Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Levels of Understanding—A Guide to the Teaching
and Assessment of Knowledge
Charles S. White
To cite this article: Charles S. White (2007) Levels of Understanding—A Guide to the Teaching and Assessment of Knowledge, Journal of Education for Business, 82:3, 159-163, DOI: 10.3200/ JOEB.82.3.159-163
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.3.159-163
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 45
View related articles
ABSTRACT. Traditional education,
employing lectures or telecommunicative
instruction methods, has been very effective
in providing topical facts. However, the
development of student skills and thinking
ability require higher levels of instruction
and more opportunity to practice and apply
acquired knowledge. As students progress
through a particular curriculum, methods of
instruction also change to reflect higher
lev-els of understanding. The author addresses
the issues involved in traditional education
from a historical perspective as well as a
current view of changes in the educational
processes. The author also offers
sugges-tions for change in the classroom.
Key words: knowledge, learning, teaching,
testing
Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications
Levels of Understanding–A Guide to the
Teaching and Assessment of Knowledge
CHARLES S. WHITE
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE–CHATTANOOGA CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE
cholars have characterized learn-ing from the lowest level to the highest. Premier among these typologies is the work of Perry (1968). Perry spelled out 10 basic learning positions starting with basic duality,in which stu-dents believe there is a right and a wrong answer to every question. For these stu-dents, true education is learning what true authority says and maintaining membership of the group (e.g., political or religious) that adheres to that truth. The truth gathered from such a frame-work becomes a basis of morality.
Perry (1968) believed that as students matured they grew in their ability to understand the complexity of the world. In Perry’s typology, more advanced stages of learning led students to under-stand that there is more than just one position of truth. In earlier stages, those holding a view opposite to that of the stu-dent may be viewed as a deviant. These students may be searching for the “cor-rect” answer or may be asking “what does the professor want us to think?”
As students progress further, they come to view some technical academic areas differently. These students believe that experts may have the correct answers in topics such as physics or mathematics, but in other areas, such as English or philosophy, one’s opinion is what matters because there is no “cor-rect” answer. At this intellectual level, students believe judgments about
opin-ions cannot be valid because people have the right to their own opinion. Finally, students may progress to a level of commitment to values that define analysis and evaluation rather than a search for the absolute that previously defined knowledge. Students can under-stand that truthis more than a black and white concept.
Business Education
Business education is concerned with understanding, prediction, and applica-tion. Professors can help students at all levels of Perry’s (1968) typology by dividing the educational objectives of a college curriculum into sequential lev-els for the purposes of instruction. To facilitate this structure of learning, instructors can create educational objec-tives that lead students through a hierar-chy of understanding.
Recitation
At the lowest level of learning is the ability to recite information from lec-tures, books, articles, or other sources. This type of learning demonstrates exposure and familiarity with the mate-rial. At this educational level, the knowledge belongs to the instructors and is on loan to the students. The stu-dents’ primary mechanism of study tends to be repeating information until they believe that intermediate-term
S
VIEWPOINT
memory will maintain the knowledge long enough to survive an exam. It is the method often used in lower-level under-graduate courses. Being able to recog-nize material suffices on true or false and multiple-choice exams.
The major problem with this level of learning is that students may be able to recite perfectly well while not under-standing what they are saying. In fact, all teachers have had situations in which students could say the words quite well but when questioned one-on-one demonstrated confusion about the topic.
Comprehension
Being able to recite does not mean one comprehends. Comprehension implies real understanding, that is, dealing with the whyas well as the what. At this level, students are able to describe the topic without the words of the teacher. Com-prehension implies a level of learning in which students begin to possess the material as their own.
When one comprehends, one is able to include the boundaries of a domain of knowledge into the discussion, which enables students to use contingencies. As students comprehend more, they are better able to see the complexities inher-ent in most theories. Comprehension implies the ability to discuss one’s own feelings about the topic. This level of understanding enables students to par-ticipate in classroom debate. As an added benefit, at the comprehension level, students are better able to remem-ber the material.
Application
A student may be able to understand and explain a break-even graph, a linear regression equation, or a present-value calculation and yet be unable to imple-ment these tools. The next level of learning involves application of knowl-edge. Application without understand-ing can occur only in circumstances that have no complications or relaxation of restrictions; that is, beginning students can only apply technical knowledge by following instructions step by step with-out any deviations from the method.
Application of knowledge requires a student to be able to take concepts and theories and put them to use. The
prob-lems assigned in statistics, finance, pro-duction, or operations management classes are examples of opportunities for students to demonstrate their ability to apply knowledge. Because applica-tion of technical knowledge can fade from one’s memory quickly, repetition is important at this level of instruction.
Analysis
To analyze something is to take it apart and be able to understand all the pieces. Analysis is used on applied knowledge; that is, one analyzes a situa-tion in which the knowledge in quessitua-tion has meaning. It is the ability to diagnose a situation and is often taught in business education through case analyses. Answering the questions of “what is going right” and “what is going wrong” only in light of the relevant theory satis-fies this level of understanding. Deciding when a regression equation, break-even analysis, or present-value calculation is properly applied demonstrates this abili-ty. Analysis is a higher learning level than is application because the particular theory or technique is not cued to the dents. It takes a higher skill level for stu-dents to determine that a company needs to do a break-even analysis than it does for a student to do one when provided with all the necessary information for the calculations.
Beginning analytic training starts by limiting the issues to be discovered. As students progress in their education, the number of issues in analytic exercises can be increased. At a capstone level, analysis requires a student to be able to put together different sets of knowledge into a meaningful whole.
Synthesis
Anyone who has ever worked on machinery knows it is easier to take things apart than to put them back together again. Taking something apart is the process of analysis, whereas putting things back together is the process of synthesis. In educational terms, one must not only know the ele-ments of a model or theory, but also how they could fit together. In a mathemati-cal sense, synthesis is the ability to solve problems not yet presented by the teacher; that is, to be able to take the
ele-ments of the topic under consideration in class and use them in ways not yet seen. Synthesis is the level of true practical-ity because it is the abilpractical-ity to create some-thing new using the knowledge one has acquired. For example, engineers and business operators must be able to create new approaches to problems in success-ful operations. No one asks them to understand a problem, but rather to solve a problem. Synthesis tends to be the domain of upper level and graduate courses in which students have already received significant background work in their area. Courses in theory development and research design are heavily weighted in this method of pedagogy. Students’ innate creativity is the most valuable asset in this method of instruction.
Evaluation
Professors agree that one never really understands a theory or technique until one teaches the subject. A major part of teaching is the evaluation of student work, especially when students take dif-ferent approaches to a problem. At this level of understanding, teachers must be able to evaluate competing ideas on a topic. For example, teachers often have students take different approaches to a case analysis with each position having valid points and logic. Competent eval-uation of students requires teachers to know the material so well that they can judge the work of both positions and defend the assignment of grades.
Teaching Strategies for Level-Specific Education
Alternative teaching strategies are available to accomplish different educa-tional goals. The assumption here is that most students can progress through the taxonomy of educational objectives from the lowest level (knowledge, mem-ory) to the highest level (evaluation). Teachers wishing to provide instruction at different educational levels must, therefore, use different teaching tech-niques (Bloom, 1956). Moreover, evalu-ation of knowledge at different levels requires different methods of testing.
Recitation vs. Comprehension
The most efficient method of teach-ing at the recitation level is lecture with
assigned readings. Large amounts of factual information can be presented efficiently as students find themselves exposed for the first time to the topical material. Students are expected to be able to repeat the material presented in class or discussed in their texts.
However, recitation does not imply comprehension. For example, many experienced statistics teachers have complained that second-semester stu-dents act as though they were not exposed to material in the previous semester because the students recall so little of the information. After passing the class, these students find themselves with little ability to use the knowledge they gained with this method of instruc-tion. To move to the comprehension level of understanding, students must become active in the learning process (i.e., during class, students should be able to discuss with instructors the top-ics they have learned. By randomly selecting students in the class and ask-ing them probask-ing questions about the material, teachers can quickly detect deficits in understanding of material. If the material is well understood, students can answer quickly. When material is not well understood, it becomes imme-diately apparent. If this level of knowl-edge is attained, students are able to dis-cuss material using their own language rather than the language used by the instructor.
Comprehension Versus Application
Students’ understanding the mechan-ics of something does not necessarily imply they can apply what has been learned (i.e., the ability to explain some-thing is not the same as the ability to actually do something). Application courses, clinical experiences, and prac-tica are examples of educational efforts designed to achieve this level of knowl-edge. Students who successfully com-plete this level of education can use the material they have studied.
Within a business context, accounting students should be able to open and maintain a set of books, prepare taxes, and manage cash flow. Marketing majors should be able to prepare a mar-keting plan, develop promotional mate-rials, and select appropriate distribution
channels. Finance majors should be able to compute annuities, develop capital budgets, or select an appropriate finan-cial model for a firm upon graduation. These basic skills are best taught by having students actually accomplish these types of tasks.
Application Versus Analysis
Application implies using the materi-al in a meaningful way. Anmateri-alysis is the ability to understand the relationship between concepts in contrast to under-standing only the concepts themselves. Analysis goes a step further in that stu-dents gain the ability to determine when something does not work and then devise a plan to fix it.
In business school, the analysis level of education generally occurs with the use of case analyses. Students are typi-cally at a more advanced stage of their education when exposed to this type of education having completed introducto-ry or survey courses on the topic. The feature that separates this level of edu-cation from lower levels is that the prob-lem is completely unstructured and often hidden from the students within the minutia of the case. Students are expected to dissect the elements of the scenario presented in the case and deter-mine which of the elements lead to the problem of interest.
However, case studies lack confirma-tion of the diagnosis. Initially, this might appear to be problematic, but this is actually a major advantage of the method. Students in Perry’s (1968) dualist stage expect one correct answer to all problems, which the professor possesses. The real world is more com-plex than this, and, with maturity, stu-dents learn that two different diagnoses can be argued with equal rigor. The proof would lie in the resolution of the case. Cases based on real situations may have a postscript that provides this answer. However, cases that leave the solution hanging are valuable because they can reinforce the concept of com-plexity and multiplicity to students.
Analysis Versus Synthesis
Synthesis implies the ability to put something back together again—a dis-tinctive step beyond analysis. Students
who are able to construct new models or theories demonstrate this level of knowl-edge. Synthesis requires one to be able to create solutions out of the components of the theory that have not been previously demonstrated. Synthetic thinking is demonstrated in these types of projects when elements of knowledge are put together and then tested to advance actu-al theory. For example, students may be asked to create their own theory of moti-vation or marketing paradigm in advanced classes. With advanced train-ing, graduate students can develop this ability. Doctoral students are expected to be fully competent at this level of learn-ing. Typically, a thesis or dissertation represents this level of understanding.
Synthesis Versus Evaluation
The highest level of educational understanding is evaluation. This level allows one to judge the work of others at any level of learning with regard to its accuracy, completeness, logic, and con-tribution. Evaluative skills go beyond determining the correctness or incor-rectness of exams and homework. These skills are truly demonstrated on work at advanced levels, especially with regard to analysis and synthesis of theory. Dis-sertation review and journal editing are examples of this level of knowledge.
Teaching and Testing Strategies
As one moves from the lowest levels of learning to higher levels of learning, student participation becomes a major factor in teaching. At the recitation level of learning, students are passive learners dependent upon the instructor to pro-vide all elevation of emotion in the classroom. Students perceive that good instructors are those who can make material interesting. Responsibility for organizing and presenting information depends on the instructor, whereas stu-dents feel their major responsibility is to memorize material. At this level, stu-dents assume that memorizing material suffices for education. In the students’ minds, facts serve as knowledge.
Testing at this level is often accom-plished with recognition exercises such as true or false and multiple-choice type exams. These exams serve the purpose of low ambiguity (i.e., students cannot
debate an answer if the true or false question goes directly to a fact present-ed in class). Opinion and values are excluded from this type of testing.
At the comprehensive level of learn-ing, short- and medium-length answers combined with complex multiple-choice formats often serve as the medi-um of test material. Students should be forced to use their own language to describe and define the knowledge they have obtained and should not be asked to repeat any information verbatim. Even though the student may be able to repeat verbatim from the lecture or text, forcing them to use their own language allows instructors to detect problems with misunderstanding. This type of testing comes at a cost of expanded grading effort.
The application level of learning is tested with unstructured problems not previously seen in the lecture or in the text. Students are required to determine a solution on their own by using the material they have learned along with mathematical or analytic skills they have developed over the course of their education. This level can be frustrating for students who find the process diffi-cult. When answers do not come easily, beginner-level students often deal with their frustration by resignation. True application-level learning brings with it a sense of tenacity to pursue a solution when not readily apparent. Simple application problems can lead to more difficult applications.
The analysis-level of learning is often tested using a case approach to instruc-tion. Here, students begin to learn the shortcomings of dualistic thinking. Each different case solution can be awarded a high grade if it is based on sound logic, values, and analysis. Beginning application students tend to turn to the teacher for the correct answer. Students not given sufficient structure may at first feel abandoned in the educational process, but in time are able to learn the value of ambiguity.
When grading a case, one should pro-vide both a set of questions students should have addressed in the analysis as well as an evaluation of the logic pro-vided by students in their analyses. Completeness and accuracy also consti-tute a component of the overall weight
given a case evaluation. Creativity and novelty can be used to separate good answers from excellent answers.
The evaluation of synthesis occurs at the highest level of education, typically in the form of a major project, thesis, or dissertation. In these endeavors, stu-dents are tasked with creating new knowledge or technology on the basis of the sum of their educational experi-ences. These types of projects are long-term global exercises in creativity and application.
A Novel Testing Strategy
Students who are able to relate infor-mation at higher levels of learning should receive more credit than do those who demonstrate less ability. Unfortunately, if questions are posed at very high levels of learning, students with less ability may find themselves unable to receive any credit at all there-by underrepresenting their grade. One accepted method to guard against this problem is to have a sequence of ques-tions starting with the lowest levels of knowledge progressing through higher levels. Theoretically, all prepared stu-dents should be able to answer the sim-ple questions and cease to be able to answer questions at their level of under-standing. National entrance tests, such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test, ACT Assessment, Graduate Record Exami-nation, and Graduate Management Admission Test, are built upon this model. This type of exam is acceptable if a student has sufficient time to progress through the simple questions until they reach the more difficult mate-rial. Instructors must also be willing to prepare long and involved exams that tap into these different levels of under-standing.
There is another testing model that meets many of these objectives: the bail-out question technique. This testing technique offers the student two sepa-rate questions on each topic examined. Students are allowed to answer only one of the two questions. The first question tests information at lower levels of learning and may include such language as “list the primary…” or “describe the attributes of….” The second question tests information at the higher critical
thinking levels of application, analysis, or synthesis.
The key to making this system work is that the first question is awarded fewer potential points than is the critical-think-ing question. This limited number of points is prominently advertised in the header of the question. Students should be encouraged to answer the higher-level question if possible, so they may receive a better grade. If, however, stu-dents feel they will do very poorly at the advanced question, they have the oppor-tunity to hedge their grade by answering the lower-valued question. Students understand that a poor answer on either the bail-out question or the full-credit question can result in a failing grade, whereas only the full-credit question can receive a grade of A+if answered per-fectly. The use of this technique when limiting the grade to a Btypically results in roughly half the class electing to answer the noncritical-thinking, or bail-out question.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) of this technique indicated no significant difference in final course averages among students who used the bail-out question versus those who did not. The sample size was based on all students (n
= 212) taking 21 separate exams (478 questions) over a 2-year period. This result was based on two major factors: (a) weaker students who failed to choose the bail-out question often did very poorly on the more difficult ques-tion they elected to answer and (b) many of the brightest students in the sample selected bail-out questions when appropriate and were able to gain the maximum score allowed. This enabled them to protect their overall exam score from a major deduction on a highly val-ued critical-thinking question. The results of this ANOVA indicate that the use of bail-out questions may not increase or decrease exam averages on the whole.
Conclusion
In this article, I outlined a hierarchy of levels of learning and understanding based upon educational theory. As stu-dents progress in academic maturity, they become more able to understand material, making it more cogent and
applicable. Because students have dif-ferent needs as they progress through levels of learning, teachers, in turn, should use different teaching and testing strategies.
Instructors who rely only on lecture methods of instruction run several risks. First and most important, some of their students will not understand the con-cepts being presented even though both teacher and student believe that compre-hension is occurring. Recitation exams may perpetuate the myth of understand-ing. Second, students often get bored with the process unless the instructor finds a way to be entertaining and affa-ble. Finally, students quickly forget the material they have memorized.
A pedagogy based on mixed teaching models that cover a narrow range of learning levels is achievable. Lecture followed by question and answer and
case studies followed by application exercises are examples of pedagogical approaches. More problematic is a class containing students at widely varying levels of understanding. Teachers who go back to the basics bore more advanced students, whereas teachers covering advanced concepts may per-manently lose entry-level students.
Testing is more difficult in this cir-cumstance. I presented a technique to solve this problem. The bail-out ques-tion allows students to select a quesques-tion that addresses their level of understand-ing. Bail-out questions are differentiat-ed from higher level questions by being limited in maximum grade. Both bail-out and regular questions may result in a grade of F, but only the higher-level question can result in a grade of A. My experience has shown that students select a significant percentage of
bail-out questions (52% of 478 questions were answered with bail-out questions) and report favoring the option of a bail-out selection.
NOTE
The author thanks Harvey Brightman of Geor-gia State University for much of the underlying structure in this article. He also thanks Dr. Neil Terry, Cynthia R. White, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Charles S. White, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Department of Man-agement, College of Business, 615 McCallie Ave., Chattanooga, TN 37403.
E–mail: charlesswhite@hotmail.com
REFERENCES
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: Longmans, Green.
Perry, W. G. (1968). Forms of intellectual and eth-ical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
