We suggest first reading 1.5 – the general discussion about Bloom’s Taxonomy and the revised ‘new’ taxonomy which is a different model for something different. We recognize the intent of the ‘new’ process model, but prefer to use the complexity model as originally created for assessing the 'what' aspects of outcomes. The six notes in this section are based on a systematic, beginner’s journey into the realm of problem-solving and thinking. It is not what experts do. Neither is it what happens in the real world. And, it is certainly not what individuals do when they do disruptive thinking and what we would considered non-recipe innovation or creativity. From a higher education perspective, the concepts map well onto text-book type questions, assignments, and tightly constrained projects.

Knowledge can be propositional (e.g., facts, laws, theories), procedural (e.g., recipes and algorithms for skills), or what is called acquaintance (e.g., what we know about objects). There are other ways to classify knowledge, but this one will work for us.

You need ‘knowledge’ before you can talk about comprehending, applying, analysing, synthesizing, or evaluating. All of these skills leverage and build off of the knowledge level. Their complexity increases. This is why many programs have factual knowledge oriented courses in the junior years and courses that apply this foundational knowledge in later years. The trick is figuring out what needs to be known at the level of instant recall (e.g., memorization), and what needs to be known about where to find the information that will be useful.

As we noted in the general section on Bloom’s, these various cognitive skills are not linear nor independent. Every decision or act that is based on a cue or trigger has some kind of comprehension, applying what is known, thinking about what to do with the knowledge in this context (conscious or not), and elements of analysis, synthesis and evaluation. We have been doing all of this since birth. It is possible to do all things well, some well, and some not much better than the humble fence post. The difference is the quality, quantity, and type of knowledge and how we have been taught to comprehend, etc. Depending on career choice, the students will be compensated for what is expected to be professional levels of these skills; else anyone off the street would be hired.

The following points should be applicable to both face-to-face and online modes of instruction.

Learning thoughts…

• While the focus is on the facts etc., it is also important to provide a minimum level of instruction relating to the higher levels; comprehension through evaluation. The think-pair-share exercises can be useful when explicitly addressing these other cognitive skills.
• It should be clear in the course the level of comprehension etc. is expected and suitable examples, etc. used. Discussion is needed about where the knowledge fits; how it helps with applying, analysing, etc.
• In theory, the knowledge should be cumulative and retained from term to term and be available to be used when required by the program learning outcomes. Techniques and methods designed to make things ‘stick’ should be used as much as possible.
• It is wrong to equate memorizing with learning. Upon graduation, the students will not need to rely 100% on their memory. Memorized facts is a poor measure of intelligence and skill. It is more important if the students can understand and apply the knowledge and know where to find out more about the knowledge; the stuff they do not need to memorize.

• There are cognitive limits to the number of new facts and new bits of knowledge that individuals can take in at one time. The limit will be different for each student (to some degree). Humans also have a problem learning two things at the same time. If you are using a narrative style or examples, use examples that the students know and already have some knowledge about. If the students are trying to understand a new context or example, there will be difficulty dealing with the desired learning outcome.
• The number of new concepts and facts should be limited and discussed deeper. Teach less, teach better. Focus on the core, threshold concepts, and make sure that the students know where to learn more about the concept, and have the skills to help themselves upon graduation. In an hour lecture, we suggest that 2-3 ‘new’ points are sufficient and that more will be overload. Slow it down, use the time differently.

Assessing thoughts…

• To align with the learning, the assessments should match and probe the expectations for comprehension.
• In junior years, the students will be largely naïve and novice like with respect to their higher level cognitive functions. However, it is still possible to augment simple memorization with short answer questions that allow the students to demonstrate that they ‘understand’ the knowledge to some degree and are not simply copying or regurgitating. They should understand what the knowledge will be used for and why it is important to have it at their fingertips.
• At more senior levels, the breadth and depth of the knowledge can be probed.
• Harder to do at the junior levels, but still possible is to present something that might be wrong or right and ask the students to analyse the given paragraph or solution and point out what is wrong and why. E.g., a fact is not right, two facts are confused might be suitable for junior students. At the senior level, a problem can be given, a solution given and the students asked to dissect the facts and discuss the accuracy and correctness of the knowledge used.
• To provide uniqueness and reduce the opportunity for ‘interesting’ behaviour, you can use special contexts such as zombies, vampires, and use these non-standard situations in their answer. You can also ask students to explain a concept or bit of knowledge to a student in high school or entering the university level. You can ask the students to explain the concept to a 4-5 year old at the beach, or a during an elevator ride. These types of short answer, in situ questions are difficult to game.

Further reading

• Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. A. (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Addison Wesley Longman.
• Koksal, D., and O.G. Ulum (2018). Language assessment through Bloom's Taxonomy. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14, 2, pp. 76-88.