Why I Still Love Bloom But Not His Verbs

I have a confession to make.

I’ve sat in scores of meetings with project stakeholders, painfully agonizing over the verbs to use for defining the objectives of a course. Should we use ‘Develop’ or ‘Construct’? Which one is better – ‘Describe’ or ‘Explain’? Would it be more appropriate to say ‘Classify’ or ‘Categorize’?

You get the idea. After all, objectives define the boundaries of a course, and we don’t want to get them wrong, right?

Yes, but…

It is absolutely important to define clear objectives. For designers, they set the boundaries of a learning intervention and decide on its level of sophistication. While for learners, they help (when presented well) set expectations at the beginning of a course. The catch lies in the phrase “when presented well”.

Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues provided the verbs as a helpful means to decide on the action to describe while defining objectives. However, we sometimes often fall prey to the notion that a verb has to absolutely be defined within the confines of the taxonomy level the course represents, failing which it can mislead learners.

For example, take the verb ‘Describe’. It appears on many levels of the taxonomy – Knowledge, Comprehension, and Evaluation. So, by just looking at the verb, you cannot understand at which level of the taxonomy the course belongs.

I agree that the taxonomy is complex. So while on one hand, there is a group of learning designers who insist on following the listed verbs to the T, there is another group who shuns the taxonomy altogether. This second group prefers to follow two things, not necessarily connected with each other:

1. That the taxonomy can, and should, be broadly classified into two levels – knowledge and performance
2. That all learning interventions, irrespective of type and level, should address performance, and not just knowledge

I agree with both the points above. No arguments there.

However. There is a middle path, which when tread well, can help us deliver courses at the right level and make it challenging and engaging for learners, without getting bogged down by the defined verbs.

The six levels of taxonomy in the cognitive domain are useful for deciding the level at which a course needs to be designed.

learnnovators_blooms_taxonomy

There are times when the fine distinctions between the levels are a useful measure on which to base a learning intervention. Let’s look at these (please note that I’m using the revised taxonomy here, while also providing a reference to the original one):

1. Remembering (Original Taxonomy Level – Knowledge):

Typically, no information should be presented at this level alone. It simply signifies rote learning with no understanding of the information being ingested.

An example of this would be when a person is getting started on the path to becoming a leader, they read quotes on leadership, and are able to repeat them.

2. Understanding (Original Taxonomy Level – Comprehension):

A few things can be taught at this level. Examples include:

a. Procedural information, such as the steps of a process which takes place in another department. The learner is not directly connected with the process, but it is something very useful for the learner to understand.

b. Conceptual information, such as how solar technology works. Again, the learner is not directly connected with applying the information in their day-to-day work, for example, someone in the marketing department of a company that produces solar energy, who is not directly involved with the production, but should be better informed about the company’s business.

The leader-in-the-making has moved one step higher, and she is now able to explain the meaning of the quotes in her own words. Most e-learning falls in this category; we are all too familiar with “By the end of this course, you would have understood…”.

3. Applying (Original Taxonomy Level – Application):

This level is typically at the center of most e-learning design, and for good reason. We want people to be apply their knowledge and skills to their jobs, and thereby showing measurable improvements in performance. This level, in a way, can also be considered to be the holy grail of e-learning, because if a person is able to do their job better as a result of what they learned in the course, then the course can be said to have achieved its goal. But the verbs to be used, that would depend less on the taxonomy and more on the job skills we are trying to impart.

An example of this would be a course that teaches solar technology to engineering students. Here, learners get to apply their understanding of the concepts to build a solar panel or some other equipment.

Back to the leader-in-the-making. She has taken a course on leadership, and she practices by applying the models she learnt in the course in her day-to-day work.

4. Analyzing (Original Taxonomy Level – Analysis):

This goes beyond the application of knowledge in a specific albeit wide set of contexts, and involves breaking down information into parts, or examining it and trying to understand its structure.

Here, the engineering students deconstruct the solar technology that they have learned, and examine its possibilities, applications and limitations.

The new leader is now able to analyze the models she has learnt, deconstruct them, and see the component parts of the whole.

At this point, we get into the realm of Higher Order Thinking, and it is difficult for a standalone e-learning course to transfer skills at this level and above, with the learner bearing more and more responsibility for their own development.

5. Evaluating (Original Taxonomy Level – Evaluation):

At this stage, people are able to validate information or ideas based on a set of criteria. They can present and defend opinions, using evidence as a solid basis for the same.

The leader is in a position to compare and contrast different models, evaluate and make a sound judgement on which ones are better, and for what reasons.

6. Creating (Original Taxonomy Level – Synthesis):

This is the ultimate level of cognition, where people are able to build new structures or patterns on their own based on existing information.

The leader is now an expert in her field, and she can create new models based on her experience and expertise.

While the levels build upon one another, they are not necessarily linear. In fact, many theorists believe that while the first three levels are in sequence, the last three levels exist parallel to one another, like this:

learnnovators_blooms_taxonomy_2

And, a course can be taught at several levels at the same time.

So, while designing courses, make sure to aim for the highest level on the taxonomy ladder that you can possibly go, without getting mired in the actual verbs to use, and you will have a learning experience that is engaging and interesting.

Learning Design Best Principles – From The Learnnovators & Quinnovation Project

learnnovators_quinnovation_workplace-of-the-future

We, at Learnnovators, joined hands with Clark Quinn of Quinnovation to develop a course on ‘Workplace of the Future’, which we recently shared with the learning community free of charge. The links to the course, as well as a series of blog posts by Clark Quinn explaining the underlying process, are provided at the end of this post.

The idea of the project was to develop a course under practical constraints typically faced by learning design and development teams, and show that it is possible to adhere to good principles. So, here they are, the principles that we employed in the development of the course:

1. ACTIVITY-CENTRIC DESIGN

The entire course is decision-based. It is full of practice activities, with minimal content that can be pulled by learners if needed.

Learners who enter the course see some initial context-setting content, and then are placed in a scenario where they need to take decisions to move the conversation forward. The ‘content’ is made available only as reference, and can be accessed if needed (not mandatory). However, the scenarios are challenging enough that learners have to access the content to understand the underlying logic of the decisions they are faced with. The decisions also include misconceptions that are likely to have been entrenched in the minds of learners.

2. THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF CHALLENGE

We believe that the decision points in the scenarios are neither too easy nor too difficult. Learners need to ponder over them to make a choice, and accessing the reference content makes that decision more informed. This engages learners’ intellectual curiosity, motivating them to interact better with the course.

And, the right answer is not too obvious, to make learners want to access the content, in order to be able to take the scenario forward.

3. INTRINSIC FEEDBACK

We’ve added intrinsic feedback at the end of the scenarios; by this, we ‘show’ the consequences of the learners’ decisions once they reach an endpoint. This we provide through a simple description of what happens in the organization a few weeks / months after they reach the end, and follow it up with an explanation why this happened.

4. DURATION OF THE EXPERIENCE

Though this course is on a topic of importance, we didn’t want to make the experience overly long. Hence we stuck to about 30 minutes. This is the duration that a learner would have to spend, in order to get the most out of the course.

5. NO AUDIO

The course does not have audio. We did dabble with the idea of using audio, either for the dialogs or as ambient sounds, but we dropped the idea since we did not see value in it, and also because we were conscious that the course might be viewed in a public environment.

6. VISUAL STYLE

We have used a graphic novel approach for the visuals – it’s new and fresh, and not used enough in e-learning. Moreover, we ensured that we could get a fair representation of characters from different backgrounds and cultures.

7. INTERFACE AND NAVIGATION

We have taken into account that learners are intelligent, and that they will be able to deduce how to navigate the course and interact with the elements. So, while we’ve provided an initial heads up on the navigational elements, we have refrained from indicating, at every juncture, to ‘Click Next to continue’. While we have left it to the learners’ discretion to sense the availability of the Next button and click on it when they want to move forward, we have presented subtle visual cues for other interactions.

The course, in addition to the characteristic navigational ingredients like Menu and Previous & Next, includes a couple of novel elements. These are:

a) My Chat: Through this, learners can track the discussion in the scenario. It provides the dialog that has taken place so far in the form of a chat transcript.

b) My Path: This is an iconic representation of the complexity of the scenario, with a set of dots that changes color as a learner progresses along. This is to indicate to the learner that their path is not linear, and that there are multiple other paths available.

c) Reference: This is the content of the scenario, and is presented as a scrolling document. Learners who access the reference from a point in the scenario are taken to the section of the document that is relevant to the decision point they are in.

The course follows the open navigation model, wherein learners can move freely between the scenarios and the sections.

8. USER TESTING

This turned out to be one of the most critical components of the course design process. The feedback we received from testers (a representative audience group) was deep and insightful, and we were able to make several improvements to the content as well as the structure as a result of this.

Here’s a very brief overview of the underlying process:

– Very often, we diverged and then converged, taking the best of ideas from all quarters and adding them to the course.

– For every objective, we developed the practice first, and then the associated content. If there are multiple practices, then we developed the final, most difficult one first.

– As scenarios got more complex, we made flowcharts in PowerPoint to understand where each link was leading.

– We decided to use Articulate Storyline (the most appropriate tool for development in this case) after careful consideration.

– To ensure that we all had a fair idea of the outcome of a scenario, we decided on a few parameters before starting to write a scenario:

a) The role played by the learner, and who they would be talking to in the scenario
b) The decisions that they would have to make
c) The misconceptions they are likely to have

Here are the links to the four blog posts written by Clark Quinn on Learning Solutions Magazine:
– Post 1 – Deeper Design: Working Out Loud
– Post 2 – Deeper Design: Beyond Traditional Instructional Design
– Post 3 – Deeper Design: Tweaking the Media
– Post 4 – Deeper Design: Putting It All Together
– Post 5 – Course Launch: Learnnovators and Quinnovation Launch Demo Course Based on Learning Design Best Principles

And, here’s the link to the course: Workplace of the Future.