7
Bloom’s Levels:
Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating
Description
While we are advocating for new assessment forms in this guide, it is important to realize that we are not saying that we should completely abandon the good old tradition of exams. It may be the case that a test or exam is the best tool to assess your course material and the kind of learning you expect from your students. Or, perhaps an exam is required for certain professional accreditation or designation. However, this next exemplar, achieved a middle ground between a traditional versus contemporary form of examination.
Imagine a conventional exam. Now make it, semi-take home. This alternative assessment tool was administered in an advanced third year psychology course. The course focused on a select set of themes that have shaped the study of human memory over the past half century. These themes were considered in light of contemporary research that encourage critical analysis of widely held beliefs about human memory. The two main objectives of the course were:
- To provide students with an overview of the research literature on human memory.
- To foster the development of research skills.
These objectives were addressed in part through synchronous lectures on selected topic articles, and in part through synchronous and asynchronous discussion. In addition, students were required to read a set of original research articles, contribute to discussions, and to either write short position papers or lead oral discussions based on those articles. But the main assessment tool that will be discussed further is the examination method administered in this class.
Both the midterm and final exam accounted for 25% and 35%, respectively, of the entire course grade. They were devised, in part, of short answer questions, worth two marks per question, that tested students’ knowledge of key concepts covered in lectures, the topic articles, or both. The short questions targeted relatively well-covered concepts such that preparation for these questions aimed at understanding concepts and not memorizing detail. Moreover, in the short answers portion, students were asked to apply and connect constructs taught about human memory to real-world experience. This encouraged answers to the short answer questions that are different across students. Ideally, if students attended lectures and read the topic articles, they should be able to readily apply their learning and knowledge of learned constructs to their personal experience.
Furthermore, the second part of the exams posed essay style questions, which were given to students a week ahead of the exam date. Students were provided with four possible essay style test questions, two of which appeared on the exam. Students were encouraged to prepare answers to the essay questions beforehand, and simply submit them at the time of the exam. This strategy would allow students to dedicate almost all of their time to answering the short answer questions.
Importantly, students were told that they may benefit from discussing the essay style questions with colleagues, and in fact such discussions were strongly encouraged to the extent that they helped students to integrate relevant conceptual ideas that were discussed in the course. However, it was made clear that under no circumstances should this collaboration take the form of sharing prepared written answers to the exam questions. All note taking and written preparation for the exam should be a product of students’ own thinking about the study questions, even in cases in which those thoughts have been aided by discussion of conceptual issues with other students.
Note that both short and long answers were not timed, students could move backwards to read previously completed items, and also could read ahead to anticipate and plan ahead. Also, to achieve good marks for the essay questions, students could not simply wrote down a “jumble” of facts related to the question asked. Students should spend their time thinking about how to structure an argument that answers the question clearly and concisely. One answer structure that might be suggested to students is an introductory paragraph that introduced the main issue, followed by one or two paragraphs that contained the body of answer, and a concluding summary paragraph. The target word length for the essay answers was 250-400 words. Any content that exceeded 400 words was not considered for grading.
This is an “open book” exam; students could use their notes, recorded lectures, topic articles, or research articles to aid in answering all questions. Moreover, students were allowed to discuss the essay questions with colleagues and prepare written answers prior to the exam. Those prepared answers to the essay questions can be cut and pasted into this form.
However, under no circumstances could students discuss any exam questions, short answers or essays, with colleagues during the exam. They are to complete all questions on the exam without consulting with colleagues. In addition, answers could not reflect anyone’s writing but their own.
Rubric
|
Criteria |
Level 5 (5 marks) |
Level 4 (4 marks) |
Level 3 (3 marks) |
Level 2 (2 marks) |
Level 1 (1 mark) |
Criterion Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Content (5 points) |
Excellent knowledge of core content; shows that they clearly understood the core constructs taught in lecture and covered in the target article. Factually accurate always Superior detail provided (e.g., research question, results, caveats, context, significance…) |
Adequate knowledge of core content and constructs Factually accurate Excellent detail provided (e.g., research question, results, caveats, context, significance…) |
Mentioned core content, but showed only surface level understanding of core constructs covered in lectures and target article. Minor factual errors Very good detail provided (e.g., research question, results, caveats, context, significance…) |
Deficient on core content; shows that they didn’t understand the core constructs A number of factual errors Some detail provided (e.g., research question, results, caveats, context, significance…) |
Missed the mark on core content Frequently erroneous Few details provided (e.g., research question, results, caveats, context, significance…) |
/5 |
|
Criteria |
Level 5 (3 marks) |
Level 4 (2.5 mark) |
Level 3 (2 mark) |
Level 2 (1.5 mark) |
Level 1 (1 marks) |
Criterion Score |
|
Critical Thinking, Application, and Implications (3 points) |
Clearly understood and answered the question Implications very well understood and presented Engaged in independent thinking and was able to come up with original ideas and or interpretations of key findings and constructs. Presented well put and logical arguments supporting / challenging their answer Showed clear understanding of core constructs and was able to apply / extend the main findings of the paper to real world experiences or new contexts. |
Understood the question and formulated an adequate response Implications well understood and presented Showed independent thought and was able to come up with original ideas and or interpretations of key findings and constructs. Presented some arguments supporting / challenging their answer Sufficient ability to apply / extend learning and main findings of paper to real world experiences or new contexts. |
Partially answered the question. Implications reasonably understood and presented Showed some independent thinking; Did not consider or present arguments in support / opposition of their answer Did not demonstrate sufficient ability to extend learning and main findings of paper to real world experiences or new contexts. |
Did not understand or answer the question Implications poorly grasped and discussed Did not demonstrate independent thinking Was not able to apply their learning and study findings to new contexts. |
Did not understand or answer the question Implications not discussed Did not demonstrate independent thinking Did not apply or extend their learning to new contexts |
/3 |
|
Criteria |
Level 5 (4 marks) |
Level 4 (3 mark) |
Level 3 (2 mark) |
Level 2 (1 mark) |
Level 1 (0 marks) |
Criterion Score |
|
Quality of Writing |
Thoroughly but concisely presents main points of research. Narration and/or answering of questions is highly engaging. No spelling or grammatical mistakes.
|
Thoroughly but concisely presents main points of research. Narration and/or answering of questions is adequate. Minor if any spelling and grammatical mistakes.
|
Adequately presents main points of research. Narration and/or answering of questions is appropriate. Few spelling and grammatical mistakes.
|
Contains some main points of research but not as sufficiently and not as well-organized. Narration and/or answering of questions is somewhat lacking Some spelling and grammatical mistakes.
|
Does not sufficiently present main points of research and is not well-organized. Narration and/or answering of questions is lacking. Many spelling and grammatical mistakes. |
/4
|
|
TOTAL |
/12 |
OVERALL SCORE
|
LEVEL 5 (11 points minimum) |
LEVEL 4 (9 points minimum) |
LEVEL 3 (6 points minimum) |
LEVEL 2 (4 points minimum) |
LEVEL 1 (2 points minimum) |
Technology Used
- Any online platform that enables online student discussion
- The one used in this exemplar was the D2L/Brightspace Learning Management System Course Discussion Forum
- Any online platform that enables administration of an exam online
- The one used in this exemplar was the D2L/Brightspace Learning Management System
Facilitation Tips
Grading is a major barrier when it comes to formulating an assessment. There is a limit to the number of hours a TA or instructor should be spending grading midterms. However, with this examination format, one major benefit is that you get your students to think about and formulate a response to a multitude of questions covering almost all units, while you only spend time grading a handful that actually appear on the exam.
Importantly, this assessment format encourages student interaction. When given the questions, students are encouraged to meet and discuss their answers with their colleagues. This stimulates the deep and meaningful discussion among students, where they can bounce off ideas, learn from each other, as well as apply their learning in class. The type of discussion encouraged and supported by this assessment format is the kind sought after and expected of graduate level students. In that sense, this course is ideal for students thinking about pursuing graduate studies.
It should be mentioned that particular attention should be paid when it comes to communicating expectations for responses. Your instruction and rubric should not be so specific as to box-in or limit your students’ responses. It should provide them with enough information to understand that they must, for example, provide you with an overview of the paper, adopt a nice narrative, and talk about implications. However, it should not be so specific that it would prevent your students from using their own creativity when it comes to discussing conceptual links and theories.
Example from course
McMaster University. Dr. Bruce Milliken. PSYCH 3VV3 – Human Memory
