Preface
S. EVALUATE
6. CREATE
5.2 COMPLETED TAXONOMY TADLE FOR HYPOTHETICAL
S E C T I O N 111
The Taxonomy in Use
C H A P T E R 6
Using the Taxonomy Table
In this major section we demonstrate how educators can use the Taxonomy Table to help teachers and other educators in at least three ways. First, it can help them gain a more complete understanding of their objectives (both those they choose for themselves and those that are provided by others); that is, the table can help educators answer what we refer to as the "learning question"
(see page 6). Second, from this understanding, teachers can use the table to make better decisions about how to teach and assess their students in terrns of the objectives; that is, the table can help educators answer the "instruction question" and the "assessment question" (see pages 7-8). Third, it can help them determine how well the objectives, assessments, and instructional ac- tivities fit together in a meaningful and useful way; that is, the table can help educators answer the "alignment question" (see page 10). In this initial chap- terwe address these questions in the context of an example that involves the teaching of science to illustrate how using the Taxonorny Table can help educators.
USING THE TAXONOMY TABLE IN ANALYZING YOUR OWN WORK
Before we revisit the Taxonomy Table and explore how it can be helpful, we have an important ward for teachers who are planning to use the framework to guide the development of curriculum units: Your use of the framework will be less complex than what is presented in this and the following chapters be- cause we are analyzing units prepared by others. This requires us to take the stance of an observer attributing intended meaning to objectives, instructional activities, and assessments. The result appears complicated because we make hypotheses about what was meant and then we have to check them against other evidence for confirrnation.
As an example, we interrupt the narrative of Chapter 8, the first vignette, with analyses that make trial inferences about what Ms. Nagengast, the teacher, meant by certain actions so that we can relate them to the Taxonorny. If Ms. Nagengast had done the analysis herself, the vignette would have looked quite different and been much simpler. lt would also have been less instructive about the Taxonomy frarnework, however (which is why we didn't present it
95
96 Section IIl The Taxonorny in Use
that way). The trial inferences illustrate the distinctions among categories and show how the various categories are used.
If she were doing the analysis herself, Ms. Nagengast would have an inter- nal idea of what she is seeking to teach. Then the framework would become a reference to use as she develops the unit. As part of the unit development process, she would reflect on her actions and decisions by answering questions such as those that follow.
"In stating my objective, do the words I use describe what I intend?" A teacher may use the word "explain" when she does not mean "to construct a causal model" (our definition). Rather, she might mean interpret or summa- rize. Although all three of these cognitive processes are in the category Under- stand, the choice of one over the other has different implications for instruction and assessment. Using the Taxonomy's terms can add precision.
"Is the objective that can be inferred from my instructional activities con- sistent with my statement of the objective?" When bath objectives and instruc- tional activities are translated into the Taxonomy framework, da they point to the same types of knowledge and the same cognitive processes? Several factors can guide a teacher's choice of instructional activities. Are students interested in them? Da they enjoy them? Are they likely ta engage in them? Do I have the resources I need to support them (e.g., the equipment needed for a laboratory experiment)? If activities are selected mainly on these criteria, their link with the stated objective may became eroded. Thus, inferring objectives from in- structional activities and relating them to the intended objective are the means to ensure that instructional activities are "on target."
"Are my assessrnents valid?" When one classifies the assessments in the Taxonomy framework, do they align with the stated objectives? At the very least, validity means that the assessment used by the teacher provides him or her with infarmation about how weil the students achieved (or are achieving) the objective. lnferences about objectives based on assessments can come from two saurces. The first is the actual assessment tasks (e.g., test items, project di- rections). This source is sufficient when select-type formats with correct an- swers are used (e.g., multiple choice, matching). The second source is the crite- ria used to score or evaluate student performance on the assessment tasks (e.g., scoring keys, rating scales, scoring rubrics). This source becomes necessary when extended-response formats are used (e.g., essays, research reports). The question here is whether inferences based on the assessments lead back to the stated objectives.
USING THE TAX0N0MY TABLE IN ANALYZING THE W0RK 0F OTHERS When anyone uses the framework to analyze the work of others, they encounter the same camplexities we faced in aur vignette analyses. Teachers m.ay be handed objectives (e.g., state or local standards) or assessments prepared by others (e.g., statewide or standardized tests). They may be asked to analyze an- other teacher's units or conduct observations in fellow teachers' classrooms.
These analyses all require attributions of intent, which are difficult when objec-
Chapter 6 Using the Taxonomy Table 97
tives lack important words or phrases or when peripheral words or phrases are misleading. Even the key words and phrases do not always mean what they seem to mean. In addition, words (i.e., the statement of the objective) and ac- tions (i.e., the instructional activities and assessments related to the objective) may be inconsistent. For all these reasons, placing an objective in the Taxonomy Table requires that one determine the intentions of the teacher [or author(s) in the case of materials prepared by others] in relation to the meaning of the objec- tive, the purpose of the instructional activities, and the ahn of the assessments.
On page 34, we stated that the use of multiple sources of information is likely to result in the most valid and defensible classification of objectives. In the next section we begin to explore why this is so.
THE TAXONOMY TABLE REVISITED
The two-dimensional Taxonomy Table, shown earlier as Table 3.1, is repro- duced on the inside front cover of this book. Tables 4.1 and 5.1, which sunuri.a- rize the knowledge and cognitive process dimensions, are printed on the front and back covers, respectively and on the next page. We encourage you to refer to these tables while reading the remainder of this chapter.
THE LEARNING QUESTION
Let us begin with a seemingly straightforward objective: "Students should leam to use laws of electricity and magnetism (such as Lenz' law and Ohm's law) to solve problems." To place this objective in the Taxonomy Table, we must examine the verband noun phrase in relation to the categories of the table. Specifically, we must relate the verb, "use," to one of the six major cogni- tive process categories and the noun phrase, "laws of electricity and magnet- ism," to one of the four types of knowledge. The verbis fairly easy: "use" is an alternative name for implement (see inside back cover), which is associated with the category Apply. With respect to the noun, laws are prindples or generaliza- tions, and knowledge of principles and generalizations is Conceptual knowledge.
If our analysis is correct, then, this obj~ve should be placed in the cell of the Taxonomy Table that corresponds to the intersection of Apply and Conceptual knowledge (cell B3; see Table 6.1. Note in Table 6.1 that the four types of knowl- edge form the rows labeled A through D, and the six processes form the columns labeled 1 through 6. A cell can thus be designated by a letter and a number to indicate its intersection of a row and a column). Now we have an- swered the "leaming question." We want students to learn to apply conceptual knowledge.
In this analysis we relied on knowledge subtypes (e.g., knowledge of princi- ples and generalizations) and specific cognitive processes (e.g., implementing}
rather than on the four major types of knowledge and the six cognitive process categories. Based on our collective experience, we believe subtypes and specific processes provide the best dues to the proper placement of objectives in the Taxonomy Table. Note also that we based our decisions on assumptions we