Assessment and the Learning Domains

Assessment and the Learning Domains Michael E. Munroe This paper was completed and submitted in partial fulfillment of the Master Teacher Program, a 2-year faculty professional development program conducted by the Center for Faculty Excellence, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, 2017. Abstract Assessment is a critical task that all instructors and leaders should take seriously. There are many reasons for assessment to include: determining the current level of performance, improving student feedback, and demonstrating final mastery of material. According to Bloom s taxonomy, there are three learning domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. To maximize learning and retention, both formative and summative assessments should incorporate aspects of all of the learning domains when possible. 1

Introduction Assessment is a critical task that all instructors and leaders should take seriously. There are many reasons for assessment to include determining current level of performance, what feedback to give to students, as well as obtaining an initial baseline to demonstrate later improvement. Research has shown that the single most important factor in a student s success is the effectiveness of the teacher (Marzano, 2006). Teachers often use both formative and summative assessments to gauge student learning and effectiveness of instruction. Additionally, assessment in the classroom has been shown to be the most effective tool to determine a student s understanding of material (Marzano, 2006). That said, designing assessments that show different levels of understanding are critical. According to Bloom s taxonomy of learning, there are three major learning domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Each domain uses a different style of instruction or assessment item, and instructors should tailor to all learning domains to maximize student learning outcomes. What is Assessment? According to Marzano, an assessment is any planned or serendipitous activity that provides information about students understanding and skill regarding a specific measurement topic (Marzano, 2006, p. 35). Assessment is used in many forms to determine student success as well as teacher efficacy. Additionally, there are two types of assessment, formative and summative assessment. Formative assessment is conducted while the student is learning the material while summative assessment is conducted at the conclusion of the course (Marzano, 2006). Most instructors focus on summative assessments to determine students mastery of material. Often, instructors forget the importance of formative assessments, used to help determine students current understanding before the final exam. Most subjects build on previous concepts (i.e. algebra, geometry, calculus). When a student lacks understanding in any of the previous concepts, it has a detrimental effect on learning and achieving a deeper understanding of the subsequent material. Formative assessments are used to help alter a students learning or study methods prior to the end of the course (Marzano, 2006). Summative assessment is given at the end of a students learning. A common example is the final exam. Summative assessment is primarily used to determine how much of the course material a student has mastered (Luce, 2016). This type of assessment is useful for teachers to determine student scores and assign grades, but does not help the student master the material. Beyond mastery, summative assessments cannot demonstrate retention of the material beyond course completion. The case for both formative and summative assessments are clear in the literature (you need to fill in the gaps before a student gets to the end of the material as well as determine how much the student has learned at the end). The best way to do that is to ask the right kind of questions. According to Marzano, the ideal assessment involves three types of items/tasks: 2

- Type I items or tasks address basic details and processes that are relatively easy for students - Type II items or tasks address more complex ideas and processes - Type III items or tasks require students to make inferences or applications that go beyond what was taught in class (Marzano, 2006) Most teachers find this type of item/task breakdown to be intuitive. Teachers must ask easy and hard questions to find the range of understanding their students have achieved. Bloom s cognitive taxonomy (a pyramidal methodology of demonstrating understanding of a given subject) breaks learning down into six levels (listed in order of the base to the tip of the pyramid): remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating (Anderson, 2001). These could easily be applied to Marazon s Types I-II by taking Bloom s six and dividing it by Marazano s three yielding two taxonomical items per type. These items or tasks must be carefully crafted to ask the right kind of question that will show the instructor the student s true understanding. An example of the right kind of question for a Type I question for an anatomy course currently focused on the upper torso could be Name the two major bones located distal to the humorous. It is straight-forward and requires rote memorization only. If a teacher wanted to ask a Type II question on the same subject, a better question may be give an example of an injury to the rotator cuff and which muscles would be impacted. This gives the student the freedom to not only demonstrate Type I knowledge (memorizing the four muscles of the rotator cuff), but also a deeper understanding of how they might be impacted. Type III questions might include Determine the long term effect on a professional baseball pitcher s playing ability following ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction surgery (Tommy John s Surgery). A student would need both Types I and II to first understand the question, and then take the question further to determine how that type of surgery on that ligament could affect the throwing motion of a professional pitcher. Both formative and summative assessment questions/items should consider Bloom s learning domains. How a student is tested can affect not only test scores, but retention as well (Boyce, 1990). Assessments that incorporated aspects of multiple learning domains were shown to improve student learning retention two months beyond the end of the course. This means beyond the right kind of assessment questions asked, teachers need to take assessments a step further and determine the impacts of the different learning domains (psychomotor, cognitive, affective, and even a subdomain interpersonal ) into consideration as the assessment itself can be a part of learning the material. What are the Learning Domains? As mentioned in the introduction, there are three types of learning domains: psychomotor, cognitive, and affective. Beyond the traditional three learning domains, a fourth domain, interpersonal, may also be considered although is not traditionally described in Bloom s taxonomy. Depending on the type of material a student is trying to learn, these domains may bleed over into one another. Furthermore, how a student is presented the material as well as how a student is assessed on the material makes a difference in learning outcomes. It is always important to remember that every student is different and one learning or assessment strategy may not be effective for all learners. 3

Psychomotor Domain The psychomotor domain includes the aspect of skill related fitness and is primarily influenced by heredity. Large improvements however, can be made with practice and improving the quality of movement of the individual (Bouchard, 2012). Elements of skill related fitness include the components of agility, balance, coordination, power, speed, and reaction time. The psychomotor domain can also be thought of as kinesthetic learning, or learning by doing. This type of learning makes connections between physical tasks and learning. The psychomotor domain can be tapped by either showing a new learning the skill then asking them to repeat it, or also using auditory cues as well (Pendleton, Sakalik, Moore, Tomporowski, 2016). Learners must use both cognitive and psychomotor skills when learning a new physical skill. The cognitive tasks involved are categorized into two separate methods. The first method is considered executive functions which involve planning, switching, and updating (Pendleton, et al., 2016). When first learning a new skill, a learner must think through the steps before executing. An example is a child learning to throw a ball. Initially after seeing how to throw the ball, the child will think through each step. The child must look at the target, then move into a side orientation, then bring the ball back, and finally take a contralateral step before releasing the ball. As the child increases in skill learning moves into the second method. This is called nonexecutive functions. During this method, the child s autonomic nervous system executes the throw properly without thought. Cognitive Domain The cognitive domain uses knowledge and intellectual skills when learning (Bloom, 1956). According to Bloom s taxonomy, knowledge and comprehension are broken down into six levels: 1. Knowledge 2. Comprehension 3. Application 4. Analysis 5. Synthesis 6. Evaluation (Tijaro-Rojas, Acre-Trigatti, Cupp, Pascal, 2016). Each level of understanding is normally mastered before the next level is achieved. The most basic cognitive learning level is rote memorization. This level does not require the learner to apply any original thought to a problem. The cognitive domain moves from rote memorization to deeper levels of understanding, eventually leading the learner to developing original thoughts on a subject. The cognitive domain is the easiest for teachers to understand and evaluate, often through written or oral examinations. Affective Domain The affective domain focuses on both self-efficacy and emotions when considering the learning environment. In fact, it has been found that emotionalizing learning experiences creates not only a positive atmosphere, but also increases knowledge and learning retention (Green, Batool 2017). Additionally, emotions add substance and meaning and it is well 4

documented that learners who care about a subject are more apt to try and learn it (Green, et al., 2017). Furthermore, the affective domain looks at attitudes such as awareness, empathy, interest, attention, concern, responsibility and the ability to listen and respond (Green, et al., 2017). In order to tap into the affective domain, students need to be engaged beyond a teacherstudent experience. Interactive lectures, group work, and personalized questions are all ways to draw the student in (Green, et al., 2017). Another way to consider using the affective domain is through personal reflections and reflective learning (Green, et al., 2017). This can personalize the material and allows students to relate their own experiences cementing the learning into long term memory. Regardless of the method used, the affective domain is key to student motivation in the classroom. Interpersonal Domain While not traditionally a part of Bloom s three learning domains, some researchers use interpersonal as an extension of the affective domain. The interpersonal domain uses human interaction to help achieve learning outcomes (Miller, 2006). Partner and group work are important parts of the learning process. Often, teachers believe they are the sole determinant to student success. It is important to highlight that there is more to learning than just what the instructor provides. Class design and layout can have a significant impact on learning outcomes as well (Miller, 2006). Some research has shown that individuals will go back to the individual who last provided a successful answer. Further, individuals start seeking the answer within their immediate vicinity and then branch out. The further they had to move to find the answer, the lower the score that student received on the assignment. This means that proximity and group selection (ensuring there is diversity of knowledge in the group), are factors instructors need to take into account. Simply put, having a smarter individual in the group brought up everybody s individual scores on later summative assessments. Assessing the Learning Domains Assessing the Affective Domain The affective domain assesses concepts such as values, ethics, and self-efficacy. Some researchers claim that assessment is one of the most powerful tools when teaching, learning, and evaluating (Alkharusi, Aldhafri, Alnabhani, & Alkalbani, 2014). A recent research study aimed to determine teacher assessment techniques and their subsequent outcomes on student selfefficacy. The study attempted to determine the magnitude of the importance of the affective domain. Self-efficacy was determined as an important factor to instill in students to ensure they have the best chance at learning the material (Alkharusi, et al., 2014). In another study, researchers utilized survey data from both teachers and students on a 5- point Likert scale to determine reported self-efficacy when instructors utilized structured performance assessment, item analysis and discrimination, assessment performance criteria prior to administration, defining rating scale for performance criteria in advance of the assessment, student-involved assessment, and achievement versus non-achievement grading factors. The two most important findings from the study were (1) the importance of achievement and strict and 5

known standards ahead of the assessment, and (2) that deviations from these standards failed to lower reports of self-efficacy in students. This is in-line with Brookhart who claimed the importance of standards in assessment in a proposed update to the 1990 Standards for Teacher Competence in Education Assessment of Students (Brookhart, 2011). The affective domain also reaches beyond the concept of self and into the other learning domains as well. Having a comfortable physical environment to include consideration for room size, seating arrangement, temperature control, lighting, color, visual appearance, ventilation, acoustics, etc. may have an effect on learning (Green, et al., 2017). Further, the research has shown that having an environment that promotes cognitive learning is important as well. Part of the affective domain is how the student feels about what they are learning is important and useful. This blends into cognitive learning. Some other ways to assess the cognitive/affective domain connection is through personal reflection papers (what does this mean to you), likert based self-assessments, and journalizing (Green, et al., 2017). These assessments can be based off of real-life stories or case studies (Green, et al., 2017). These types of scenario based learning draw the students in and allow them to relate to the material. Assessing the Psychomotor Domain The psychomotor domain uses many different methods to assess performance. In some cases, test batteries are utilized to ascertain the level of performance for one or more of skill related fitness components. Utilizing the example of agility, there are multiple tests that have both validity and reliability that measure agility such as the side step, Illinois agility, and T-tests. A study conducted by Raya, et al., aimed to compare the three separate tests to determine if one of the tests was a better predictor for agility of active duty service members (Raya et al., 2013). The study was unique in that while each of the three different tests measure agility, each one measured agility in a different plane of movement. When compared against one another it was found that it made no difference in which plane agility was measured, they all were accurate predictors for the results on each subsequent test. This is important to remember when executing a test battery in the psychomotor domain. It may be redundant to utilize multiple valid tests that measure the same outcome. When assessing the psychomotor domain some researchers have considered how to differentiate between the executive functioning and non-executive functioning stage. In one study, it was determined that the perceptual demands of the assessment directly impacted performance (Pendleton, et al., 2016). This means that the more complicated the skill, the more learners had to slow down to think about what they were doing even in highly skilled individuals. This type of learning bridges the cognitive and psychomotor domain. Assessments in this domain need to consider the complexity of the skill and incorporate a cognitive component to the learning to ensure student success. Assessing the Cognitive Domain The cognitive domain is most commonly tested through both formative and summative assessment written and oral examinations (Marzano, 2006). There is a concept labeled profile dimensions from Bloom s taxonomy of learning that is used in all levels of education (Amua- Sekyi, 2016). Most assessments according to Bloom, should be weighted as 40% understanding (memorization and comprehension) against 60% higher level understanding (such as analysis 6

and synthesis) (Amua-Sekyi, 2016). Today, many teachers do not use this 40/60% split, and instead focus on the low end of cognitive learning (Amua-Sekyi, 2016). Assessing beyond the low end of the cognitive learning spectrum allows learners to not only master the material presented, but also retain that knowledge beyond the time spent in a course (Amua-Sekyi, 2016). The issue with many students is the propensity to cram for summative assessments. This leads learners to keep information in short term memory stores, reducing retention following the assessment (Amua-Sekyi, 2016). Assessing higher levels of understanding help bring material from short term memory to long term memory and cements learning over time. Unlike the other learning domains, the cognitive domain has application when learning every type of new skill. As aforementioned, the cognitive domain is seen in the psychomotor domain when first learning and conceptualizing a new skill. It is seen in the affective domain, with the ability to understand the concepts of self and perception, beyond what a student just feels. Finally, it is seen in the interpersonal domain, and the learned social ques that are acquired from watching and learning from others. To maximize student learning, the cognitive domain should be assessed regardless of the type of skill or material taught. Assessing the Interpersonal Domain The interpersonal domain can cover both affective and cognitive domains. While it is difficult to assess the interpersonal domain specifically, some research has shown group assignments are an effective measure. According to one research team Team learning is considered as a constructive way for enhancing students learning in collaborative environment (Chandrasekaran, Al-Ameri, 2016). This study used authentic assessment, self and peer assessment, and evidential assessment to determine the efficacy of the group work experience. These assessments showed interpersonal, affective, and cognitive domain improvements and demonstrated the importance of group work when enhancing the learning experience. The Effect of Assessing Multiple Domains According to Barkely and Major s book Learning Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty, a Learning Assessment Technique (LAT) is a carefully designed three-part, interconnected structure (enhances) effective teaching by helping teachers to identify significant learning goals implement effective learning activities (and) analyze and report upon outcomes (Barkely, Major, 2015). Of the three elements of a LAT, assessment falls chiefly under implement effective learning activities. Assessments range across all of the learning domains, and a teacher cannot ignore any one given domain. Within LATs, active learning techniques and instructional activities are the most important when developing assessments (Barkely, et al., 2015). Some examples used are case analysis, role play, and direct evaluation (Barkely et al., 2015). Most importantly, LATs that have assessments that are developed as integral parts of the learning process spanning all of the learning domains have been shown to enhance the learning experience (Barkely et al., 2015). Since the type of assessment method used can directly affect learning outcomes, teachers need to ensure they use proper assessment techniques that covers multiple domains (Bossche, 2005). Taking the time to consider proper assessment methods can help ensure students learn the material. One study conducted on different assessment techniques found that how students are 7

graded can impact learning performance (Boyce, 1990). The study focused on learning a rifle shooting task with three methods of assessment. One group were graded 100% on their skill, one group were graded 100% solely on participation, and a third group was graded as a combination of the two (the example given being 50% on skill, 30% cognitive knowledge, 20% on participation). The study found that the combination group consistently outperformed the other two groups in both the final assessment task and a subsequent retention task. This helps to show that how we assess and what we assess should engage multiple learning domains. The learning domains often overlap and teachers need to take multiple domains into consideration when teaching any task. Application to USMA Assessment is not just for instructors but also for leaders. Understanding how students best learn information can help a teacher or a leader determine the best types of assessment for their situation. Assessment is a critical part of our positions in the Department of Physical Education (DPE) and in the Dean s academic departments. It is important to highlight that there are very set standards for every objective in all of the departments at USMA. By deviating from those set standards and utilizing the instructors personal interpretation, it can create a wide disparity of grading standards which could negatively influence cadets self-efficacy. The research helps show what to look for as an instructor as well as how, when, and why instructors assess. Additionally, assessing across all three major domains is critical to understanding students and helping them learn the material. This is a particularly important lesson for the cadets to learn as well. Standards are one of the most important aspect of the Army culture and deviating from those standards can lower moral, create a culture of favoritism, and create unsafe conditions that can get Soldiers or civilians injured or killed. Understanding that assessment should cover more than one learning domain is important for all instructors to recognize. The cognitive domain measures intellectual abilities however, students learn more when exposed to multiple domains. Courses on exercise science are a good example within DPE. These courses are routed in the cognitive domain but have practical application in the psychomotor domain. Blending lectures together coupled with assessments that reach across both domains will give students at USMA both knowledge and practical application that they can take with them to the Army. Both the cognitive and psychomotor domains are essential components to fully understand treatments, training, and fitness programs. While the cognitive domain is critical when learning and teaching physical fitness concepts and skills, exercise has also been shown to improve cognitive abilities in other subjects as well. One recent study found that increasing the number and intensity of physical education classes improved cognitive performance and academic achievement of high school children (Ardoy et al., 2014). This finding is consistent with several other studies who have found that physical fitness corresponds to an increase in cognitive function (Chaddock et al., 2010; Ericsson & Karlsson, 2014; Fox, Barr-Anderson, Neumark-Sztainer, & Wall, 2010). The cognitive domain has aspects in everything we teach and learn. Since physical fitness improves this domain all instructors should promote physical training in their courses (Kerr et al., 2013). This has implications when training the cadets at USMA. Young lieutenants need to understand that fitter Soldiers have a better chance at accomplishing the mission not just physically, but mentally as well. 8

When teaching students through the affective domain, teachers can promote behaviors such as self-confidence, self-motivation, teamwork, and time management skills (Green, et al., 2017). Those are the types of skills that are important at any level, and in any organization. Value-based teaching is considered the basis of the USMA experience. The cadets at USMA need to be effective team builders, and one of the chief complaints of senior leadership towards new USMA graduates is their inability to build teams of significance. The affective domain cannot be ignored when either designing lesson plans, or assessing their efficacy. The United States Military Academy s mission is to develop leaders of character. It does not state that they are developing only scholars or only athletes. Every department within USMA needs to understand that their course is not only a cognitive course, or only a psychomotor course. When all instructors realize the importance of not just developing assignments that use different teaching strategies, but actually ensure cadets are assessed through each domain, it will bring all instructors closer to accomplishing the mission. Conclusion The three main learning domains, and one supplementary domain, lay the foundation for students learning. Furthermore, assessing each of the domains, and more importantly not over assessing one domain, is the basis for both formative learning and mastery of material. Instructors should consider lesson plans that include assessment items that focus on group work, psychomotor activities, and individual cognitive tasks that range through all of Bloom s taxonomy. Cadets at the United States Military Academy will not graduate as experts in their field. However, cadets will graduate with a deeper understanding of the material presented, improve their self-efficacy, as well as improve their leadership through building more effective teams, all of which serve to accomplish the Academy s mission. 9

References Alkharusi, H., Aldhafri, S., Alnabhani, H., & Alkalbani, M. (2014). Classroom assessment: Teacher practices, student perceptions, and academic self-efficacy beliefs. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 42(5), 835-855. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&an=96656631&site=edslive Amua-Sekyi, E. T. (2016). Assessment, Student Learning and Classroom Practice: A Review. Journal Of Education And Practice, 7(21), 1-6. Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of education objectives. New york: Longman. Ardoy, D. N., Fernández-Rodríguez, J. M., Jiménez-Pavón, D., Castillo, R., Ruiz, J. R., & Ortega, F. B. (2014). A physical education trial improves adolescents' cognitive performance and academic achievement: The EDUFIT study. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(1), 52-61. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&an=93876812&site=edslive Barkley, Elizabeth F., and Major, Claire H.. Learning Assessment Techniques : A Handbook for College Faculty (1). Hoboken, US: Jossey-Bass, 2015. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 23 March 2017. Copywrite 2015 Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc. Bouchard, C. (2012). Genomic predictors of trainability. Proceedings of the Physiological Society, 26, 208-213. doi:10.1113/expphysiol.2011.058735 Boyce, B. A. (1990). Grading practices: How do they influence student skill performance? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 61(6), 46-48. Retrieved from http://articles.sirc.ca/search.cfm?id=260564; https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&an=sph260564&site=edslive; http://articles.sirc.ca/search.cfm?id=260564 Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 30(1), 3-12. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00195.x Chaddock, L., Erickson, K. I., Prakash, R. S., Kim, J. S., Voss, M. W., VanPatter, M., Kramer, A. F. (2010). Research report: A neuroimaging investigation of the association between aerobic fitness, hippocampal volume, and memory performance in preadolescent children. Brain Research, 10(28), 172-183. Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2010.08.049 10

Chandrasekaran, S., & Al-Ameri, R. (2016). Assessing Team Learning Practices in Project/Design Based Learning Approach. International Journal Of Engineering Pedagogy, 6(3), 24-31. doi:10.3991/ijep.v6i3.5448 Daniel M. Pendleton, Monica L. Sakalik, Morgan L. Moore, Phillip D. Tomporowski, Mental engagement during cognitive and psychomotor tasks: Effects of task type, processing demands, and practice, International Journal of Psychophysiology, Volume 109, November 2016, Pages 124-131, ISSN 0167-8760, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.08.012. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0167876016306870) Ericsson, I., & Karlsson, M. K. (2014). Motor skills and school performance in children with daily physical education in school- a 9-year intervention study. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(2), 273-278. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&an=94972817&site=edslive Fox, C. K., Barr-Anderson, D., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Wall, M. (2010). Physical activity and sports team participation: Associations with academic outcomes in middle school and high school students. Journal of School Health, 80(1), 31-37. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&an=47051046&site=edslive Kerr, J., Patterson, S., Marinac, R., Natarajan, C., Rosenberg, L., Wasilenko, D., & Crist, K. (2013). Objectively measured physical activity is related to cognitive function in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 61(11), 1927-1931. doi:10.1111/jgs.12524 Luce C, Kirnan J. Using Indirect vs. Direct Measures in the Summative Assessment of Student Learning in Higher Education. Journal Of The Scholarship Of Teaching And Learning [serial online]. August 1, 2016;16(4):75-91. Available from: ERIC, Ipswich, MA. Accessed March 22, 2017. Marzano, R. J., & Association for Supervision and Curriculum, D. (2006). Classroom Assessment & Grading That Work. Alexandria, VA: Assoc. for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Miller, K., Zhao, M., & Calantone, R. (2006). Adding Interpersonal Learning and Tacit Knowledge to March's Exploration-Exploitation Model. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 709-722. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159794 Raya, M. A., Gailey, R. S., Gaunaurd, I. A., Jayne, D. M., Campbell, S. M., Gagne, E., Tucker, C. (2013). Comparison of three agility tests with male servicemembers: Edgren side step test, T-test, and Illinois agility test. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 50(7), 951-960. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&an=91944694&site=edslive 11

Zane Asher Green, Sadia Batool, Emotionalized learning experiences: Tapping into the affective domain, Evaluation and Program Planning, Volume 62, June 2017, Pages 35-48, ISSN 0149-7189, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.02.004. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0149718916302270) 12