Reviewing key learning points from OTHE [5]

Handout: IFET Key Learning Points


Transcript:

Let’s explore the key learning points from this course.

Good design uses a broad range of domains and associated taxonomies. If we want to extend our students, we want to give them value in their learning beyond simply the intellectual skills, we need to leverage the five domains that we’ve looked at in this course.

Using taxonomies gives a wide range of active verbs around which you can base your learning and teaching design. Now how you choose to visualize those is entirely up to you. You can see I’m using circular forms, wheels of taxonomies. There are pyramidic forms as well, but you need to move away from just literally having lists of verbs, because understanding the interrelationship between different levels is very important as
that allows you then to ensure that there is a progression within your learning. If you’re teaching a first-year course in a three-year degree, for example, you wouldn’t be dealing with the same verb structures as you are in a third-year course, one would imagine there is progression throughout a programme.

And finally, just to encourage you again, not to get trapped into thinking that Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy, with all of the value that it has, is the only tool that you have as course designers and learning and teaching activity designers.

There are a full range of taxonomies to deal with, and that would then give the students a richer learning experience.

Educational taxonomies [10]


Handout: Educational Taxonomies


Knowledge Check


Transcript:

Any exploration of intended learning outcomes is very quickly going to fall on the question of the verbs that we use in our writing. Those active verbs,  are usually derived from taxonomies, lists of words. I just want to unpack briefly what a taxonomy is; and then we’re going to look at the educational taxonomies that are available.

So taxonomy is simply a hierarchy, a structure of things, a classification of things. And the most obvious example would be the periodic table.

Education has its taxonomies, and the most ubiquitous is Bloom’s taxonomy. Bloom’s taxonomy is actually Bloom’s cognitive domain taxonomy. He also worked on the affective skills and psychomotor domains.

And there is more on that in just a moment, but it’s really important that we recognize that Bloom’s taxonomy deals only with intellectual cognitive skills. Now I accept that in higher education, in particular, those tend to be the skills that are privileged, certainly in the Western world. Those are the skills that everyone thinks university students want to acquire.

But I think as we’ll see, that’s simply not the case. So to just touch briefly on what Bloom’s taxonomy, the original taxonomy looked like. You can see that it has a number of levels and hierarchies to it, knowledge, understanding comprehension, application analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

(This is) passive language. And so later you find that people did want to find a new formulation of language, and there are other ways that this can be now represented. One of the original colleagues of Bloom, Krathwohl, worked with, Anderson in the very early two thousands to redefine the nature of the cognitive domain and developed this structure.

So effectively evaluation has been demoted from being the highest level, skill, and synthesis and creativity is now the highest skill, but essentially it works the same way. You use those proto verbs to derive a list of active verbs around which you can then guide your learning design.

Now I’ve taken this, particular taxonomy and a number of others, and I’m representing them in a circular form. I’ve done that quite deliberately because I think it’s easier to see the relationship between individual proto-verbs and active verbs. It also makes it much more accessible to be able to pick and choose from any, any area within that, that wheel, because everything significantly dependent on the context.

So the verbs themselves are only a jumping-off point. I think it’s also worth remembering. The cognitive domain is only one domain that is relevant to education. Students and employers want to develop skills of communication, they want to develop practical software skills.
They want to have values associated with that particular profession. And it’s very difficult, if you are limiting yourself to those intellectual skills, to write meaningful outcomes. So we are going to explore all five of these domains in this course, and we’re going to explore them in terms of how we might use their verbs to write particular outcomes, and how we might then assess them.

 

Five domains of educational outcomes [60]


Handouts:

Reflection

I would like to suggest that you download each of the Domain Circles below. Spend 10 minutes with each. Consider how these skills and attributes might be reflected in your course. If they are not in your course, where else might your learners be expected to acquire the appropriate level of skills? Where else in the programme have these skills or attributes being catered for?


Knowledge Check


Transcript:

We rely on a range of different taxonomies to make sure that we are able to give the students the range of skills that are required for them in their degree, and ultimately in their professional life.

So I want to walk through this particular visualization that I’ve produced. it’s available as a poster, but you also have printouts of each individual domain downloadable here in this lesson.

So I want to start by positioning intended learning outcomes within the scheme of work, where we think about the range of different stages that take place. When we think about designing learning, you can see that intended learning outcomes come after a range of other activities that have already taken place. We also need to remind ourselves that these outcomes fit within the constructive alignment framework. So we have our outcomes, we then design our assessment, and then we design our learning and teaching activity.

We also want to recognize that each of these domains is structured in the same way. So there are proto-verbs, top-level verbs, at the centre of these circular representations. There are then intended learning outcomes around them, and then in the outer circle are a number of different activities that relate to particular assessment forms, or the kind of evidence, that we would want the student to produce.

So let’s start with the most familiar domain, that everyone is already familiar with, the cognitive domain, the intellectual skills. This is based heavily on Bloom’s own taxonomy from 1956, but it’s a later version that’s been developed by Anderson and Krathwohl, it has five steps. Remember and understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and generate, and you can see the outer circle has a number of product and evidence assessment forms.

The inner circle has learning outcomes and activities, and we are going to write our session objectives using the same verb formulations. So if we decide that the outcome is going to be an apply outcome. We would expect to design our in-session objectives, using any number of the verbs that are associated with that top-level proto verb.  The outer circle are simply suggestions. They’re suggestions of the kind of product or evidence that a student might be able to use to evidence their ability to meet the outcome.

And we’re gonna follow this pattern for all of the other domains, the cognitive domain, intellectual skills, is just one domain that I want you to be aware of.

The affective domain was also part of Bloom’s original project, which was essentially to look at the value issues, the perceptions that people had of their own approach to learning,  their approach to life. And these go from receive, respond, value, organize, and internalize. Now, these are much harder to define because they overlap with some of the intellectual skills and some of the metacognitive skills, which we’re going to touch on in a moment. But I think if we think about it in terms of people’s value dispositions, it’s easier to see. That down the left-hand side, we talk about responding, valuing, organizing, and internalizing it really. It really sounds like we’re talking about people’s individual personal values.

The reason why I think it overlaps quite heavily with a metacognitive domain, but is quite distinct from it, is the metacognitive development domain relies very much on people’s epistemology, the way in which they believe knowledge is formed, the way knowledge is used, the way knowledge is conditioned by their life. So they’ve got personal values that are reflected in the affective domain. There’s then the metacognitive domain, which touches on the way that they would use that knowledge in a purposeful. And we start with specify, contextualize, conceptualize, process, and abstract. Now this is an adaptation from Anderson and Krathwohl’s ‘Knowledge Dimension’. I’ve inserted, after specify, ‘conceptualize’, I’ve inserted the idea to contextualize knowledge, which I think is an important part of the process of self-recognition, of self-awareness, in terms of how students come to learn, what they’re learning about and how they treat knowledge.

So the third element of Bloom’s original project was the psychomotor domain. There are a number of different formulations of this. I think this is the most practical, which is based on work done by Ravindrakumar Dave and I’ve adapted it simply by modernising the language. So, imitation became imitate, manipulation became manipulate, and so on, but otherwise it’s essentially Dave’s own original taxonomy and it follows the same formulation. We have proto-verbs at the centre, then learning outcomes and activity verbs, then suggestions as to the kind of assessment forms or product evidence that’s available.

Perhaps the most complicated, and arguably the most important of all, of the domains is the interpersonal domain. Employers and students expect to develop their own interpersonal skills beyond their intellectual skills. And this is an original domain that has four facets to it. It includes communication, conflict, resolution collaboration, and cross-cultural communication, all built into the single domain which follows exactly the same pattern. There are many verbs available in the outer circle. And then the most extreme circle has examples of assessment forms and product evidence that might be used to allow students to evidence that they can meet those individual active verbs.

This is one I think that’s really worth studying and it should really be incorporated into any course in any programme because students and employers are expecting to develop their own personal interpersonal skills in any study.

I’ve also tried to consolidate these, and for clarity’s sake, I’ve mapped them onto the SOLO taxonomy. So the SOLO taxonomy has those very useful five divisions between pre-structural, uni-structural, multi-structural, relational, and extended abstract, that sense of progression. And so I’ve mapped each of the five domains onto the SOLO taxonomy.

And I’ve also, just by way of illustration, mapped it onto two particular national structures, the United Kingdom structure and the New Zealand structure for higher education. You might want to look at your own national quality assurance, guidelines around levels and frameworks, and map all of these onto your own context.

So, I think it’s really important that we recognize that all five of these domains should be reflected in any sound course design. And we need to write outcomes that cover all five of them. Now you can look at the poster, if you like, but I’ve given you copies of each of these domains available for download as PDFs.

Please do explore them. Use them as your word list, and your verb list, As you start drafting your own.

 

Reviewing key learning points from IFET [5]

Handout: IFET Key Learning Points


Transcript:

Let’s explore the key learning points from this course.

Good design uses a broad range of domains and associated taxonomies. If we want to extend our students, we want to give them value in their learning beyond simply the intellectual skills, we need to leverage the five domains that we’ve looked at in this course.

Using taxonomies gives a wide range of active verbs around which you can base your learning and teaching design. Now how you choose to visualize those is entirely up to you. You can see I’m using circular forms, wheels of taxonomies. There are pyramidic forms as well, but you need to move away from just literally having lists of verbs, because understanding the interrelationship between different levels is very important as
that allows you then to ensure that there is a progression within your learning. If you’re teaching a first-year course in a three-year degree, for example, you wouldn’t be dealing with the same verb structures as you are in a third-year course, one would imagine there is progression throughout a programme.

And finally, just to encourage you again, not to get trapped into thinking that Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy, with all of the value that it has, is the only tool that you have as course designers and learning and teaching activity designers.

There are a full range of taxonomies to deal with, and that would then give the students a richer learning experience.

Educational taxonomies [10]


Handout: Educational Taxonomies


Knowledge Check


Transcript:

Any exploration of intended learning outcomes is very quickly going to fall on the question of the verbs that we use in our writing. Those active verbs,  are usually derived from taxonomies, lists of words. I just want to unpack briefly what a taxonomy is; and then we’re going to look at the educational taxonomies that are available.

So taxonomy is simply a hierarchy, a structure of things, a classification of things. And the most obvious example would be the periodic table.

Education has its taxonomies, and the most ubiquitous is Bloom’s taxonomy. Bloom’s taxonomy is actually Bloom’s cognitive domain taxonomy. He also worked on the affective skills and psychomotor domains.

And there is more on that in just a moment, but it’s really important that we recognize that Bloom’s taxonomy deals only with intellectual cognitive skills. Now I accept that in higher education, in particular, those tend to be the skills that are privileged, certainly in the Western world. Those are the skills that everyone thinks university students want to acquire.

But I think as we’ll see, that’s simply not the case. So to just touch briefly on what Bloom’s taxonomy, the original taxonomy looked like. You can see that it has a number of levels and hierarchies to it, knowledge, understanding comprehension, application analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

(This is) passive language. And so later you find that people did want to find a new formulation of language, and there are other ways that this can be now represented. One of the original colleagues of Bloom, Krathwohl, worked with, Anderson in the very early two thousands to redefine the nature of the cognitive domain and developed this structure.

So effectively evaluation has been demoted from being the highest level, skill, and synthesis and creativity is now the highest skill, but essentially it works the same way. You use those proto verbs to derive a list of active verbs around which you can then guide your learning design.

Now I’ve taken this, particular taxonomy and a number of others, and I’m representing them in a circular form. I’ve done that quite deliberately because I think it’s easier to see the relationship between individual proto-verbs and active verbs. It also makes it much more accessible to be able to pick and choose from any, any area within that, that wheel, because everything significantly dependent on the context.

So the verbs themselves are only a jumping-off point. I think it’s also worth remembering. The cognitive domain is only one domain that is relevant to education. Students and employers want to develop skills of communication, they want to develop practical software skills.
They want to have values associated with that particular profession. And it’s very difficult, if you are limiting yourself to those intellectual skills, to write meaningful outcomes. So we are going to explore all five of these domains in this course, and we’re going to explore them in terms of how we might use their verbs to write particular outcomes, and how we might then assess them.

 

Five domains of educational outcomes [60]


Handouts:

Reflection

I would like to suggest that you download each of the Domain Circles below. Spend 10 minutes with each. Consider how these skills and attributes might be reflected in your course. If they are not in your course, where else might your learners be expected to acquire the appropriate level of skills? Where else in the programme have these skills or attributes being catered for?


Knowledge Check


Transcript:

We rely on a range of different taxonomies to make sure that we are able to give the students the range of skills that are required for them in their degree, and ultimately in their professional life.

So I want to walk through this particular visualization that I’ve produced. it’s available as a poster, but you also have printouts of each individual domain downloadable here in this lesson.

So I want to start by positioning intended learning outcomes within the scheme of work, where we think about the range of different stages that take place. When we think about designing learning, you can see that intended learning outcomes come after a range of other activities that have already taken place. We also need to remind ourselves that these outcomes fit within the constructive alignment framework. So we have our outcomes, we then design our assessment, and then we design our learning and teaching activity.

We also want to recognize that each of these domains is structured in the same way. So there are proto-verbs, top-level verbs, at the centre of these circular representations. There are then intended learning outcomes around them, and then in the outer circle are a number of different activities that relate to particular assessment forms, or the kind of evidence, that we would want the student to produce.

So let’s start with the most familiar domain, that everyone is already familiar with, the cognitive domain, the intellectual skills. This is based heavily on Bloom’s own taxonomy from 1956, but it’s a later version that’s been developed by Anderson and Krathwohl, it has five steps. Remember and understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and generate, and you can see the outer circle has a number of product and evidence assessment forms.

The inner circle has learning outcomes and activities, and we are going to write our session objectives using the same verb formulations. So if we decide that the outcome is going to be an apply outcome. We would expect to design our in-session objectives, using any number of the verbs that are associated with that top-level proto verb.  The outer circle are simply suggestions. They’re suggestions of the kind of product or evidence that a student might be able to use to evidence their ability to meet the outcome.

And we’re gonna follow this pattern for all of the other domains, the cognitive domain, intellectual skills, is just one domain that I want you to be aware of.

The affective domain was also part of Bloom’s original project, which was essentially to look at the value issues, the perceptions that people had of their own approach to learning,  their approach to life. And these go from receive, respond, value, organize, and internalize. Now, these are much harder to define because they overlap with some of the intellectual skills and some of the metacognitive skills, which we’re going to touch on in a moment. But I think if we think about it in terms of people’s value dispositions, it’s easier to see. That down the left-hand side, we talk about responding, valuing, organizing, and internalizing it really. It really sounds like we’re talking about people’s individual personal values.

The reason why I think it overlaps quite heavily with a metacognitive domain, but is quite distinct from it, is the metacognitive development domain relies very much on people’s epistemology, the way in which they believe knowledge is formed, the way knowledge is used, the way knowledge is conditioned by their life. So they’ve got personal values that are reflected in the affective domain. There’s then the metacognitive domain, which touches on the way that they would use that knowledge in a purposeful. And we start with specify, contextualize, conceptualize, process, and abstract. Now this is an adaptation from Anderson and Krathwohl’s ‘Knowledge Dimension’. I’ve inserted, after specify, ‘conceptualize’, I’ve inserted the idea to contextualize knowledge, which I think is an important part of the process of self-recognition, of self-awareness, in terms of how students come to learn, what they’re learning about and how they treat knowledge.

So the third element of Bloom’s original project was the psychomotor domain. There are a number of different formulations of this. I think this is the most practical, which is based on work done by Ravindrakumar Dave and I’ve adapted it simply by modernising the language. So, imitation became imitate, manipulation became manipulate, and so on, but otherwise it’s essentially Dave’s own original taxonomy and it follows the same formulation. We have proto-verbs at the centre, then learning outcomes and activity verbs, then suggestions as to the kind of assessment forms or product evidence that’s available.

Perhaps the most complicated, and arguably the most important of all, of the domains is the interpersonal domain. Employers and students expect to develop their own interpersonal skills beyond their intellectual skills. And this is an original domain that has four facets to it. It includes communication, conflict, resolution collaboration, and cross-cultural communication, all built into the single domain which follows exactly the same pattern. There are many verbs available in the outer circle. And then the most extreme circle has examples of assessment forms and product evidence that might be used to allow students to evidence that they can meet those individual active verbs.

This is one I think that’s really worth studying and it should really be incorporated into any course in any programme because students and employers are expecting to develop their own personal interpersonal skills in any study.

I’ve also tried to consolidate these, and for clarity’s sake, I’ve mapped them onto the SOLO taxonomy. So the SOLO taxonomy has those very useful five divisions between pre-structural, uni-structural, multi-structural, relational, and extended abstract, that sense of progression. And so I’ve mapped each of the five domains onto the SOLO taxonomy.

And I’ve also, just by way of illustration, mapped it onto two particular national structures, the United Kingdom structure and the New Zealand structure for higher education. You might want to look at your own national quality assurance, guidelines around levels and frameworks, and map all of these onto your own context.

So, I think it’s really important that we recognize that all five of these domains should be reflected in any sound course design. And we need to write outcomes that cover all five of them. Now you can look at the poster, if you like, but I’ve given you copies of each of these domains available for download as PDFs.

Please do explore them. Use them as your word list, and your verb list, As you start drafting your own.

 

Overview of domains [60]


Handouts:

Reflection

I would like to suggest that you download each of the Domain Circles below. Spend 10 minutes with each. Consider how these skills and attributes might be reflected in your course. If they are not in your course, where else might your learners be expected to acquire the appropriate level of skills? Where else in the programme have these skills or attributes being catered for?


Knowledge Check


Transcript:

This course isn’t about educational domains. It’s about writing intended learning outcomes. But to write effective outcomes, we rely on a range of different taxonomies to make sure that we are able to give the students the range of skills that are required for them in their degree, and ultimately in their professional life.

So I want to walk through this particular visualization that I’ve produced. it’s available as a poster, but you also have printouts of each individual domain downloadable here in this lesson.

So I want to start by positioning intended learning outcomes within the scheme of work, where we think about the range of different stages that take place. When we think about designing learning, you can see that intended learning outcomes come after a range of other activities that have already taken place. We also need to remind ourselves that these outcomes fit within the constructive alignment framework. So we have our outcomes, we then design our assessment, and then we design our learning and teaching activity.

We also want to recognize that each of these domains is structured in the same way. So there are proto-verbs, top-level verbs, at the centre of these circular representations. There are then intended learning outcomes around them, and then in the outer circle are a number of different activities that relate to particular assessment forms, or the kind of evidence, that we would want the student to produce.

So let’s start with the most familiar domain, that everyone is already familiar with, the cognitive domain, the intellectual skills. This is based heavily on Bloom’s own taxonomy from 1956, but it’s a later version that’s been developed by Anderson and Krathwohl, it has five steps. Remember and understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and generate, and you can see the outer circle has a number of product and evidence assessment forms.

The inner circle has learning outcomes and activities, and we are going to write our session objectives using the same verb formulations. So if we decide that the outcome is going to be an apply outcome. We would expect to design our in-session objectives, using any number of the verbs that are associated with that top-level proto verb.  The outer circle are simply suggestions. They’re suggestions of the kind of product or evidence that a student might be able to use to evidence their ability to meet the outcome.

And we’re gonna follow this pattern for all of the other domains, the cognitive domain, intellectual skills, is just one domain that I want you to be aware of.

The affective domain was also part of Bloom’s original project, which was essentially to look at the value issues, the perceptions that people had of their own approach to learning,  their approach to life. And these go from receive, respond, value, organize, and internalize. Now, these are much harder to define because they overlap with some of the intellectual skills and some of the metacognitive skills, which we’re going to touch on in a moment. But I think if we think about it in terms of people’s value dispositions, it’s easier to see. That down the left-hand side, we talk about responding, valuing, organizing, and internalizing it really. It really sounds like we’re talking about people’s individual personal values.

The reason why I think it overlaps quite heavily with a metacognitive domain, but is quite distinct from it, is the metacognitive development domain relies very much on people’s epistemology, the way in which they believe knowledge is formed, the way knowledge is used, the way knowledge is conditioned by their life. So they’ve got personal values that are reflected in the affective domain. There’s then the metacognitive domain, which touches on the way that they would use that knowledge in a purposeful. And we start with specify, contextualize, conceptualize, process, and abstract. Now this is an adaptation from Anderson and Krathwohl’s ‘Knowledge Dimension’. I’ve inserted, after specify, ‘conceptualize’, I’ve inserted the idea to contextualize knowledge, which I think is an important part of the process of self-recognition, of self-awareness, in terms of how students come to learn, what they’re learning about and how they treat knowledge.

So the third element of Bloom’s original project was the psychomotor domain. There are a number of different formulations of this. I think this is the most practical, which is based on work done by Ravindrakumar Dave and I’ve adapted it simply by modernising the language. So, imitation became imitate, manipulation became manipulate, and so on, but otherwise it’s essentially Dave’s own original taxonomy and it follows the same formulation. We have proto-verbs at the centre, then learning outcomes and activity verbs, then suggestions as to the kind of assessment forms or product evidence that’s available.

Perhaps the most complicated, and arguably the most important of all, of the domains is the interpersonal domain. Employers and students expect to develop their own interpersonal skills beyond their intellectual skills. And this is an original domain that has four facets to it. It includes communication, conflict, resolution collaboration, and cross-cultural communication, all built into the single domain which follows exactly the same pattern. There are many verbs available in the outer circle. And then the most extreme circle has examples of assessment forms and product evidence that might be used to allow students to evidence that they can meet those individual active verbs.

This is one I think that’s really worth studying and it should really be incorporated into any course in any programme because students and employers are expecting to develop their own personal interpersonal skills in any study.

I’ve also tried to consolidate these, and for clarity’s sake, I’ve mapped them onto the SOLO taxonomy. So the SOLO taxonomy has those very useful five divisions between pre-structural, uni-structural, multi-structural, relational, and extended abstract, that sense of progression. And so I’ve mapped each of the five domains onto the SOLO taxonomy.

And I’ve also, just by way of illustration, mapped it onto two particular national structures, the United Kingdom structure and the New Zealand structure for higher education. You might want to look at your own national quality assurance, guidelines around levels and frameworks, and map all of these onto your own context.

So, I think it’s really important that we recognize that all five of these domains should be reflected in any sound course design. And we need to write outcomes that cover all five of them. Now you can look at the poster, if you like, but I’ve given you copies of each of these domains available for download as PDFs.

Please do explore them. Use them as your word list, and your verb list, As you start drafting your own.

 

Educational taxonomies [10]


Handout: Educational Taxonomies


Knowledge Check


Transcript:

Any exploration of intended learning outcomes is very quickly going to fall on the question of the verbs that we use in our writing. Those active verbs,  are usually derived from taxonomies, lists of words. I just want to unpack briefly what a taxonomy is; and then we’re going to look at the educational taxonomies that are available.

So taxonomy is simply a hierarchy, a structure of things, a classification of things. And the most obvious example would be the periodic table.

Education has its taxonomies, and the most ubiquitous is Bloom’s taxonomy. Bloom’s taxonomy is actually Bloom’s cognitive domain taxonomy. He also worked on the affective skills and psychomotor domains.

And there is more on that in just a moment, but it’s really important that we recognize that Bloom’s taxonomy deals only with intellectual cognitive skills. Now I accept that in higher education, in particular, those tend to be the skills that are privileged, certainly in the Western world. Those are the skills that everyone thinks university students want to acquire.

But I think as we’ll see, that’s simply not the case. So to just touch briefly on what Bloom’s taxonomy, the original taxonomy looked like. You can see that it has a number of levels and hierarchies to it, knowledge, understanding comprehension, application analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

(This is) passive language. And so later you find that people did want to find a new formulation of language, and there are other ways that this can be now represented. One of the original colleagues of Bloom, Krathwohl, worked with, Anderson in the very early two thousands to redefine the nature of the cognitive domain and developed this structure.

So effectively evaluation has been demoted from being the highest level, skill, and synthesis and creativity is now the highest skill, but essentially it works the same way. You use those proto verbs to derive a list of active verbs around which you can then guide your learning design.

Now I’ve taken this, particular taxonomy and a number of others, and I’m representing them in a circular form. I’ve done that quite deliberately because I think it’s easier to see the relationship between individual proto-verbs and active verbs. It also makes it much more accessible to be able to pick and choose from any, any area within that, that wheel, because everything significantly dependent on the context.

So the verbs themselves are only a jumping-off point. I think it’s also worth remembering. The cognitive domain is only one domain that is relevant to education. Students and employers want to develop skills of communication, they want to develop practical software skills.
They want to have values associated with that particular profession. And it’s very difficult, if you are limiting yourself to those intellectual skills, to write meaningful outcomes. So we are going to explore all five of these domains in this course, and we’re going to explore them in terms of how we might use their verbs to write particular outcomes, and how we might then assess them.

 

%d bloggers like this: