Transcript Slide 1

Neva J. Kirk-Sanchez, PhD, PT
Associate Professor, Department of Physical Therapy
University of Miami Miller School of Medicine
 Syllabus Development
 Writing Objectives
Method of examination
KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE!
GATHER YOUR RESOURCES…
Start with a shell or outline
Heading:
University of Miami Miller School of Medicine
Department of Physical Therapy
Course Title and Number (PTS 575 Clinical Decision
Making in Physical Therapy)
Semester (Spring, 2009)
Contact Hrs (Lec. & Lab) 4 Hours lecture per week
Course Description: This is a description of the
course content
Prerequisite Courses (if applicable)
Course Coordinator (Course master)
Course Instructors (teaching assistants, guest
lecturers, or other people assisting with the
course)
Course Time/Place (i.e. Monday/ Wednesday 10:1512:15, Plumer Building, 3 rd floor, blue classroom)
Course Objectives (more to come)
Required/Recommended Texts (list of textbooks, or
journal articles if applicable)
Core Requirements: if any specific requirements not
covered in pre-requisites
Instructional Strategies – (i.e. lecture, experiential
lab, group discussion, presentations, etc.)
Method of Evaluation* (more to come)
Course Schedule/Outline – a day by day listing of what
content will be covered
Method of Evaluation*
Explicitly outline/define:

Efforts for remediation

Min. grade/competency level for each activity
(graded/ungraded)

Attendance/Professional behaviors
VI. Evaluation Procedures:
Examination 1
Examination 2
Final examination
Online quizzes and lab activities
Decision tree
15%
25%
30%
15%
15%
You must pass the final comprehensive exam with a 75% or
higher in order to pass the course.
….Name and define the six levels
in Bloom's Taxonomy for the
Cognitive Domain ....
Writing Instructional Objectives
Instructional objectives, including
behavioral objectives, can be written for any
of the domains of instruction
• Cognitive
• Affective
• Psychomotor
The Cognitive Domain
Bloom's Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain
(started in 1948 and completed in 1956) was
one of the most influential statements
about levels of knowing.
The official title of the book is Taxonomy
of educational objectives: The
classification of educational goals.
Handbook I: Cognitive domain with the
text having 4 other authors (M.
Englehart, E. Furst, W. Hill, and D
Krathwohl).
The Cognitive Domain
The major idea of the taxonomy is that what
educators want students to know (and,
therefore, statements of educational
objectives) can be arranged in a hierarchy
from less to more complex.
The taxonomy contains six levels, with
sublevels identified for each.
The Cognitive Domain
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application
Analysis
Synthesis
Evaluation
The Cognitive Domain
Knowledge
The ability to know
specific facts, common
terms, basic concepts
and principles.
The Cognitive Domain
Knowledge
Write
List
Label
Name
State
Define
The Cognitive Domain
Knowledge
The student will define
the 6 levels of Bloom's
taxonomy of the
cognitive domain.
The Cognitive Domain
Comprehension
The ability to understand, to
interpret, to compare and
contrast, to translate, to
estimate, and to explain.
The Cognitive Domain
Comprehension
Explain
Summarize
Paraphrase
Describe
Illustrate
The Cognitive Domain
Comprehension
The student will explain
the purpose of Bloom's
taxonomy of the
cognitive domain.
The Cognitive Domain
Application
The ability to apply
previously learned facts
and concepts to new
situations, to solve
problems, and to
construct charts and
figures.
The Cognitive Domain
Application
Use
Compute
Solve
Demonstrate
Apply
Construct
The Cognitive Domain
Application
The student will write an
instructional objective
for each level of Bloom's
taxonomy.
The Cognitive Domain
Analysis
The ability to distinguish
between facts and
inferences, to recognize
faulty assumptions in an
argument, and to identify
the organizational
structure of something
(art, music, writing).
The Cognitive Domain
Analysis
Analyze
Categorize
Compare
Contrast
Separate
The Cognitive Domain
Analysis
The student will
compare and contrast
the cognitive and
affective domains.
The Cognitive Domain
Synthesis
The ability to create
something like a wellwritten essay or a
beautiful piece of art, to
propose an action plan, to
formulate a new scheme
for classifying objects,
and to integrate many
ideas into one solution.
The Cognitive Domain
Synthesis
Create
Design
Hypothesize
Invent
Develop
The Cognitive Domain
Synthesis
The student will design a
classification scheme for
writing educational
objectives that combines
the cognitive, affective,
and psychomotor
domains.
The Cognitive Domain
Evaluation
The ability to judge the
quality of something
based on its adequacy,
value, logic, or use..
The Cognitive Domain
Evaluation
Judge
Recommend
Critique
Justify
The Cognitive Domain
Evaluation
The student will judge
the effectiveness of
writing
objectives using Bloom's
taxonomy.
The Cognitive Domain
In general, research over the last 40 years
has confirmed the taxonomy as a hierarchy
with the exception of the last two levels.
It is uncertain at this time whether
synthesis and evaluation should be
reversed (i.e., evaluation is less difficult to
accomplish than synthesis) or whether
synthesis and evaluation are at the same
level of difficulty but use different cognitive
processes.
The Cognitive Domain
Creative Thinking
Critical Thinking
Synthesis
Evaluation
Analysis
Application
Comprehension
Knowledge
The Affective Domain
Receiving
Responding
Valuing
Being aware of or attending to
something in the
environment
Showing some new behaviors
as a result of experience
Showing some definite
involvement or commitment
Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B., & Masia, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay.
The Affective Domain
Organization
Characterization
by Value
Integrating a new value into
one's general set of values,
giving it some ranking
among one's general
priorities.
Acting consistently with the
new value; person is known by
the value.
The Psychomotor Domain
Perception
Set
Process of becoming aware of
objects, qualities, etc by way of
senses. Basic in situationinterpretation-action chain
leading to motor activity.
Readiness for a particular kind
of action or experience; may be
mental, physical or emotional.
Simpson, J. S. (1966). The classification of educational objectives, psychomotor domain.
Office of Education Project No. 5-85-104. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.
The Psychomotor Domain
Guided
Response
Mechanism
Overt behavioral act under
guidance of an instructor, or
following model or set criteria.
Learned response becomes
habitual; learner has achieved
certain confidence and
proficiency or performance.
The Psychomotor Domain
Complex
Overt
Response
Performance of motor act
considered complex because
of movement pattern
required.
Adaptation
Altering motor activities to
meet demands of
problematic situations.
The Psychomotor Domain
Origination
Creating new motor acts or ways
of manipulating materials out
of skills, abilities and
understandings developed in
the psychomotor area.
Writing Instructional Objectives
While it is possible to write instructional
objectives of all types for each of the
three domains, the vast majority are
written for the cognitive domain.
The major exceptions include preschool,
physical education, and perhaps fine arts
courses such as sculpturing and drama.
Developing Measurable Performance
Objectives
 As an instructor you can observe and evaluate the
students’:
 Knowledge and understanding of the subject matter
(cognitive domain)
 Physical action and motor skills (psychomotor domain)
 Feelings and attitudes (affective domain)
Developing Measurable Performance
Objectives
 Measurable performance objectives are the “goals”
which are to be achieved by the student during the
course of instruction
 They are statements which set the direction for
instruction
 These are useful in pointing to the content &
procedures that will lead to successful instruction,
helping to manage the instructional process, and
in helping to find out whether the instruction has
been successful
Developing Measurable Performance
Objectives
 Without measurable performance objectives,
learning cannot be successfully planned or
evaluated
Writing learning objectives:
 Measurable Performance Objectives
 A = audience
 B = behavior
 C = condition
 D = degree
 Measurable Performance Objectives
 At the completion of this lecture/ laboratory
session the student will be able to…..
 Measurable Performance Objectives
 Without the use of references, the student will
identify five (5) of the bones of the foot.
 Using a model, the student will demonstrate
application of ultra sound treatment within 10
minutes.
Evaluation
Course
objectives
Testing
Teaching
Cycle of agreement among course, objectives, teaching, and testing
Evaluation
 In- class testing
 Take home exams
 Essays and synthesis papers
 Presentations
 Homework
Developing a test (evaluation) plan
 What is the purpose of the exam?
 How difficulty should you make the test?
 Who is taking the exam?
 How many students are taking the test?
 How much time has been provided for the test?
 What type of test (multiple choice, essay, true-false,
etc.) is desirable?
Type of objective test items
 Multiple choice
 True-false
 Matching
Type of objective test items
 Versatility in measuring all





levels of cognitive ability
Reliable test scores
Scoring efficiency and
accuracy
Wide sampling of content
Objective measurement
Different response
alternatives that can
provide diagnostic
feedback
 Difficult and time-
consuming to construct
 Lead an instructor a simple
recall of facts
 Dependence on student’s
reading ability and
instructor’s writing ability
 Subject to clueing
(deducing the item)
Type of constructed test items
 Completion
 Essay
 Problem solving
Constructed test items- completion
 Wide sampling of content
 Difficult to construct so
 Efficiently measure lower
that the desired response is
clearly indicated
 Difficulty measuring more
advanced learning
objectives
 Can include irrelevant
clues
 Can be more difficulty to
score (more than one item
can be considered correct
levels of cognitive ability
 Minimize guessing
compared with MC and TF
items
 Objective measure of
student achievement or
ability
Constructed test items - essay
 Easier and less time
consuming to construct
 Provide a means for testing
a student’s ability to
compose an answer and
present in in a logical
manner
 Can test higher order
cognitive objectives
(analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation
 Cannot measure a large
amount of content or
objectives
 Provide lower test and
scorer reliability than do
objective tests
 Require an extensive
amount of time to read and
grade
 Do not provide an
objective measure of
students achievement or
ability (bias on the part of
the grader)
Grading – the conundrum…
 Necessary but difficult
 “Appreciate the complexity of grading and use it as a tool
for learning”
 Some principles to consider:
 Spend time wisely
 The meaning students attach to grades affects their learning
 Seize teachable moments around grading issues
 Learning is the primary goal
The “3 G’s”
 Guide or Gatekeeper?
 In prof educ, gatekeeper at end of program - or
gatekeeper at beginning of program? – What do you
think?
Giving
Giving
Guiding
Guiding
Grading
Grading
People want different things
from grades…
 Student – affirmation
of knowledge
 Teacher – one of roles,
information as to how
students are doing
 Employer – use of one
factor in hiring
 Depends on values
General guidelines for grading:
 Avoid competition among students
 Limiting # of high grades by:
 Grading on curve, or Norm-referenced





Keep students aware of progress
Emphasize learning, not grades
Consider flexibility (choices)
Deal directly with students (listen, consider, think)
Keep accurate records
Pedagogical Truths
 Remember goals from teaching objectives and grid
 The better students perform on tests, the better the
teacher has organized materials and enhanced
learning
 Testing measures success of teachers as well as learners