用修订的布鲁姆分类法使评价目标与教学目标相一致——以食品科技教育为例

V. Jideani, I. Jideani
{"title":"用修订的布鲁姆分类法使评价目标与教学目标相一致——以食品科技教育为例","authors":"V. Jideani, I. Jideani","doi":"10.1111/J.1541-4329.2012.00141.X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:  Nine food science and technology (FST) subjects were assessed for alignment between the learning outcomes and assessment using revised Bloom's taxonomy (RBT) of cognitive knowledge. Conjoint analysis was used to estimate the utilities of the levels of cognitive, knowledge, and the attribute importance (cognitive process and knowledge dimension) for learning outcomes and assessments. Lecturers for these subjects produced learning outcomes for ability of students to Understand (4.935) Procedural (3.316) as well as Apply (4.491) Conceptual (3.083) knowledge. Lecturers’ expected students’ to move beyond mere recall and recognition of knowledge to higher order cognitive knowledge of apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. However, the assessments tested students’ ability to Understand (4.791) Conceptual (4.168) as well as Remember (3.217) Procedural (0.581) knowledge resulting in a misaligned teaching and learning exercise. For all the subjects, emphasis was more (52.9% to 72.9%) on the cognitive dimension than on forms of knowledge in formulating the learning outcomes, whereas emphasis placed on the cognitive (33.3% to 62.5%) dimension and the knowledge (37.5% to 66.7%) forms in the questions differed from subject to subject. The cognitive weight in the assessment was more for Understand (1.781)/Remember (0.787) Conceptual (1.416) knowledge. RBT provides an assessment framework that can be used to assist instructors in going beyond factual knowledge and comprehension to include academic skills such as application, analysis, evaluation, and creation.","PeriodicalId":22784,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Food Science Education","volume":"1 1","pages":"34-42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"33","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alignment of Assessment Objectives with Instructional Objectives Using Revised Bloom's Taxonomy—The Case for Food Science and Technology Education\",\"authors\":\"V. Jideani, I. Jideani\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/J.1541-4329.2012.00141.X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:  Nine food science and technology (FST) subjects were assessed for alignment between the learning outcomes and assessment using revised Bloom's taxonomy (RBT) of cognitive knowledge. Conjoint analysis was used to estimate the utilities of the levels of cognitive, knowledge, and the attribute importance (cognitive process and knowledge dimension) for learning outcomes and assessments. Lecturers for these subjects produced learning outcomes for ability of students to Understand (4.935) Procedural (3.316) as well as Apply (4.491) Conceptual (3.083) knowledge. Lecturers’ expected students’ to move beyond mere recall and recognition of knowledge to higher order cognitive knowledge of apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. However, the assessments tested students’ ability to Understand (4.791) Conceptual (4.168) as well as Remember (3.217) Procedural (0.581) knowledge resulting in a misaligned teaching and learning exercise. For all the subjects, emphasis was more (52.9% to 72.9%) on the cognitive dimension than on forms of knowledge in formulating the learning outcomes, whereas emphasis placed on the cognitive (33.3% to 62.5%) dimension and the knowledge (37.5% to 66.7%) forms in the questions differed from subject to subject. The cognitive weight in the assessment was more for Understand (1.781)/Remember (0.787) Conceptual (1.416) knowledge. RBT provides an assessment framework that can be used to assist instructors in going beyond factual knowledge and comprehension to include academic skills such as application, analysis, evaluation, and creation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Food Science Education\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"34-42\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"33\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Food Science Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1541-4329.2012.00141.X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Food Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1541-4329.2012.00141.X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33

摘要

摘要采用改进的Bloom认知知识分类法(RBT)对9名食品科学与技术(FST)被试的学习结果与评价的一致性进行了评估。使用联合分析来估计认知、知识和属性重要性(认知过程和知识维度)水平对学习结果和评估的效用。这些科目的讲师产生了学生理解(4.935)程序(3.316)和应用(4.491)概念(3.083)知识的能力的学习成果。讲师希望学生超越单纯的回忆和认识知识,提高应用、分析、评价和创造的更高层次的认知知识。然而,这些评估测试了学生理解(4.791)概念(4.168)和记忆(3.217)程序知识(0.581)的能力,导致教与学的错位。所有被试在制定学习成果时,对认知维度的重视程度(52.9%至72.9%)高于对知识形式的重视程度,而对认知维度的重视程度(33.3%至62.5%)和对知识形式的重视程度(37.5%至66.7%)因科目而异。认知权重在理解(1.781)/记忆(0.787)和概念性(1.416)方面较高。RBT提供了一个评估框架,可以用来帮助教师超越事实知识和理解,包括学术技能,如应用、分析、评估和创造。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Alignment of Assessment Objectives with Instructional Objectives Using Revised Bloom's Taxonomy—The Case for Food Science and Technology Education
Abstract:  Nine food science and technology (FST) subjects were assessed for alignment between the learning outcomes and assessment using revised Bloom's taxonomy (RBT) of cognitive knowledge. Conjoint analysis was used to estimate the utilities of the levels of cognitive, knowledge, and the attribute importance (cognitive process and knowledge dimension) for learning outcomes and assessments. Lecturers for these subjects produced learning outcomes for ability of students to Understand (4.935) Procedural (3.316) as well as Apply (4.491) Conceptual (3.083) knowledge. Lecturers’ expected students’ to move beyond mere recall and recognition of knowledge to higher order cognitive knowledge of apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. However, the assessments tested students’ ability to Understand (4.791) Conceptual (4.168) as well as Remember (3.217) Procedural (0.581) knowledge resulting in a misaligned teaching and learning exercise. For all the subjects, emphasis was more (52.9% to 72.9%) on the cognitive dimension than on forms of knowledge in formulating the learning outcomes, whereas emphasis placed on the cognitive (33.3% to 62.5%) dimension and the knowledge (37.5% to 66.7%) forms in the questions differed from subject to subject. The cognitive weight in the assessment was more for Understand (1.781)/Remember (0.787) Conceptual (1.416) knowledge. RBT provides an assessment framework that can be used to assist instructors in going beyond factual knowledge and comprehension to include academic skills such as application, analysis, evaluation, and creation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Windshields and rearview mirrors Book Review: Don't Make Me Think, Revisited . Using a 3D food printer as a teaching tool: Focus groups with dietitians, teachers, and nutrition students Engaged food science: Connecting K‐8 learners to food science while engaging graduate students in science communication Effects of implementing flipped classroom elements and dynamic in‐class discussion on student performance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1