Loading ...

Resources and References | Learning Outcomes at Seneca | Seneca College

Home » Spaces » Learning Outcomes at Seneca » Articles » Resources and References
Learning Outcomes at Seneca

Leave Space :

Are you sure you want to leave this space?

Join this space:

Join this space?

Edit navigation item

Required The name that will appear in the space navigation.
Required
Required
Required The url can point to an internal or external web page.
 
Login to follow, share, and participate in this space.
Not a member?Join now
Resources and References

Resources and References

 /5
0 (0votes)

Resources

  1. A Short Primer for Writing Learning Outcomes by Valerie Lopes

    Whereas we focus more on the Cognitive Domain in this section, the primer will give a brief introduction to the Psychomotor Domain and the Affective Domain. Separating the three domains has been criticized, as they are more intertwined than isolated in their characteristics. However, more attention is generally given to the Cognitive Domain.

  2. Common Problems with Learning Outcomes by Valerie Lopes

    This document is designed to be used in conjunction with the Learning Outcomes Primer. It explains the common problems associated with learning outcomes and offers examples and solutions.

  3. A Model of Learning Objectives by Iowa State University Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching

    This document offers a summary of the Knowledge Dimension and the Cognitive Process Dimension as represented in Bloom’s revised taxonomy, as well as a three-dimensional representation, developed by Rex Heer, which provides examples of learning outcomes from each section.

  4. A longer piece on the Taxonomy of Bloom by Pedro de Bruyckere

    In this piece, de Bruyckere discusses why the triangular representation of Bloom’s taxonomy is problematic and contributes to our notion of a false hierarchy. He draws from the work of Anderson and Krathwohl, as he clarifies our misunderstandings of the Taxonomy.

  5. Retrieval Practice and Bloom’s Taxonomy: Do Students Need Fact Knowledge Before Higher Order Learning? By Pooja K. Agarwal

    Authors Educational Impact and Implications Statement: This study demonstrates that students’ higher order learning increases most from higher order retrieval practice, or no-stakes quizzes with complex materials that engage students in bringing what they know to mind. Although fact quizzes were beneficial for fact learning, they did not facilitate higher order learning, contrary to popular intuition based on Bloom’s taxonomy.

    You can also find a Seneca summary of this paper here:

    Seneca’s Summary of Pooja’s paper

  6. HEQCO’s Guide to Developing Course and Program Learning Outcomes by Jess McKeown

    This guide provides information on how to develop both course and program learning outcomes.

References

Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the student does. UK: Open University Press. Heer, R. (2012).

Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning.

Krathwohl, D. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice 41 (4).

Lemov, D. (2017). Bloom’s Taxonomy – That Pyramid is a Problem.

McMahon, T., & Thakore, H. (2006). Achieving Constructive Alignment: Putting Outcomes First. Quality of Higher Education, 3, 10-19.

Potter, M. K. and Kustra, E. (2012). A Primer on Learning Outcomes and the Solo Taxonomy

Image Credit:

Resources and References photo by Sylvia Yang on Unsplash

Comments (no comments yet)