My argument is that in order to tailor effective support for students we must understand better their fundamental beliefs about learning; that to have a conversation about 'our' values we need to understand how others experience their own.
This was the purpose of the POISE project, an HEA Change Initiative and this paper is a summary of its conclusions.
There is much work to be done to make these insights more accessible to rank and file tutors in higher education but the POISE website is a start. As always I am delighted to hear about any use made of the work and to enter into a dialogue with anyone working on similar initiatives.
I have received some interesting feedback and critique of my circular representation of Ravindra H. Dave's psychomotor domain of educational objectives. I have been asked why I have chosen to use the circular design, to alternative verbs and to expand the definition of psychomotor activity.
Firstly the representation of the domain as a circle, which I have done across four domains elsewhere, I believe serves to make the subcategories more fluid. It contains the proto-verbs at the centre, next circle contains active verbs which also represent teaching and learning activity and the outer circle contains the nature of evidence (or assessment forms) that might demonstrate the active verbs. Using the circle one also has an inherently clock-face like visual which makes the dialling-up from the basic to more sophisticated concepts as you travel around clockwise. Maybe its most powerful function is to encourage lateral thinking on the part of learning designers, encouraging them to explore learning and teaching activities as assessment or evidence examples at the same time.
Secondly, I have chosen to use active verbs to describe the subcategories of the domain and so there is a clear change from:
ability to copy, replicate the actions of others following observations.
ability to repeat or reproduce actions to prescribed standard from memory or instructions.
ability to perform actions with expertise and without interventions and the ability to demonstrate and explain actions to others.
ability to adapt existing psychomotor skills in a non-standard way, in different contexts, using alternative tools and instruments to satisfy need.
ability to perform actions in an automatic, intuitive or unconscious way appropriate to the context.
This is to articulate more clearly the need to describe learning outcomes as things that the students will actually 'do' in line with the principles of constructively aligned learning and teaching design.
The third, more less obvious change, is that I have chosen to expand the definition of psychomotor activity to incorporate a wider range of physical activities that perhaps Dave had not envisaged, particularly those involved with the manipulation of computer software, laboratory and fieldwork equipment and a range of technical equipment. I felt this was necessary because I have seen so many University courses make light of the skills developed in acquiring such expertise, as though such skills are incidental, when clearly it is the primary outcome valued by most students and employers.
For example, the specifics of the volume of water flowing through the Mississippi delta in November (Knowledge) will prove less useful than the ability to master the GIS and computational software used to document those specifics (Psychomotor).
I believe that the majority of what in the UK further and higher context is described as 'transferable skills' fall into the psychomotor domain and are worthy of careful attention.
This new poster draws together my recent work on powerful visualisations of taxonomies of educational objectives. Further details are available here. There is an online workshop coming and face-to-face workshops are possible.
Now available for sale. Sized A1 (84.1 x 59.4 cm / 23.4" x 33.1") printed on 250gsm silk paper. Dispatched in a roll tube.
Price includes post and packaging anywhere in the world.
Sharing a paper today on the visualisation of educational taxonomies. I have finally got around to putting into a paper some of the blog postings, discussion, tweets and ruminations of recent years on educational taxonomies. I am always struck in talking to US educators (and faculty training teachers in particular) of the very direct use made of Bloom's original 1956 educational taxonomy for the cognitive domain. They seem oblivious however to other work that might sit
(conceptually) alongside Bloom is a way to support their practice.
In New Zealand, whilst at Massey I got into some fascinating discussions with education staff about the blurring of the affective and cognitive domains, significant in cross-cultural education, and this led me to look for effective representations of domains. I came across an unattributed circular representation that made instant sense to me, and set about mapping other domains in the same way. In the process I found not only a tool that supported and reinforced the conceptual framework represented by Constructive Alignment, but also a visualising that supported engagement with educational technologies and assessment tools. I hope this brief account is of use to people and am, as always, very open to feedback and comment.
I'm very grateful to those colleagues across the globe who have expressed interest in using these visual representations and hope to be able to share some applicable data with everyone in due course.