USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
INSTRUCTIONS!!
BELOW ARE HELPFUL LINKS TO HELP WITH THE ASSIGNMENT! THE LINK THAT STARTS WITH EBSCO IS AN ARTCLE TO READ FOR THE ASSIGNEMENT
Create units that are associated with the course overview.
- Prepare a paper that contains your course overview and two unit skeletons. Your units must align with the course overview.
Create objectives that can be assessed.
- Pay attention to the correct format for the objectives outlined in this week’s discussion.
The objectives that you choose should NOT begin with words such as, understand, know how to, learn, words that end in “ing,” or questions.
The objectives need to begin with present tense action verbs that can be assessed. Some examples may be: create, identify, describe, analyze, synthesize, and other words that can be assessed. - Each unit skeleton should contain 3–5 objectives that are measurable and can be assessed.
Create objectives that can be associated with the activities for instructional units.
- Objectives must align with the two units; later in the course, you will develop activities for the instructional units.
- There should be no less than 3 and no more than 5 objectives per unit.
Create objectives that improve the learning process.
- Objectives should reflect the best learning methods for the IT learner audience.
A well written objective describes what learners will know, be able to do or understand as a
result of completing a unit within a course. Each unit-level learning objective:
• Describes the supporting skills, knowledge, and attitudes learners will have when the unit
is completed.
• Describes learner performance (not the instructor’s assignments, learning plans, or
instructional strategies).
• Begins with an action verb describing what the learner will be able to do upon completion
of this course.
• Is measurable and observable.
• Reflects a level of accomplishment that is appropriate for the degree level and program
affiliation of the learners and the course.
In addition, a clear, concise, well-written objective answers the following questions:
1. What? (action statement)
2. Why? (standard)
3. How? (condition)
When writing unit-level and supporting objectives, be sure to ask:
• What is the overall goal of the unit?
• What are the 3–5 supporting tasks will learners need to complete to achieve the overall
unit objective?
• For each objective: what will learners know, do, or understand as a result of completing
the unit? Why will they know, do, or understand it? How is the condition satisfied?
• Does each objective begin with an action verb?
• Are the verbs used to write the objectives appropriate for these learners in this degree
program? Bloom’s (1956) Taxonomy of Cognitive Domains provides a framework for
selecting appropriate verbs based on the level of learning. More information on Bloom
follows this section.
• Is my objective SMART?
o Specific. An objective should not contain multiple objectives in one statement. If it
does, break it down.
o Measurable. Can the behavior be observed and evaluated?
o Achievable. Can these objectives be achieved in the context of the course?
o Realistic. Is it reasonable to expect learners to achieve the objective?
o Timely. Does your objective statement include some sort of expectation about when
the objective will be achieved? (In a unit objective, one may assume this to be by the
end of the unit.)
1
Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain
Benjamin Bloom, a noted educational psychologist, worked with other educational experts to
develop a classification of levels of intellectual behavior important in learning. Bloom and his
team identified six levels within the cognitive domain, ranging from simple recall at the lowest
level, to evaluation at the highest level. They are Evaluation, Synthesis, Analysis, Application,
Understanding, and Knowledge.
Bloom’s Taxonomy is an excellent tool to guide the construction of competencies and objectives.
Using the taxonomy helps assure the appropriate alignment between the levels of the learners,
the course, and program and degree expectations.
Make sure learners have mastered content in the lower levels before teaching and testing at
higher levels. For example, to write an analysis-level course, be sure learners possess (or will
learn) the appropriate Knowledge-, understanding-, and application-level content prior to being
tested at the analysis level.
Bloom’s Taxonomy Verbs
The following table shows a variety of verbs that map to the six levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Level Verbs
Knowledge: Remembering or recalling
appropriate, previously learned information to
draw out factual (usually right or wrong)
answers
Cite, Count, Define, Describe, Draw,
Enumerate, Find, Identify, Index, Indicate,
Label, List, Match, Meet, Name, Outline,
Point, Quote, Recall, Recite, Record, Repeat,
Reproduce, Review, Select, Sequence,
State, Tabulate, Tell, Trace, View, Write.
Comprehension: Grasping or understanding Add, Conclude, Elaborate, Interact, Rewrite
the meaning of informational materials Approximate, Contrast, Estimate, Locate,
Subtract Articulate, Convert, Explain, Observe,
Summarize Characterize, Defend, Express,
Paraphrase, Trace, Cite, Describe, Extend,
Picture, Translate Clarify, Detail, Extrapolate,
Predict, Classify, Differentiate, Factor, Report
Compare, Discuss, Give examples, Restate
Compute, Distinguish, Illustrate, Review.
Application: Applying previously learned
information (or knowledge) to new and
unfamiliar situations
Act, Collect, Establish, Investigate, Round off
Adapt, Complete, Exercise, Manipulate,
Sequence Administer, Compute, Expose,
Modify, Select Allocate, Construct, Express,
Operate, Show Alphabetize, Contribute,
Extend, Paint, Simulate Apply, Control, Factor,
Participate, Sketch Articulate, Customize,
Figure, Personalize, Solve Assess,
Demonstrate, Graph, Plot, Subscribe Assign,
Depreciate, Handle, Practice, Tabulate Avoid,
Derive, Illustrate, Prepare, Transcribe Back up,
Determine, Imitate, Price, Transfer Calculate,
Develop, Implement, Process, Translate
2
Level Verbs
Capture, Diminish, Include, Produce, Use
Change, Discover, Inform, Project, Utilize Chart,
Dramatize, Instruct, Protect, Choose, Draw,
Interconvert, Provide Classify, Employ,
Interview, Report.
Analysis: Breaking down information into Analyze, Correlate, Explain, Lay out, Query
parts, or examining (and trying to understand Audit, Debate, Explore, Limit, Relate Blueprint,
the organizational structure of) information. Detect, Figure out, Manage, Select Breadboard,
Diagnose, File, Maximize, Separate Break
down, Diagram, Focus, Minimize, Size up
Characterize, Differentiate, Group, Optimize,
Subdivide Classify, Discriminate, Identify,
Order, Summarize Compare, Dissect, Illustrate,
Outline, Train Confirm, Distinguish, Interrupt,
Point out, Transform Contrast, Document,
Inventory, Proofread.
Synthesis: Applying prior knowledge and skills
to combine elements into a pattern not clearly
there before.
Adapt, Contrast, Handle, Modify, Rearrange
Animate, Correspond, Import, Negotiate,
Reconstruct Arrange, Create, Improve,
Organize, Refer Assemble, Debug,
Incorporate, Outline, Reinforce Budget, Depict,
Individualize, Overhaul, Relate Categorize,
Design, Initiate, Perform, Reorganize Code,
Develop, Integrate, Plan, Revise Collaborate,
Dictate, Interface, Portray, Rewrite Combine,
Enhance, Intervene, Prepare, Specify
Communicate, Express, Invent, Prescribe,
Structure Compare, Facilitate, Join, Produce,
Substitute Compile, Formulate, Lecture,
Program, Summarize Compose, Generalize,
Make up, Progress, Validate Construct,
Generate, Model, Propose, Write.
Evaluation: Judging or deciding according to
some set of criteria, without real right or wrong
answers.
Argue, Criticize, Interpret, Rank, Support
Assess, Critique, Justify, Rate, Test Choose,
Defend, Measure, Recommend, Validate
Compare, Discriminate, Predict, Reframe,
Verify Conclude, Estimate, Prescribe,
Release, Contrast, Evaluate, Prioritize, Select
Counsel, Explain, Prove, Summarize.
Reference
Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New
York, NY: David McKay.
3
-
Writing Learning Objectives
Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain
Bloom’s Taxonomy Verbs
Reference
Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.
Editorial
Teaching Learning Strategies: Connections to
Bloom’s Taxonomy
In the April 2014 Journal of Food Science Education editorial,
Dr. Shelly J. Schmidt emphasized the point that “We need to im-
plement effective teaching practices to fully engage our students
in the course content (be the best teachers we can be) AND we
need to intentionally instruct our students on how to get the most
out of studying (be involved in explicitly teaching our students
effective and efficient study skills)” (Schmidt 2014a). Tradition-
ally, we think of study (or learning) skills as time management,
good note-taking during class, doing assigned reading, organizing
notes, learning to outline, etc. However, one important question
we should ask ourselves is: Are study skills specific to the cognitive
domain of learning? The cognitive domains of learning, from least
to most abstract, were categorized by Benjamin Bloom and his
team of theorists (Bloom and others 1956): knowledge; compre-
hension; application; analysis; synthesis; and evaluation. It would
make sense that study skills are related to the cognitive levels of
course objectives. For example, study skills at the knowledge level
might involve the use of self-study quizzes to learn facts, and to
start to make connections among the facts (for example, causes of
enzymatic browning). The study skills needed at the knowledge
level would be different from those needed at the synthesis and
evaluation levels, where students use critical thinking to determine
why a specific phenomenon is occurring (for example, devising
experiments to test the efficacy and safety of several different an-
tioxidants to reduce enzymatic browning). Therefore, if there is
evidence that study skills are related to the cognitive level, then
the next question is which learning techniques should we teach at
each level?
The Need to Teach Study Skills
There are publications in the literature that support Dr.
Schmidt’s statement that we need to teach skills to our students
to facilitate their learning. These reports emphasize the following
three points.
(1) Learning is improved when study strategies are explicitly
taught in content courses, including metacognitive strate-
gies, such as writing reflective journals and developing in-
dividual learning contracts (El-Hindi 1997; Chiang 1998;
Arnott and Dust 2012; Askell-Williams and others 2012).
Chew (2014) defines metacognition as self-awareness, a
“person’s awareness of his or her own thought process. In
the case of learning, it refers to a student’s awareness of his or
her own level of understanding of a concept.” Peirce (2003)
and McGuire (2013) point out that many high school stu-
dents study by rote memorization, and that it is the main
study skill they bring to college. To make matters worse,
college-level science courses are often taught only as fac-
tual information—instructors present factual information
in their lectures and test the students using questions where
students need to recall and summarize the information that
was presented in class. Consequently, upon graduation, stu-
dents retain little of the information that they “learned”
because they never really understood or reflected on the
material (Lord and Baviskar 2007).
(2) Learning strategies are diverse. Students need to know that
they have choices as to which learning strategy they choose
to use. They can choose a specific strategy and apply it in
different contexts to improve their learning (Peirce 2003;
Chew 2014).
(3) Students need to monitor and assess their application of
learning strategies (Peirce 2003; McGuire 2010). Peirce
(2003) mentions that part of metacognition awareness for
students is setting goals, using learning strategies to reach
their goals, monitoring progress toward those goals, self-
assessing the effectiveness of learning strategies in reaching
their goals, and then making adjustments in learning strate-
gies in response the self-assessment.
How to Teach Learning Skills
The 50-min presentation
There have been reports suggesting how to teach learning skills,
particularly at the undergraduate level. Cook and others (2013)
report that one 50-min presentation on learning skills early in the
term can cover teaching students about:
(1) Metacognition. The learning strategies include paraphrasing
and rewriting lecture notes, working on homework prob-
lems without using an example as a guide (that is, solving
problems without the help of an external aid), previewing
material before class, group study, and pretending to teach
information to a real or imagined audience.
(2) Bloom’s Taxonomy. Most students are not aware of different
levels of learning, and once they are exposed to Bloom’s tax-
onomy, students are better prepared to check their learning
levels. They then understand what their instructor means
when s/he mentions “higher-order thinking.” Remember
that up to now, most students are not aware that there is
more to learning than memorization!
(3) The Study Cycle. The last concept that students are intro-
duced to in this session is the Study Cycle (preview before
class, attend class, review after class, study, and assess learn-
ing). The figure describing this cycle is in Cook and oth-
ers (2013) and was reprinted with permission in Schmidt
(2014b).
Timing and tips
Cook and others (2013) offer the following schedule and recom-
mendations to facilitate the introduction and utilization of learning
skills:
C© 2014 Institute of Food Technologists R©
doi: 10.1111/1541-4329.12043 Vol. 13, 2014 • Journal of Food Science Education 59
Editorial
(1) Give the first exam as early as possible in the term. Typically
students will be studying by memorizing the material and
will find that they do not do well on the exam.
(2) Follow the first exam with the 50-min learning skills pre-
sentation outlined above.
(3) Don’t judge the students’ potential based on the first exam
(consider not even counting it for the final grade). Encour-
age students to utilize the learning skills introduced in the
50-min presentation.
(4) Provide motivation to use the learning strategies by sharing
individual student improvement (without giving names).
Zhao and others (2014) emphasized the importance of intro-
ducing learning strategies early in the term and also early in the
students’ college experience, which will give students the best
chance for success in the course and the opportunity to apply the
skills to other courses in their program. Cook and others (2013)
and Zhao and others (2014) documented student success in be-
ginning undergraduate chemistry courses and shared some of the
positive feedback from students related to learning strategies.
Which Learning Techniques Should We Teach at Each
Cognitive Level?
This discussion leads to some questions that we should ask our-
selves. Are we giving our students guidance on how to learn? If
not, then what do we perceive to be the biggest challenges in
teaching students to learn effectively? If we already teach study
skills, then what are some of the techniques that we have taught or
are thinking of teaching in our courses? Are these learning skills
appropriate for the cognitive level of the course objectives? Do
they help students to apply new skills, such as using their new
knowledge and/or analytical skills to solve a new problem? Do
they help students to better comprehend the material?
I have two personal examples of study techniques that appear to
relate to the cognitive level of learning.
(1) Knowledge and comprehension levels. For a large, 300-
level undergraduate, nonmajors human nutrition class that
I taught for many years at the Univ. of Washington, I dis-
tributed a set of study questions about a week prior to each
exam. I suggested that students write answers to the ques-
tions, working either alone or with other students. Students
were allowed to ask about the study questions during re-
view sessions held prior to each exam, but they were told
to expect me to ask them for their answer first! Students
commented that if they answered the study questions, it
seemed to help them to do better on exams compared to
when they did not have access to study questions (or did
not answer them).
(2) Synthesis and evaluation levels. At the Univ. of Illinois, I had
the opportunity to teach a required graduate course, “Sem-
inar in Foods” (FSHN 593), for five semesters. The course
objectives were to acquire knowledge and gain professional
skills in communication, collaboration, and team-building
that would help students in the remainder of their time in
graduate school and in their future careers. The main pur-
pose of the required course in our graduate curriculum was
to give students an opportunity to develop skills in orally
presenting topics in food science at different cognitive lev-
els and in different venues. Students gave different types of
presentations of increasing length: impromptu talks; three
images (title, introduction, and data slides) of their research;
a demonstration that was suitable for a 4th grade class that
involved using food; and a presentation about a current
controversy in food science and/or human nutrition. For
points toward their final grade for the course, students were
given a rubric to evaluate: (1) other students during practice
sessions outside of class (six during the semester); (2) other
students during their in-class presentations (15 during the
semester); and (3) their own presentations (self-evaluation).
While evaluating others, the students were able to observe
first-hand the oral communication skills that were effective
and those that were not. Besides learning how to construc-
tively critique others, it was predicted that students would
apply their observations to their own presentations, that
is, they would utilize a study skill where they critiqued
others to contribute to their own self-improvement. Their
self-evaluation gave students the opportunity to review and
reflect on their own performance, and to suggest improve-
ments for their next presentation. The process of students
giving oral presentations and evaluating others is at the top
(evaluation/creating) of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
I would like to encourage you to share your thoughts on this
topic and/or to provide examples of study/learning skills that
you teach in your undergraduate and/or graduate courses. Please
feel free to e-mail your thoughts as a letter to the editor (send
to Dr. Shelly J. Schmidt [sjs@illinois.edu]); write an editorial
and send to Shelly; post on the Education, Extension and Out-
reach Discussion in the IFT Community on ift.org; or e-mail me
(fayedong@illinois.edu). I look forward to hearing from you!
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Dr. Shelly J. Schmidt and Dr.
Saundra Y. McGuire for their helpful suggestions.
References
Arnott E, Dust M. 2012. Combating unintended consequences of in-class
revision using study skills training. Psych Learn Teachnol 11(1):99–104.
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2012.11.1.99. Accessed July
12, 2014.
Askell-Williams H, Lawson MJ, Skrzypiec G. 2012. Scaffolding cognitive and
metacognitive strategy instruction in regular class lessons. Instr Sci 40:
413–43. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9182-5.
Bloom B., Englehart M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (eds.). 1956.
Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.
Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.
Chew SL. 2014. Helping students to get the most out of studying. In: Benassi
VA, Overson CE, Hakala CM, editors. Applying science of learning in
education, infusing psychological science into the curriculum. Division 2,
American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C. p 215–23. Available
from: http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php. Accessed July 12,
2014.
Chiang LH. 1998. Enhancing metacognitive skills through learning contracts.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational
Research Association, Chicago. ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED425 154.
Cook E, Kennedy E, McGuire SY. 2013. Effect of teaching metacognitive
learning strategies on performance in general chemistry courses. J Chem
Edu 90(8): 961–7. dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300686h.
El-Hindi AE. 1997. Connecting reading and writing: college learners’
metacognitive awareness. Develop Edu 21(2):10–7.
Lord T, Baviskar S. 2007. Moving students from information recitation to
information understanding: exploiting Bloom’s Taxonomy in creating
science questions. J Coll Sci Teachnol 36(5):40–4.
McGuire SY. 2010. Available from:
http://www.slideshare.net/ccharles/become-an-expert-learner-dr-saundra-
mcguire-lsu-october-2010. Accessed July 12, 2014.
60 Journal of Food Science Education • Vol. 13, 2014 Available on-line through ift.org
Editorial
McGuire SY. 2013. Teaching metacognitive learning strategies to individuals
or groups: a procedure that works! Available from:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=
1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.byui.edu%2FDocum
ents%2Finstructional development%2Fdocuments%2FMcGuire%2520-%
2520summary%2520-%25204%2520pp%2520SYM%2520suggestions
&ei=SmG1U4aKAYSKqgb1m4CQCQ&usg=AFQjCNGq3l0pNM2czx
B02VLzLLWRa0Ahgg&bvm=bv.70138588,d.b2k. Accessed July 3, 2014.
Peirce W. 2003. Metacognition: study strategies, monitoring, and
motivation. Available from: http://academic.pg.cc.md.us/�wpeirce/
MCCCTR/metacognition.htm. Accessed July 12, 2014.
Schmidt SJ. 2014a. Editorial: implications of the “division of labor” view of
teaching and learning. J Food Sci Edu 13(2):23.
doi:10.1111/1541-4329.12032.
Schmidt SJ. 2014b. Editorial: what students do to learn really matters. J Food
Sci Edu 13(3):33–4. doi:10.1111/1541-4329.12036.
Zhao N, Wardeska JG, McGuire SY, Cook E. 2014. Metacognition: an
effective tool to promote success in college science learning. J Coll Sci
Teachnol 43(4):48–54.
Faye M. Dong
Associate Editor
Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Available on-line through ift.org Vol. 13, 2014 • Journal of Food Science Education 61
Copyright of Journal of Food Science Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
