We’ve had a lot of recent discussion around the ‘value it’ goal (which plenty of our programs have this as an underlying goal – above all we want people to value the rules enough not to do X, Y, or Z) have resulted in a discussion around measuring this NOT at the course / performance solution level but at the organization level. That we baseline where we are now at Alcohol Related Incidents, or Sexual Harassment Claims, etc.. and measure how well our proposed solution has impacted the end result. If we are able to isolate our data well enough, run targeted surveys, etc.., we SHOULD be able to tell whether or not we have hit the ‘value it’ mark.

You can’t reallistically expect get this with a ‘fast food drive-thru’ assessment.

I guess my point is that we should keep the overall goal in mind and scaffold around that goal with the valuable measurables that we can put into action. Too often I’ve seen a bent objective completely displace the goal and the results end up invalidating the effort. If we cannot measure what we ACTUALLY want to measure within the product, we need to be OK with measuring it elsewhere. Measurement for measurement’s sake seems like a futile exercise to me.

This isn’t to say that we can’t derive abstractions. If the abstractions don’t support the actual goal we are wasting our time.

I’ve been adjusting a simplified model for representing the relationship between conceptual nuggets, skills, values, and tasks. It’s simplified / clear (not all encompassing), but the point is adjusting the focus away from the task level and focusing on the concept level to support task performance.

This doesn’t always work… But at the foundations of organization wide performance, it makes sense.

http://www.xpconcept.com/conceptRelationship.jpg

I had the fun of showing where the verb fit in the organization’s official cubby.

I don’t often get into “care enough to use it” goals–I list my religion as “Reform Behaviorist”–but I get the point. I might settle for having you use the rules, even if it’s just to show you can. My own sense of what I can influence beyond that is low.

I agree completely with the last paragraph. I see “learning outcomes” (my phrase, not necessarily anyone else’s) as what a course needs: “When we’re done, you’ll able to create a web page from scratch.” Or, “when you’re done, you’ll be able to try getting a date, in Gaelic.”

If you think “from scratch” includes building your own computer, maybe you should take a different class.

Evil dragons live on both ends of this scale. I see Bloom’s as a potential organizational / planning scaffold. It’s not permanent but absent other indicators or experience it provides a logical organization framework. I see the formal three part objective as another tool in the planning process, but saying that an objective must be written in a particular way only tends to bind a foundational element by a set of goofy rules. This tends to encourage ‘creative pouring and bending’ of the actual goals and performance into a mold that doesn’t support the accurate representation of what we really want to measure.

Take, for example, if one of our goals is that a learner value a particular set of rules. So if our goal is that the learner cares about something enough to use it, most designers will reject that goal since it’s tough (impossible) to measure and make up some three part’ers to substitute or represent this in terms of observable / measurable performance. This can be done right, but most purists will throw out the baby and twist the goal. If this is where we start… you can see where it usually ends up.

I support the taxonomy as a tool. I support measurable three part objective construction as a tool. These are great formal process scaffolds. Personally, I take issue with those who’s primary position is the establishment of ‘proper objectives’ which miss the mark and carry into the course to be displayed proudly as advanced organizers. /facepalm.

You’re right about the credit; Bloom edited the original set. His colleagues included Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walker H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl. They all kind of play the Peter Pipe to Bloom’s Bob Mager.