Editorial

Teaching Learning Strategies: Connections to Bloom’s Taxonomy

In the April 2014 Journal of Food Science Education editorial, Dr. Shelly J. Schmidt emphasized the point that “We need to im- plement effective teaching practices to fully engage our students in the course content (be the best teachers we can be) AND we need to intentionally instruct our students on how to get the most out of studying (be involved in explicitly teaching our students effective and efficient study skills)” (Schmidt 2014a). Tradition- ally, we think of study (or learning) skills as time management, good note-taking during class, doing assigned reading, organizing notes, learning to outline, etc. However, one important question we should ask ourselves is: Are study skills specific to the cognitive domain of learning? The cognitive domains of learning, from least to most abstract, were categorized by Benjamin Bloom and his team of theorists (Bloom and others 1956): knowledge; compre- hension; application; analysis; synthesis; and evaluation. It would make sense that study skills are related to the cognitive levels of course objectives. For example, study skills at the knowledge level might involve the use of self-study quizzes to learn facts, and to start to make connections among the facts (for example, causes of enzymatic browning). The study skills needed at the knowledge level would be different from those needed at the synthesis and evaluation levels, where students use critical thinking to determine why a specific phenomenon is occurring (for example, devising experiments to test the efficacy and safety of several different an- tioxidants to reduce enzymatic browning). Therefore, if there is evidence that study skills are related to the cognitive level, then the next question is which learning techniques should we teach at each level?

The Need to Teach Study Skills There are publications in the literature that support Dr.

Schmidt’s statement that we need to teach skills to our students to facilitate their learning. These reports emphasize the following three points.

(1) Learning is improved when study strategies are explicitly taught in content courses, including metacognitive strate- gies, such as writing reflective journals and developing in- dividual learning contracts (El-Hindi 1997; Chiang 1998; Arnott and Dust 2012; Askell-Williams and others 2012). Chew (2014) defines metacognition as self-awareness, a “person’s awareness of his or her own thought process. In the case of learning, it refers to a student’s awareness of his or her own level of understanding of a concept.” Peirce (2003) and McGuire (2013) point out that many high school stu- dents study by rote memorization, and that it is the main study skill they bring to college. To make matters worse, college-level science courses are often taught only as fac- tual information—instructors present factual information in their lectures and test the students using questions where

students need to recall and summarize the information that was presented in class. Consequently, upon graduation, stu- dents retain little of the information that they “learned” because they never really understood or reflected on the material (Lord and Baviskar 2007).

(2) Learning strategies are diverse. Students need to know that they have choices as to which learning strategy they choose to use. They can choose a specific strategy and apply it in different contexts to improve their learning (Peirce 2003; Chew 2014).

(3) Students need to monitor and assess their application of learning strategies (Peirce 2003; McGuire 2010). Peirce (2003) mentions that part of metacognition awareness for students is setting goals, using learning strategies to reach their goals, monitoring progress toward those goals, self- assessing the effectiveness of learning strategies in reaching their goals, and then making adjustments in learning strate- gies in response the self-assessment.

How to Teach Learning Skills The 50-min presentation

There have been reports suggesting how to teach learning skills, particularly at the undergraduate level. Cook and others (2013) report that one 50-min presentation on learning skills early in the term can cover teaching students about:

(1) Metacognition. The learning strategies include paraphrasing and rewriting lecture notes, working on homework prob- lems without using an example as a guide (that is, solving problems without the help of an external aid), previewing material before class, group study, and pretending to teach information to a real or imagined audience.

(2) Bloom’s Taxonomy. Most students are not aware of different levels of learning, and once they are exposed to Bloom’s tax- onomy, students are better prepared to check their learning levels. They then understand what their instructor means when s/he mentions “higher-order thinking.” Remember that up to now, most students are not aware that there is more to learning than memorization!

(3) The Study Cycle. The last concept that students are intro- duced to in this session is the Study Cycle (preview before class, attend class, review after class, study, and assess learn- ing). The figure describing this cycle is in Cook and oth- ers (2013) and was reprinted with permission in Schmidt (2014b).

Timing and tips Cook and others (2013) offer the following schedule and recom-

mendations to facilitate the introduction and utilization of learning skills:

C© 2014 Institute of Food Technologists R©

doi: 10.1111/1541-4329.12043 Vol. 13, 2014 • Journal of Food Science Education 59

Editorial

(1) Give the first exam as early as possible in the term. Typically students will be studying by memorizing the material and will find that they do not do well on the exam.

(2) Follow the first exam with the 50-min learning skills pre- sentation outlined above.

(3) Don’t judge the students’ potential based on the first exam (consider not even counting it for the final grade). Encour- age students to utilize the learning skills introduced in the 50-min presentation.

(4) Provide motivation to use the learning strategies by sharing individual student improvement (without giving names).

Zhao and others (2014) emphasized the importance of intro- ducing learning strategies early in the term and also early in the students’ college experience, which will give students the best chance for success in the course and the opportunity to apply the skills to other courses in their program. Cook and others (2013) and Zhao and others (2014) documented student success in be- ginning undergraduate chemistry courses and shared some of the positive feedback from students related to learning strategies.

Which Learning Techniques Should We Teach at Each Cognitive Level?

This discussion leads to some questions that we should ask our- selves. Are we giving our students guidance on how to learn? If not, then what do we perceive to be the biggest challenges in teaching students to learn effectively? If we already teach study skills, then what are some of the techniques that we have taught or are thinking of teaching in our courses? Are these learning skills appropriate for the cognitive level of the course objectives? Do they help students to apply new skills, such as using their new knowledge and/or analytical skills to solve a new problem? Do they help students to better comprehend the material?

I have two personal examples of study techniques that appear to relate to the cognitive level of learning.

(1) Knowledge and comprehension levels. For a large, 300- level undergraduate, nonmajors human nutrition class that I taught for many years at the Univ. of Washington, I dis- tributed a set of study questions about a week prior to each exam. I suggested that students write answers to the ques- tions, working either alone or with other students. Students were allowed to ask about the study questions during re- view sessions held prior to each exam, but they were told to expect me to ask them for their answer first! Students commented that if they answered the study questions, it seemed to help them to do better on exams compared to when they did not have access to study questions (or did not answer them).

(2) Synthesis and evaluation levels. At the Univ. of Illinois, I had the opportunity to teach a required graduate course, “Sem- inar in Foods” (FSHN 593), for five semesters. The course objectives were to acquire knowledge and gain professional skills in communication, collaboration, and team-building that would help students in the remainder of their time in graduate school and in their future careers. The main pur- pose of the required course in our graduate curriculum was to give students an opportunity to develop skills in orally presenting topics in food science at different cognitive lev- els and in different venues. Students gave different types of presentations of increasing length: impromptu talks; three images (title, introduction, and data slides) of their research;

a demonstration that was suitable for a 4th grade class that involved using food; and a presentation about a current controversy in food science and/or human nutrition. For points toward their final grade for the course, students were given a rubric to evaluate: (1) other students during practice sessions outside of class (six during the semester); (2) other students during their in-class presentations (15 during the semester); and (3) their own presentations (self-evaluation). While evaluating others, the students were able to observe first-hand the oral communication skills that were effective and those that were not. Besides learning how to construc- tively critique others, it was predicted that students would apply their observations to their own presentations, that is, they would utilize a study skill where they critiqued others to contribute to their own self-improvement. Their self-evaluation gave students the opportunity to review and reflect on their own performance, and to suggest improve- ments for their next presentation. The process of students giving oral presentations and evaluating others is at the top (evaluation/creating) of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

I would like to encourage you to share your thoughts on this topic and/or to provide examples of study/learning skills that you teach in your undergraduate and/or graduate courses. Please feel free to e-mail your thoughts as a letter to the editor (send to Dr. Shelly J. Schmidt [[email protected]]); write an editorial and send to Shelly; post on the Education, Extension and Out- reach Discussion in the IFT Community on ift.org; or e-mail me ([email protected]). I look forward to hearing from you!

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Dr. Shelly J. Schmidt and Dr.

Saundra Y. McGuire for their helpful suggestions.

References Arnott E, Dust M. 2012. Combating unintended consequences of in-class

revision using study skills training. Psych Learn Teachnol 11(1):99–104. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2012.11.1.99. Accessed July 12, 2014.

Askell-Williams H, Lawson MJ, Skrzypiec G. 2012. Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction in regular class lessons. Instr Sci 40: 413–43. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9182-5.

Bloom B., Englehart M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (eds.). 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.

Chew SL. 2014. Helping students to get the most out of studying. In: Benassi VA, Overson CE, Hakala CM, editors. Applying science of learning in education, infusing psychological science into the curriculum. Division 2, American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C. p 215–23. Available from: http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php. Accessed July 12, 2014.

Chiang LH. 1998. Enhancing metacognitive skills through learning contracts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED425 154.

Cook E, Kennedy E, McGuire SY. 2013. Effect of teaching metacognitive learning strategies on performance in general chemistry courses. J Chem Edu 90(8): 961–7. dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300686h.

El-Hindi AE. 1997. Connecting reading and writing: college learners’ metacognitive awareness. Develop Edu 21(2):10–7.

Lord T, Baviskar S. 2007. Moving students from information recitation to information understanding: exploiting Bloom’s Taxonomy in creating science questions. J Coll Sci Teachnol 36(5):40–4.

McGuire SY. 2010. Available from: http://www.slideshare.net/ccharles/become-an-expert-learner-dr-saundra- mcguire-lsu-october-2010. Accessed July 12, 2014.

60 Journal of Food Science Education • Vol. 13, 2014 Available on-line through ift.org

Editorial

McGuire SY. 2013. Teaching metacognitive learning strategies to individuals or groups: a procedure that works! Available from: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd= 1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.byui.edu%2FDocum ents%2Finstructional development%2Fdocuments%2FMcGuire%2520-% 2520summary%2520-%25204%2520pp%2520SYM%2520suggestions.doc &ei=SmG1U4aKAYSKqgb1m4CQCQ&usg=AFQjCNGq3l0pNM2czx B02VLzLLWRa0Ahgg&bvm=bv.70138588,d.b2k. Accessed July 3, 2014.

Peirce W. 2003. Metacognition: study strategies, monitoring, and motivation. Available from: http://academic.pg.cc.md.us/�wpeirce/ MCCCTR/metacognition.htm. Accessed July 12, 2014.

Schmidt SJ. 2014a. Editorial: implications of the “division of labor” view of teaching and learning. J Food Sci Edu 13(2):23. doi:10.1111/1541-4329.12032.

Schmidt SJ. 2014b. Editorial: what students do to learn really matters. J Food Sci Edu 13(3):33–4. doi:10.1111/1541-4329.12036.

Zhao N, Wardeska JG, McGuire SY, Cook E. 2014. Metacognition: an effective tool to promote success in college science learning. J Coll Sci Teachnol 43(4):48–54.

Faye M. Dong Associate Editor

Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Available on-line through ift.org Vol. 13, 2014 • Journal of Food Science Education 61

Copyright of Journal of Food Science Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Writing Learning Objectives A well written objective describes what learners will know, be able to do or understand as a result of completing a unit within a course. Each unit-level learning objective:

• Describes the supporting skills, knowledge, and attitudes learners will have when the unit is completed.

• Describes learner performance (not the instructor's assignments, learning plans, or instructional strategies).

• Begins with an action verb describing what the learner will be able to do upon completion of this course.

• Is measurable and observable.

• Reflects a level of accomplishment that is appropriate for the degree level and program affiliation of the learners and the course.

In addition, a clear, concise, well-written objective answers the following questions:

1. What? (action statement)

2. Why? (standard)

3. How? (condition)

When writing unit-level and supporting objectives, be sure to ask:

• What is the overall goal of the unit?

• What are the 3–5 supporting tasks will learners need to complete to achieve the overall unit objective?

• For each objective: what will learners know, do, or understand as a result of completing the unit? Why will they know, do, or understand it? How is the condition satisfied?

• Does each objective begin with an action verb?

• Are the verbs used to write the objectives appropriate for these learners in this degree program? Bloom’s (1956) Taxonomy of Cognitive Domains provides a framework for selecting appropriate verbs based on the level of learning. More information on Bloom follows this section.

• Is my objective SMART?

o Specific. An objective should not contain multiple objectives in one statement. If it does, break it down.

o Measurable. Can the behavior be observed and evaluated?

o Achievable. Can these objectives be achieved in the context of the course?

o Realistic. Is it reasonable to expect learners to achieve the objective?

o Timely. Does your objective statement include some sort of expectation about when the objective will be achieved? (In a unit objective, one may assume this to be by the end of the unit.)

1

Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain Benjamin Bloom, a noted educational psychologist, worked with other educational experts to develop a classification of levels of intellectual behavior important in learning. Bloom and his team identified six levels within the cognitive domain, ranging from simple recall at the lowest level, to evaluation at the highest level. They are Evaluation, Synthesis, Analysis, Application, Understanding, and Knowledge.

Bloom’s Taxonomy is an excellent tool to guide the construction of competencies and objectives. Using the taxonomy helps assure the appropriate alignment between the levels of the learners, the course, and program and degree expectations.

Make sure learners have mastered content in the lower levels before teaching and testing at higher levels. For example, to write an analysis-level course, be sure learners possess (or will learn) the appropriate Knowledge-, understanding-, and application-level content prior to being tested at the analysis level.

Bloom’s Taxonomy Verbs The following table shows a variety of verbs that map to the six levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Level Verbs

Knowledge: Remembering or recalling appropriate, previously learned information to draw out factual (usually right or wrong) answers

Cite, Count, Define, Describe, Draw, Enumerate, Find, Identify, Index, Indicate, Label, List, Match, Meet, Name, Outline, Point, Quote, Recall, Recite, Record, Repeat, Reproduce, Review, Select, Sequence, State, Tabulate, Tell, Trace, View, Write.

Comprehension: Grasping or understanding Add, Conclude, Elaborate, Interact, Rewrite the meaning of informational materials Approximate, Contrast, Estimate, Locate,

Subtract Articulate, Convert, Explain, Observe, Summarize Characterize, Defend, Express, Paraphrase, Trace, Cite, Describe, Extend, Picture, Translate Clarify, Detail, Extrapolate, Predict, Classify, Differentiate, Factor, Report Compare, Discuss, Give examples, Restate Compute, Distinguish, Illustrate, Review.

Application: Applying previously learned information (or knowledge) to new and unfamiliar situations

Act, Collect, Establish, Investigate, Round off Adapt, Complete, Exercise, Manipulate, Sequence Administer, Compute, Expose, Modify, Select Allocate, Construct, Express, Operate, Show Alphabetize, Contribute, Extend, Paint, Simulate Apply, Control, Factor, Participate, Sketch Articulate, Customize, Figure, Personalize, Solve Assess, Demonstrate, Graph, Plot, Subscribe Assign, Depreciate, Handle, Practice, Tabulate Avoid, Derive, Illustrate, Prepare, Transcribe Back up, Determine, Imitate, Price, Transfer Calculate, Develop, Implement, Process, Translate

2

Level Verbs Capture, Diminish, Include, Produce, Use Change, Discover, Inform, Project, Utilize Chart, Dramatize, Instruct, Protect, Choose, Draw, Interconvert, Provide Classify, Employ, Interview, Report.

Analysis: Breaking down information into Analyze, Correlate, Explain, Lay out, Query parts, or examining (and trying to understand Audit, Debate, Explore, Limit, Relate Blueprint, the organizational structure of) information. Detect, Figure out, Manage, Select Breadboard,

Diagnose, File, Maximize, Separate Break down, Diagram, Focus, Minimize, Size up Characterize, Differentiate, Group, Optimize, Subdivide Classify, Discriminate, Identify, Order, Summarize Compare, Dissect, Illustrate, Outline, Train Confirm, Distinguish, Interrupt, Point out, Transform Contrast, Document, Inventory, Proofread.

Synthesis: Applying prior knowledge and skills to combine elements into a pattern not clearly there before.

Adapt, Contrast, Handle, Modify, Rearrange Animate, Correspond, Import, Negotiate, Reconstruct Arrange, Create, Improve, Organize, Refer Assemble, Debug, Incorporate, Outline, Reinforce Budget, Depict, Individualize, Overhaul, Relate Categorize, Design, Initiate, Perform, Reorganize Code, Develop, Integrate, Plan, Revise Collaborate, Dictate, Interface, Portray, Rewrite Combine, Enhance, Intervene, Prepare, Specify Communicate, Express, Invent, Prescribe, Structure Compare, Facilitate, Join, Produce, Substitute Compile, Formulate, Lecture, Program, Summarize Compose, Generalize, Make up, Progress, Validate Construct, Generate, Model, Propose, Write.

Evaluation: Judging or deciding according to some set of criteria, without real right or wrong answers.

Argue, Criticize, Interpret, Rank, Support Assess, Critique, Justify, Rate, Test Choose, Defend, Measure, Recommend, Validate Compare, Discriminate, Predict, Reframe, Verify Conclude, Estimate, Prescribe, Release, Contrast, Evaluate, Prioritize, Select Counsel, Explain, Prove, Summarize.

Reference Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New

York, NY: David McKay.

3