt, W. (2004). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology
Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved [date], from
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/bloom.html
Return to | Overview of the Cognitive System | EdPsyc Interactive: Courses |
Beginning in 1948, a group of educators undertook the task of classifying education goals
and objectives. The intent was to develop a classification system for three domains: the
cognitive, the affective, and the psychomotor. Work on the cognitive domain was
completed in 1956 and is commonly referred to as Bloom's Taxonomy of the Cognitive
Domain (Bloom et al., 1956). Others have developed taxonomies for the affective and
psychomotor domains.
The major idea of the taxonomy is that what educators want students to know
(encompassed in statements of educational objectives) can be arranged in a hierarchy
from less to more complex. The taxonomy is presented below with sample verbs and a
sample behavior statement for each level.
LEVEL
DEFINITION
SAMPLE
VERBS
SAMPLE
BEHAVIORS
KNOWLEDGE
Student recalls or
recognizes
information,
ideas, and
principles
in the approximate
form in which they
were learned.
Write
List
Label
Name
State
Define
The student will
define
the 6 levels of
Bloom's
taxonomy of the
cognitive domain.
Student translates,
comprehends, or
interprets
COMPREHENSION
information
based on prior
learning.
Explain
Summarize
Paraphrase
Describe
Illustrate
The student will
explain
the purpose of
Bloom's
taxonomy of the
cognitive domain.
Student selects,
transfers, and uses data
and principles to
complete a
problem
Use
Compute
Solve
Demonstrate
Apply
Construct
The student will
write an
instructional
objective for each
level of Bloom's
taxonomy.
APPLICATION
or task with a
minimum of direction.
ANALYSIS
Student
distinguishes,
classifies, and
relates
the assumptions,
hypotheses,
evidence,
or structure of a
statement or
question.
SYNTHESIS
Student originates,
integrates, and
combines ideas
into a
product, plan or
proposal that is
new
to him or her.
Create
Design
Hypothesize
Invent
Develop
The student will
design a
classification
scheme for writing
educational
objectives
that combines the
cognitive, affective,
and psychomotor
domains.
EVALUATION
Student appraises,
assesses, or
critiques
on a basis of
specific
standards and
criteria.
Judge
Recommend
Critique
Justify
The student will
judge the effectiveness of writing
objectives using
Bloom's taxonomy.
Analyze
Categorize
Compare
Contrast
Separate
The student will
compare and
contrast
the cognitive and
affective domains.
In general, research over the last 40 years has confirmed the taxonomy as a hierarchy
with the exception of the last two levels. It is uncertain at this time whether synthesis and
evaluation should be reversed (i.e., evaluation is less difficult to accomplish than
synthesis) or whether synthesis and evaluation are at the same level of difficulty but use
different cognitive processes. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revised Bloom's taxonomy
and placed evaluating prior to creating. In my opinion, it is more likely that
synthesis/creating and evaluation/evaluating are at the same level. Both depend on
analysis as a foundational process. However, synthesis or creating requires rearranging
the parts in a new, original way whereas evaluation or evaluating requires a comparison
to a standard with a judgment as to good, better or best. This is similar to the distinction
between creative thinking and critical thinking. Both are valuable while neither is
superior. In fact, when either is omitted during the problem solving process, effectiveness
declines (Huitt, 1992).
Synthesis
Evaluation
Analysis
Application
Comprehension
Knowledge
In any case it is clear that students can "know" about a topic or subject at different levels.
While most teacher-made tests still test at the lower levels of the taxonomy, research has
shown that students remember more when they have learned to handle the topic at the
higher levels of the taxonomy. This is because more elaboration is required, a principle of
learning based on finding from the information processing approach to learning.
References



Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and
Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York:
Longman.
Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of
educational Objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive
domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.
Huitt, W. (1992). Problem solving and decision making: Consideration of individual
differences using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Psychological Type, 24,
33-44. Retrieved June 2004, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/papers/prbsmbti.html
| Internet Resources | Electronic Files | Additional articles | Additional books |
Return to:



Overview of the Cognitive System
EdPsyc Interactive: Courses
Home Page