Learning objectives are at the very core of the instructional design process, and rightly so. Without them, how would we know what content and activities to include in our courses? Unfortunat...
Published 10 years ago
Version 1.0
Blog Post
I see this discussion occurred six years ago, so I'm a bit late to the party! However, I would like to point out that I believe Sandi Williams' structure is correct. The two levels above Analysis should be Evaluating and Creating, not Synthesis and Evaluation as shown in the examples in the original article. As an eLearning developer, I find it difficult to get any higher than Application. At the Analysis, Evaluation, and Creation levels, the learner should be providing the examples and the content. If they are simply reacting to choices provided, they are only performing at the Knowledge, Comprehension and Application levels. The higher levels are intended to give learners the opportunity to demonstrate initiative and original thinking, and I think this can only be achieved in the presence of a live facilitator.
Yes, there are two versions of the taxonomy :)
You're right, for the higher levels you really need to use free response questions, as shown here. However, you don't need to do that live. Many LMSs allow you to view the answers to free response questions, so trainers can view them and give feedback online. However if you mean that can't be automated then yes, I totally agree with you!
You're right, for the higher levels you really need to use free response questions, as shown here. However, you don't need to do that live. Many LMSs allow you to view the answers to free response questions, so trainers can view them and give feedback online. However if you mean that can't be automated then yes, I totally agree with you!