Considering Bloom’s Taxonomy For Training
If we ask, it’s likely that the most common answer we’ll receive to the question of why we train will be ‘compliance’. After that, I think it will be to make us better at our job. If training is designed and delivered well, we can achieve both.
I’m not convinced that simple training for compliance will necessarily make us better at our jobs, but I am convinced that training which is well designed, and well delivered, on sound educational principles will make us both better at our jobs and assure compliance. Bloom’s taxonomy is the reason I feel that way.
As we look at the taxonomy, it’s worth considering whether we reduced drunk driving, or cigarette smoking for that matter, more by passing laws against it and, therefore, mandating changes in behaviours, or by educating people about the true social, societal, and physiological implications.
Benjamin Bloom was an educational psychologist. He first introduced the taxonomy in The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals in 1956 as a means of classifying levels of cognitive functioning and, therefore, categorizing learning objectives. The learning objectives we often see, and should see at the beginning of training and educational seminars are supposed to be categorized. While there are actually three domains in the taxonomy, namely, cognitive (thinking), affective (feeling), and psychomotor (physicality), the cognitive domain is probably the most widely utilized.
The cognitive domain has six levels, specifically: Remembering; Understanding; Applying; Analyzing; Evaluating, and; Creating.
I’m taking the following description of each level from an AI summary of a Google search for Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning.
Remembering
The taxonomy helps us consider how a person might learn at each level. So, for example, at the level of Remembering, we can think in terms of memorization and the tools learners use to achieve it. Probably the most common way to remember something is by rote, defined by Merriam-Webster as “Mechanical or unthinking routine or repetition.” I smile at the use of the word “unthinking” as a not-to-subtle suggestion that one can learn some things without much thought.
If my test question is, “What are the four phases of fire?” I might be asking for someone to simply recite an order they had memorized. I’m probably testing at the level of Remembering even though I may have taught at, and may have had an expectation of learning at a higher level. The expectation is determined by looking to the learning objective for that unit. If I don’t test to the objective, I can’t verify the learning at that level.
Understanding
If I wanted to assure that someone understood something, i.e., at the level of Understanding, and I was using a multiple choice test format, I might ask, “Which sentence below best summarizes the fourth phase of fire?” and restate the description from the presentation in different words. If I was using a format calling for a written answer, I might ask, “Briefly describe, in your own words, the fourth phase of fire.” What I probably wouldn’t do is put the four phases on one side of the page, and the descriptions from the presentation on the other, and ask learners to draw a line between a phase and the correct description of it. In that case, I may have taught, and they may have learned at the level of Understanding, but I likely tested at the level of Remembering.
Applying and Evaluating
It’s probable that firefighter training doesn’t very often have to occur at a level higher than Applying. In order to properly deliver the training, which includes being able to respond to questions, training officers should at least be functional in the topic area at the level of Evaluating. That would make them able to justify and rationalize the training – a useful tool in the face of resistance to change…though, in my experience, such resistance was often due to the anticipated quality of the instruction.
Creating
Those designing training curricula should probably be functional at the Creating level. At some point it may be better to verify level of curricula designer and/or instructor ability by credentials. I believe at least three tenets of training and education should be measurability, verifiability, and transferability. In other words, it isn’t valid training or education unless it can be measured, verified, and transferred.
I tend to focus on measurability and verifiability, perhaps because I’m better able to ground these with statistical measures and definitions. I ground measurability with the statistical concept of validity. Validity asks whether an assessment tool measures what it actually purports to measure. I then rely as much as possible on objective measurement tools.
For verifiability, I try to assure that measurement tools will withstand scrutiny against other valid measurement tools and produce the same result. Ultimately, the business measures are whether the learner successfully performs long- term at the level anticipated so as to achieve compliance, and the overall organizational costs in getting there. Bloom’s taxonomy can help us better analyze our training and education costs and benefits, making it a useful tool in fire service training.
