UP Teaching & Learning Community Blog

helping students

By

Lesson Planning: At the Intersection of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Knowledge Dimensions

Revisiting Bloom’s Taxonomy

In the 1950’s Benjamin Bloom and other researchers collaborated to create what is known as Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive processes. This has been revised over the years and includes today six cognitive dimensions:

  • Remember: recall facts and basic concepts (e.g., define, list, state)
  • Understand: explain ideas or concepts (e.g., describe, explain, summarize)
  • Apply: use information in new situations (e.g., solve, complete, change)
  • Analyze: draw connections among ideas (e.g., contrast, categorize, connect)
  • Evaluate: justify a stand or decision (e.g., criticize, defend, prioritize)
  • Create: produce new or original work (e.g., design, modify, write)

The accompanying verbs can be used to develop and organize learning goals and objectives for our curricula, courses, and daily lesson plans. Many UP faculty already use Bloom’s Taxonomy as a guide for planning, but we can enhance the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy by considering our objectives through the lens of knowledge dimensions that Anderson and Krathwohl added to the taxonomy in 2001. The four dimensions are:

  • Factual knowledge (basic elements to learn in the discipline)
  • Conceptual knowledge (interrelationships between basic elements within a larger context)
  • Procedural knowledge (methods in the discipline)
  • Metacognitive knowledge (awareness of how learning work in relation to one’s self)

Anderson and Krathwohl developed a matrix for combining cognitive processes and knowledge dimensions that can be adapted when planning courses and lessons. As faculty, we can adapt this matrix in our own lesson planning. Here’s an example from a 300-level applied linguistics course that I teach in the Department of International Languages and Cultures.

Basic concept: Individual differences in language learning

Knowledge Dimension: Factual knowledge

Bloom’s Taxonomy Cognitive Process: Remember (Related actions verbs: define, list, state, recall, identify)

Learning Goal: Students can accurately define individual differences and list examples.Writing assistance working with student

Assessment: Students take a low-stakes quiz in which they define individual differences and provide examples they recall from the reading and group work activity.

Learning Experiences: 

  1. Students read section on individual differences in How Languages are Learned respond to reading prompts before class.
  2. In class, students work in groups to identify individual differences in written profiles of learners and present their findings.

Intersecting with multiple knowledge dimensions

As faculty, we can also run concepts and theories we teach through both multiple knowledge and cognitive process dimensions as we plan instruction. Let’s take, for example, the social cultural theoretical perspective of second language acquisition from the same applied linguistics course

Factual dimension / Remember

Instructor provides learning experiences so that students practice recalling definitions of terms and characteristics and elements of the theory.

Conceptual dimension / Understand

Students participate in learning experiences that guide them to start explaining principles and models of the social cultural perspective. It’s important to note that at this level, the students are not just restating an author’s or instructor’s explanation; that would be remembering. Rather, they are using concepts, terms, and paraphrasing to explain the concept or theory.

Procedural dimension / Analyze

Eventually, students point out passages in a research text that indicate the linguistics researcher is writing from the social cultural perspective of second language learning. They are using their knowledge of the theory as an analytical tool.

Metacognitive dimension / Apply

Finally, the instructor can work with students to develop and apply motivational and language learning strategies that are based on a social cultural perspective of second language learning.

The above processes can also be reorganized into a class lesson planning tool.

Application in your teaching

The combination of Bloom’s Taxonomy and knowledge dimensions create a powerful approach for your faculty toolbox in support of our efforts to provide the excellent undergraduate education opportunities to our students. For more about deploying Bloom’s Taxonomy and the four dimensions of knowledge, check out Laurie Richlin’s Blueprint for Learning: Construction College Courses to Facilitate, Assess, and Document Learning (2006), one of the sources of today’s TLC blog entry. If you would like to explore in more detail using dimensions and Bloom’s Taxonomy verbs in a lesson planning form, download this MS Word version.

Jeffrey White directs the Learning Commons in the Shepard Academic Resource Center in Buckley Center 163, where he trains tutors to reach Level 1 of the International Tutor Training Program Certification. He also teaches German, an applied linguistics course, and a preparation course for study abroad in the Department of International Languages and Cultures. Jeffrey is currently the president-elect of the Northwest College Reading and Learning Association. He is happy to meet over coffee or lunch to discuss course and lesson design, training, and teaching in higher education and can be reached at white@up.edu.

By

“…and I was happy not to finish what I had intended.”

Last week, Lars Larson challenged us to integrate interleaving into our courses, basing his proposal on principles found in Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel’s Make it Stick (2014). One simple approach to interleaving is to bridge the introduction of material over two classes while also working on a different topic or concept. Although I know to do this, I sometimes fall for trying to package an important concept into one class session. This occurred last week in my Maximizing Study Abroad course. I had planned to have students explain and apply material from a book chapter on Milton Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) through discussion and in-class group work. Since we had just returned from spring break, I also used the beginning of the hour for students to recall what they had been learning prior to the break. This took a bit longer than I expected, as did our group work, and by the end of the hour, we were not done with my lesson plan. As I gathered my things at the end of class, I realized how happy I was not to have finished my intended plan. I could now interleave the material by having students read over the week for the next topic on making cultural inferences and then guiding students the next week to recall Bennett’s DMIS and continue committing it more deeply to memory through elaboration and application.

But why interleave learning? The authors of Make it Stick cite studies that indicate the benefits of interleaving for retrieval of past learned material and developing the ability to discriminate between different kinds of concepts and problems. Interleaving our subject matter also supports effortful learning and what they refer to as “distributed practice” or learning that is spaced out over time. The opposite of distributed practice is massed practice, which includes trying to learn material in one block, as in my original lesson plan, or through cramming, which unfortunately is likely to happen on campus for some students in about a month. James Lang (2016) also discusses interleaving in his recent Small Teaching and cites supporting research findings from math and language learning. He suggests models for shifting from blocked class sessions to interleaved class sessions. Again, the key to interleaving is not finishing a topic or concept before introducing another. For example (Lang, 2016, p. 79):

From Blocked Class Sessions

Monday: Topic A, Problem-Solving Session

Wednesday: Topic B, Problem-Solving Session

Friday: Topic C, Problem-Solving Session, Quiz

To Interleaved Class Sessions

Monday: Topic A, Problem-Solving Session, Topic B

Wednesday: Topic B, Problem-Solving Session, Topic C

Friday: Topic C, Problem-Solving Session, Review or Quiz

Lang notes that students may perceive interleaved learning as moving more slowly, but he cites both laboratory and classroom research that indicates better retention and recall among learners who practice interleaving. Applying interleaving also promotes relating concepts to each other in the classroom and through assessments.

Like the authors of Make it Stick, Lang also promotes frequent low-stakes quizzing and other retrieval practices, such as the following quick classroom assessment techniques:

  • Opening questions that prompt students to remind us what we were working on in the last class session;
  • Closing activities such as a minute paper in which student list key take-aways or their own questions from the day;
  • Closing a session through a short quiz or solving a final problem;
  • Eliciting responses that connect the new topic to some other aspect of the course material.

By engaging students in retrieval practice within an interleaved classroom, we will increase the likelihood of their ability to recall and discriminate concepts, connections, and applications of the material we teach into the future.

As we embrace Lars’ challenge from last week, we can use some of the above approaches to integrate interleaving into your course and lesson plans. For example, when I meet with my Maximizing Study Abroad class next, we will (1) finish some work on Bennett’s intercultural sensitivity scale, (2) interleave it with questioning how it might connect to stages of cultural adjustment, and then (3) move on to the first stage of learning about making cultural inferences.

If you would like to discuss interleaving teaching and learning, please feel free to contact me at white@up.edu.

Jeffrey White is an instructor of German and the Learning Commons administrator in Buckley Center 163. To discuss with Jeffrey how your students can practice and enhance their learning the Learning Commons, contact him at x7141.

By

Student Athlete Mental Health: Are Sports Special?

a basketball hoop seen from below and behindDo student-athletes tend to have more mental health problems than the general student population, fewer mental health problems, or similar mental health problems? Last Spring, when introducing a speaker talking to UP student-athletes about the particular dynamics of mental health for athletes, I asked a version of this question to our UP varsity athletes. The question is one I also discuss in my PSY/SOC 453 class on ‘Psychosocial Aspects of Sport and Physical Activity’ and it turns out to be surprisingly difficult to answer with research.

Most basic data finds athletes report fewer mental health concerns than comparable non-athlete populations, but researchers generally assume that athletes underreport mental health concerns because of sports culture – high-level athletes are often socialized to be tough, competitive, and averse to admitting what could be perceived as a ‘weakness.’ Though sport culture is changing some, we are still much more likely to hear about famous athletes taking time off for physical injuries than for psychological ones.

So I was both surprised, and somewhat impressed, when a large proportion of the UP student-athletes I surveyed by show of hands last Spring thought athletes were more likely to experience mental health concerns than the general population. I was impressed because our athletes were willing to admit that the pressures and cultures of sport are not always as healthy as we might hope – and that the path of athletic excellence can indeed involve significant mental health challenges.

I was reminded of this experience recently while reading a 2017 book by ESPN journalist Kate Fagan titled What Made Maddy Run: The Secret Struggles and Tragic Death of an All-American Teen. The book tells that story of Madison Holleran – a student-athlete at the University of Pennsylvania who tragically took her life as a 19 year old first-year college student despite many external appearances of ‘having it all.’ The book, and a thoughtful long-form article on the ESPN web-site titled ‘Split Image’, discuss ways Holleran devoted so much of herself to excellence in athletics, academics, and with friends (at least partially through a carefully cultivated social media presence) that when she achieved her dream of becoming an Ivy League athlete she decompensated in isolation. She made tentative efforts to reach out to friends, family, counseling services, and coaches – but mostly she started to feel as though her inner turmoil and despair were unredeemable failures. To an outsider it seemed she was good at almost everything she did, but inside she didn’t feel good enough.

Madison’s Holleran’s story is not just about sports, but it does say important things about the relationship between sports culture and mental health. Student-athletes often invest massive amounts of their selves and their identities in being good at sports. Those who succeed get many benefits from that investment, but they also experience costs – they often feel a constant pressure to get better and be the best, they sometimes lack the autonomy to make their own decisions and change directions in their lives, and they don’t always have opportunities to explore identities outside of sports that might actually balance their development into healthy adults.

Over the last few years at UP I’ve learned about several ways our athletic department tries to care for the mental health of student athletes who may have concerns; I hope to discuss some of those ways in a follow-up post soon. For now, however, it is worth emphasizing to UP faculty and academic staff who interact with student athletes that mental health concerns can affect even those who seem the strongest. Student athletes often have to fight against the stigma in sports culture against openly acknowledging mental health concerns, but many should and do take up that fight.

*/ Featured Image by MontyLov /*

By

Is There Such a Thing as a “Helicopter Professor?”

We’re on the other side of Fall Break, bracing for the tsunami that is the end of the semester, and working really, really hard. Really hard. Some colleagues have said it can feel like they are working harder for their students’ success than the students themselves. This might be a good time to reflect on the emerging phenomenon of the “helicopter professor.” Just as “helicopter parents” tend to hover near their children and strive to prevent their experiencing any kind of failure–and therefore deprive their children of the life lessons that recovering from failure can bring about– diligent professors may be on the road to helicopter status as instructors  if they can answer “yep, always” to these questions:

  1. Am I always available (24/7) to clarify criteria and answer questions about the assignments I give?
  2. Do I provide micro-level feedback on multiple drafts of student work?
  3. Do I make it impossible for students to earn low grades in my courses?
  4. Am I constantly exhausted by efforts to be present to and affirm students regardless of their actual performance on academic tasks?

Of course, we want our students to flourish, and UP faculty rightfully take pride in being invested in their success here and beyond. There’s no question it’s possible to do too little for students; but if you find yourself even a little resentful at the relative balance between your effort to teach and students’ apparent efforts to learn, it might be worth taking a deep breath and asking yourself if you are doing too much to ensure academic success and depriving your students of the benefits to be derived from a well-earned failure. Living through a D or an F in an atmosphere that supports your efforts to get back up and try again–and perhaps even to learn that you are a worthwhile person deserving of respect even after you bombed an assignment or missed a deadline–might be every bit as important a learning outcome as anything else found on our syllabi.

If you’d like to read some more on the potential downfalls of helicopter professoring, check out this article by Kristie McAllum (2016)– Managing imposter syndrome among the “Trophy Kids”: Creating teaching practices that develop independence in millennial students.Communication Education, 65 (3), 363-365.