Seems to me there is a widespread ineffective-practice at many institutions of higher education in course, program, and learning experience designs generally with regard to the use of the cognitive taxonomy as a guide for measurable outcomes.
This ineffective practice stems from a misconception that lower-levels of the cognitive taxonomy are suited best to introductory courses when, in fact, effective design does not imply that occur at all.
Introductory students can “Create” – creation can be scaffolded in a program and in a course; lower levels of Bloom’s (revised or original cognitive taxonomy) are intended as scaffolds not “ends” in instructional designs.
Do you agree or disagree with this assertion? Why/Why not? I look forward to hearing your thoughts and examples of how we can most effectively apply the cognitive taxonomy (i.e., Bloom’s) to the design of measurable learning outcomes and associated assessments.
Johnson, L. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview [SWF Tutorial]. Created for the Colorado Community College System. Available from http://goo.gl/1J11l
Johnson, L. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy: Designing activities [SWF Tutorial]. Created for the Colorado Community College System. Available from http://goo.gl/9qvh8Y