Moving Students From InformationRecitation to InformationUnderstanding: ExploitingBloom's Taxonomy in CreatingScience QuestionsBy Thomas Lord and Sandhya Baviskar

Recent studies have indicated that college undergraduates have retained littleunderstanding of the information in the science courses they have takenwhen they graduate. Science is taught as detailed, factual content andmost students are evaluated by their ability to recall and summarizethe information provided. As such, students concentrate theirstudies on terms and definitions, spending little time on ap-plication and analysis. To correct the problem, instructorsare encouraged to formulate more questions aroundthe mid and upper levels ofBloom 's taxonomy in theexaminations they prepare.

A little over a decade ago,a New York Times articleappeared, alerting readers

%to the fact that more andmore graduates from the nation's col-leges and universities are leaving theiracademies without the ability to useinformation they have learned. Thearticle reported a sharp gap emergingbetween the ability of students to learnbasic principles and their ability toapply knowledge or explain what theylearned (Bloom 1989). Unfortunately,few people in academia took note ofthis finding, and today the situation hasreached a critical level. It doesn't seemto matter from what institution studentshave received their diplomas; graduatesfrom our most elite universities sharethe same difficulty as those from open-

Thomas Lord (trlord@iup.edu) is a profes-sor in the Department of Biology at IndianaUniversity of Pennsylvania in Indiana, Penn-sylvania. Sandhya Baviskar is a student inthe Doctor of Arts program at Idaho StateUniversity in Pocatello, Idaho.

enrollment colleges. Today's baccalau-reate-degree recipients do not developenduring understandings of the subjectmatter they've learned in college.

One of the most revealing stud-ies supporting this issue comes fromHarvard University. In their study onthe university's graduates, MatthewSchneps and Philip Sadler found thatHarvard's best and brightest studentshad enormous misunderstandingsregarding basic concepts in physics,chemistry, and biology. When studentsrandomly selected were asked ques-tions on such topics as the phases ofthe moon, simple electrical circuits, andmirror reflection, they repeatedly couldgive no explanation or they providedplausible but erroneous answers to thequestions (1988). In another study, ascience professor at a midsized, state-supported university, noted that a monthafter completing a general biologycourse, few undergraduates were able toadequately answer questions concern-ing information they had previously

Ilearned in class (e.g., "beside divide,describe what a body cell does during itslifetime"). Even more discouraging isthat many life-science majors revealedhuge misconceptions on such basicbiology topics as how the human bodymakes water, how a plant cell makesenzymes, or what happens during aninflammatory reaction (Lord 2005).

While the fault for the misunder-standings is generally leveled againststudents themselves, the institution'sprofessors should also shoulder theblame. In a traditional college class-room, instructors tend to present largeamounts of factual information by tell-ing students what they need to knowthrough lecture. To evaluate learning,instructors formulate questions basedon the recall and summarization ofthe information they provided earlierin the class. In essence, college stu-dents today are expected to simplyregurgitate the information they havebeen told to learn. This traditional ap-proach to teaching neither challenges

40 JOURNAL of COLLEGE SCIENCE TEACHING

!

students to understand what is beingtaught, nor provides them with an op-portunity to reflect on the informationthey have studied. It is not surprising,therefore, that students are graduatingfrom the nation's universities withoutan appreciable understanding of in-formation for which they have earnedcollege credits. Recognizing this,highly esteemed academic societies areencouraging a modification in the wayinstructors evaluate students, a changefrom evaluating factual content knowl-edge to evaluating understanding.

Interestingly, many of the recom-mendations from these organizationscenter around the way instructors askquestions in their classes and on theirexams (Brualdi 1998). For example, ata recent National Association of Biol-ogyTeachers conference, a presentationby Lord, Baviskar, and Palazzi (2005)centered around converting questionspresently based on nomenclature toa higher level (i.e., application). Theresearchers presented findings that sug-gested such a shift would not only bringabout a change in the thinking of stu-dents but also a change in the way pro-fessors approached instruction. Insteadof describing detailed content duringclass through lecture, professors wouldchallenge students to holistically usethe information being presented withthings they know. According to studies,the majority of college professors basetheir ideas about what students knowfrom answers on written examinationspresented at various times during asemester. While professors with smallenrollment classes may assess studentlearning through subjective meanssuch as essay exams or face-to-facediscussions, the majority of collegeand university professors administerlengthy objective examinations basedon the content they presented duringlectures. Black and Williams (1998)point out that this is not only an ef-ficient way to evaluate a large amountof information in a short period of time,but teaching and testing the factualcontent is an extremely convenient andless time-consuming way to evaluate.Wiggens and McTighe (1998) alsofound that the majority of professors

construct their exams with the typesof questions that are the easiest totest and grade. Rarely is knowledgeinvolving understanding, application,and attitudes measured. Even in higher-level courses, the researchers found thatquestions requiring analysis, assess-ment, and fusion were rarely asked.Bruner and Shore (1996) suggest thatthe tendency toward ease and expedi-ency of assessing students is why mostcollege students, when they graduate,possess only a marginal understandingof what they have learned.

About Bloom's taxonomyIf one accepts the idea that teaching forunderstanding rather than knowledgewill bring students to a higher level oflearning, the question of a hierarchi-cal plan for conceptualization arises.This would be a monumental task foran educator to undertake; fortunately,such a sequential scheme already ex-ists. In 1956, a team of theorists led byBenjamin Bloom developed a seriesof six learning levels for categorizingdegrees of abstraction of questions(Bloom et al. 1956). The series is basedon degrees of difficulty and includesthe recall or recognition of specificfacts, procedural patterns, and con-cepts that serve in the development ofintellectual abilities and skills.

The levels of Bloom's taxonomycan be thought of as a hierarchical tri-angle (Figure 1). Elements of the firstlevel (Knowledge) may assist with theunderstanding of the next one (Com-prehension). The learning actions ata certain level in the taxonomy helpthe instructor develop a level of mas-tery for each student (in a particulartopic) and question cues/verbs help indeveloping appropriate questions forthat level (Figure 2). Thus, Bloom'staxonomy is a tool to design, assess,and evaluate student learning.

The taxonomy is useful in an-other way: It allows the instructor togauge the level of questions asked onthe exams. For example, if a questionon the test asks students to identify astructure defined in a sentence or shownon a graphic, the instructor knows thequery fits in level one, Knowledge. If,

on the other hand, students are askedto interpret a graph or predict whatwould happen if a certain event was tocontinue, the instructor would realizethe question would require more think-ing of students and reside in level two,Comprehension. Similarly, a questionrequiring students to clarify or illustratea statement would be even more dif-ficult to answer and push the level ofdifficulty to level three, Application.Questions in the three highest levelsare the most difficult to answer. Levelfour, Analysis, urges students to breakdown what is asked and examine themeaning of the various sections, whileSyntheses (level five) encourages stu-dents to combine question elements tosolidify understanding. Evaluation, thesixth and most difficult level, requiresthat students assess the understand-ings and make recommendations forits utilization.

Couching questions withBloom's hierarchyThe best way to explore couchingquestions with Bloom's taxonomyis to create a series of queries in thetaxonomy based on a single sciencetheme. In that way, students can seethe relationship between the questionand the taxonomic level. For example,let's suppose an instructor is interestedin learning the depth of student under-standing on the five tastes sensationsin one's mouth. The instructor mightstart with the statement, "Humans eata huge variety of things yet they haveonly five distinguishable taste regionson their tongue (sweet, sour, salty, bit-ter, and umami [taste sensation thatverifies important amino acids])." Withtaste reception understanding in mind,the instructor can then construct testquestions concerning taste that fit eachcategory of Bloom's scheme.

KnowledgeIn this level, students are required torecall facts pertaining to the topic thathas been taught. The instructor wouldask students to describe, list, or namethe factual information they've learnedin class. In our taste-receptor plan thequestion could be, "List the five taste

MARCH/APRIL 2007 41

Bloom's triangle with levels and cue words.A

Fecld paticit

it, oa

•Defn, Io•t Ju,taly,trait-que, SlFati r-lad ,

cia rme dcu t aCoFclto

Ace p,,r Al [ie,llnt tFate,

Decret, aw , c- re, grade, iotttvr

C I .t,cr• o • d, colnploe, Inalke. st wtte,

Aad:,ri awk,aarat, cattgonilesl tIlatol inr,

-abiR- U. r mTun dea ,CllJe.•opl J1 r

Er icia.es,hitt,tc t 5 il *F 'a r tn l zawctahtes,

iFa rIeticttos,,tr no itn

Fp!r�icia

on rniF

r

revises,stn,- -•e, .ub,&t,,%e• Midates, -oýn,ý m,pop

formul11ate ' lg, ase be cIllect, c-ntrut,r yld,dbg,stu

oetal"nr adllll, a •llsify, 1 ake ape r tvd oint c,l( hfi, r . rh, -×nie"rek, down, •on-oIt,,, d,i,gra , , dffultentra, d ýoalmmts 'Ism h ,

fcc-,,%, ,lu,l,,ten,h#•, lioliKt -06 o ml *, int, -uL p oIti-•, e z ea ts>udvdes, distInish, inrlyze'a•,t Ij • -,oatgc ct a rinlent, test, <mm,¢n••t

en.r d"if sCt -×m o aea•M lle luiy •Sn, euk,dd[? u

om.e, eiwa •te, , b* oocr I1O"t l disct,1- 1xmn,tk p, divi de, snn liny, readson, in cl de In 'r t' a ud

6-.fiTotlT rctice, illustrate, op -elte, s,h,,lul, lietch. letite, p•epxc, sh nilae, inlunce, epas •f"A "s d iiter, mrciclates, asseses, chat , -11l ný Is ýOr#lts-,ICntlumt, cndoe,eort,dtlm e• • lo{•i¢o•l, ta ish¢.ex OerJ i n•J ent• ls eu, ind ni m, tut, peraonmh- iar1-5 e, rd ts l p•s

D Wcoer '•) I/ iKd d w,dalte,Pol r.I • c',- = • u I' I,-r,•r l• ,•e o,n• , ro , 1týzl, Iove adI • -p y s,a.i

P.T in,,ho, pt-,j,tTon, ma ,,u of, take up, P-e-eve pnerod es, p,.)e-I,, c po I �e [ t• , rF-)ts, 0s..... s.. es 1 •, he,a, e ,u3,

C sifies, citr, ers , L di i estiroltes, explains, ene ies, give na es ,rr en -t paraFr ra, t ir ow,-ptiM n , consume e+oit prte, ooni,p o it-ply, and irio ipatee rtee try, devote, hand, , , ti ion pA, d

it j I Irde , elly ct,t - , ionfy, en , t e Ipre tl It e tr t ru d e , c o et , n rt it l i ah r o te c e p j i t t

.. ak. es u f laJrs resiae (n, -ww rd,), num'arnes "rcs, unde "'Cnd, o""re"S"ae dics,dsde lcgl e xI n xrs,ietf,Ic•e exi,iv w toovr itrrt, d,I-,a, resp,,nd, prod,ot, d1fnad, ditigus,ýo '1" -. e, gnrl, n!fser, co pr , aaye xcx,#nf••nom ih tae nth xrs,il,lh

rvert, ntul ct, dispoy, o n , redi d c , dfnatyze tc, , t,rnfe r to i ra•ee ter h ,tc, -it., def e der t r Fi t, It c te, t e-r ie, i ie f n d ie irt, ci, Fet, P it nItrr h5st ca, IFos crlange, FdF Fr nop , , te, n of ,i i ,

"t ie ten ri d, Fe Ft l,1 ori e daw ite, select, identify, know, detine i i nScnil, Frcie trimr d mibe anmrats irmeoriis aes i stztha aes ed,rcrs,rprJcs chs,st ie, iew T ret, r t r it m hos,a iifte <iid tiou Fax,•hL th

Pc- t , n m ,o' • m t i k ut e r e p at, r s t , d e o , _ ot, r n a td " l ,o ucha w oe d nn e , p e c k [, q n e W el, lo s e r,t e y,m e m ori e se o g n z, R1 1 i t, n am, s t , d a , w n , s k t l ,t n w e i e e o i e

repeaterre, l e et rera, nn,i rIeat, ete, 6 inte, Fatel , idefi_ , rontrie, caner, d r,r ejaaiute s,i e Ftif iath c ite cFi r in1rodu F i li, eler, riteir' r o I tr w I crf ai a.1ý11 tarn, ac it in ro F pr e Ftn d c te ri eac ic ti mi Ii ann uric rF orini ci i F, run i F i l" "I sIt r I,

sensations in the mouth." The Bloomteam believed that this level of thinkingwould be the easiest for the instructorto construct and score; as such, hediscovered that questions of this typeencompass over 50% of exam ques-tions (Huitt 2004).

ComprehensionIn the second taxonomic level, studentsare required to reword and explainin a meaningful manner somethingthey have learned. Descriptors suchas translate, construe, interpret, andextrapolate are commonly used at thislevel. In our taste-receptor example,a question appropriate to this levelwould be, "Explain where the five tasteregions reside on your tongue; includein your description the reception zones

42 JOURNAL of COLLEGE SCIENCE TEACHING

where taste overlap is likely to occur."At this level, students reveal an under-standing of relationships and are ableto alter and advance information abovethe way it was presented. The Bloomteam recognized this as being more dif-ficult than the first level and discoveredthat about 20% of the questions ontypical science examinations fall intothis category (Huitt 2004).

ApplicationIn the third level, students are requiredto think holistically about the conceptslearned and apply them to novel situ-ations. In our taste-receptor example,an Application-level question could be,"Locate the various taste receptors onthe tongue using the labeled liquidsprovided." In this category, students are

able to exploit information and put toaction the knowledge they've learned.Bloom believed about 12% to 15% ofthe questions asked on college examsare of this type (Huitt 2004).

AnalysisHere, students are expected to breakideas into component parts and uncoverthe unique characteristics of what theyhave been taught. Terms like deduce,scrutinize, and survey are frequently en-countered in questions in this category.In our taste-receptor example, studentsmay be asked to "Determine the loca-tion of the various taste-receptor siteson the tongue for each of the unlabeledsolutions provided." This is a far moredifficult task than those given in thepreceding categories because students

I

must recognize a sensation they aren'ttold the name of. This requires a neuraldissection of a gustatory experienceas students encounter interpretation.Thinking such as this requires divis-ible screening of the thought process,and because of its difficulty, is usedinfrequently in test construction.

SynthesisStudents who function at this levelare able to pattern knowledge in new,original ways and exploit their creativ-ity. Terms like formulate, generate, andrestructure are often found at this levelof the taxonomy. In our taste-receptorplan, a question at this level could be,"Describe a gustatory sensation expe-rienced from the blend of two differenttaste receptions." Here students mustcombine what they experience intowhat is considered a novel sensation.Such original thought resides high ona learning hierarchy and is seldom seenon course exams.

EvaluationAt this level, course instructors expectstudents to make judgments aboutwhat they have learned based on eitherexternal or internal criteria. Studentsmust prioritize their understandings

as they form their conclusions. AnEvaluation-level question in our taste-receptor plan would be, "According toresearch by the American Obesity As-sociation, approximately 127 millionpeople in this country are seriouslyoverweight and the problem continuesto grow larger every year. Discuss howgustatory reception and obesity arerelated." Here students are forced toappraise their insights as they relatetheir understandings to a real-wordproblem. Such analysis is extremelydifficult for students.

ConclusionsBecause professors tend to stress thefactual content of what is being taughtto students, most of the questions onthe tests belong to the Knowledge andComprehension levels of the taxonomy.Anderson and Sosniak (1994) noted that60% of questions on our college tests areKnowledge level, 20% Comprehension,and 15% are Application level. Analysis-level questions are seldom seen andSynthesis- and evaluation-level ques-tions account for only 3% of examquestions and therefore make up onlya small segment of college tests (Figure3). Actually, some researchers feel that,instead of acting alone, the higher-

ordered thinking levels often merge.Lawson (1990) writes that thinkingcomes together as a continuum in theupper segments of Bloom's levels. Ac-cording to Lawson, in bright individu-als, analysis often serves to order andstructure a problem. After this, synthesisis employed to generate solutions, andevaluation assesses the suggested solu-tions against the objectives identified inthe analysis phase.

It is generally believed by thetest creator that, while short-answerand multiple-choice questions can beused efficiently to test the lower levelsof learning behaviors, they are notsufficient to assess the higher levels.However, objective probes, such asmultiple-choice questions, can bewritten for the Analysis, Synthesis, andEvaluation categories. For example,at the Analysis level, students can beasked to select the least important in-cidence from a list of occurrences thatwould influence the outcome of a ma-jor storm. Under the Synthesis level ofthe taxonomy, science students couldbe asked, "Which of the following ele-ments could be chemically constructedfrom the combination of all the gasesof the earth's atmosphere?" For theEvaluation level a question might be,

The learning level in Bloom's classification with corresponding actions and question cues.

BlomsleelP te tilacio ('o tu en LIStOl LIsveb

Knowledge Recall the memorized information

Application Apply rules or concepts to a problem

Synthesis Create something new fromI different concepts

List, define, label, identify, name,find, write, state, describe, tell

Apply, calculate, solve, show,illustrate, construct, classify

Create, design, invent, plan, propose,devise, compose, construct

MARCH/APRIL 2007 43

"From an assessment of a collision of ameteor the size of a VW bug traveling150 mph striking the Mojave Desert,which answer below would best de-scribe the size of the dust plume cre-ated by the impact?" Questions such asthese, while difficult to construct, canbe graded as efficiently as test itemsfrom the lower categories.

But changing the difficulty levelsof questions instructors ask on examswon't alter the situation by itself.Along with creating more challeng-ing test items, instructors should alsochallenge the way students thinkduring class. Instructors must movefrom covering course information forstudents through lecturing to helpingstudents discover course informa-tion through inquiry. Contemporarystudents want to be active, ratherthan passive, in the assimilation ofinformation. As such, instructors mustmove from lecture-based to inquiry-based lessons, challenging studentsto develop the information for them-selves in ways they can grapple with

44 JOURNAL of COLLEGE SCIENCE TEACHING

and understand it. If they're used tobeing challenged during the lessonseach class period, students will haveless problems handling the challengesposed by upper-level questions inBloom's hierarchy. Instructors need,therefore, to teach the way they test.

Developing questions based onBloom's hierarchy would be a produc-tive way of reversing the dangeroustrend of graduating college studentswith a large number of misunder-standings in courses they have taken.Shouldn't we expect our collegegraduates to know more than justthe superficial aspects of the world'sbasic natural processes? How muchlonger should we graduate studentswith a marginal understanding of whatthey've taken in college? The answersmay not be as difficult as we mightpresume; all it will take is the waycollege instructors teach and questiontheir students. Albert Einstein oncesaid, "I never teach my pupils; I onlyattempt to provide the conditions inwhich they can learn." m

Bloom's hierarchy triangle showing percent usage of levels on exam questions.

Evaluation 2%

Analysis 2%

Comprehension 20%

ReferencesAnderson, L., and L. Sosniak. 1994.

Bloom ' taxonomy: A forty-yearretrospective. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Black, P, and D. William. 1998. As-sessment and classroom learning.Education Assessment: Principles,Policy and Practice 5 (1): 7-74.

Bloom, A. New York Times. 1989.Lack of knowledge understand-ing in nation's college graduates.February 26.

Bloom, B. M. Englehart, E. Furst, W.Hill, and D. Krathwohl. 1956. Tax-onomy of educational objectives:The classification of educationalgoals. New York: McKay.

Brualdi, A.C. 1998. Classroom ques-tions, ERIC clearinghouse onassessment and evaluation. ERICDocument Reproduction no. ED479 391. Thesis report, Universityof Illinois.

Bruner, G., and B. Shore. 1996. Cul-ture in mind: Cognition, cultureand the problems of meaning. Bos-ton: Oxford University Press.

Huitt, W 2004. Bloom et al.'s tax-onomy of the cognitive domain.Educational psychology interac-tive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta StateUniversity Press.

Lawson, B. 1990. How designersthink. The design process demys-tified. Oxford, UK: ButterworthArchitecture.

Lord, T. 2005. Understanding, thegoal of inquiry instruction. Pre-sentation at the National As-sociation of Biology Teachers,Chicago.

Lord, T., S. Baviskar, and L. Palazzi.2005. The importance of couch-ing questions in inquiry teach-ing. Presentation at the NationalAssociation of Biology Teachersconvention, Milwaukee, WI.

Schneps, M.H., and P.M. Sadler. 1988.A private universe, minds of ourown. Pyramid Films.

Wiggens, G., and J. McTighe. 1998.Understanding by design. Al-exandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum De-velopment.

0

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Moving Students From Information Recitation toInformation Understanding: Exploiting Bloom’s Taxonomyin Creating Science Questions

SOURCE: J Coll Sci Teach 36 no5 Mr/Ap 2007

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.nsta.org/college