Jonassen and Tessmer’s taxonomy of learning outcomes

Description and intended use

This taxonomy was created by Jonassen and Tessmer (1996/7) primarily ‘for the development and evaluation of computer-based learning systems for higher order thinking skills’ (Jonassen, Tessmer and Hannum, 1999, p. 30). They argue that current taxonomies should be adapted to take account of developments in instructional technology and educational research, particularly the development of multimedia and Internet-based instruction (Jonassen, Prevish, Christy, Stavurlaki, 1999). They specifically seek to take account of higher-order dimensions of thinking such as ampliative (knowledge extension) skills, self-awareness and self-control.

The taxonomy, as shown below, has 11 broad categories of learning outcome, with a total of 35 sub-categories:

•declarative knowledge

•cued propositional information

•propositional information

•acquiring bodies of information

•structural knowledge

•information networking

•semantic mapping / conceptual networking

•structural mental models

•cognitive component skills

•forming concepts

•reasoning from concepts

•using procedures

•applying rules

•applying principles

•complex procedures found in well-structured problems

•situated problem-solving

•identifying/defining problem space

•decomposing problems

•hypothesising solutions

•evaluating solutions

•knowledge complexes

•mental modeling

•ampliative skills

•generating new interpretations

•constructing/applying arguments

•analogising

•inferencing

•self-knowledge

•articulating content (prior knowledge)

•articulating sociocultural knowledge

•articulating personal strategies

•reflective self-knowledge

•articulating cognitive prejudices or weaknesses

•executive control strategies

•assessing task difficulty

•goal setting

•allocating cognitive resources

•assessing prior knowledge

•assessing progress/error checking

•motivation (disposition)

•exerting effort

•persisting on task (tenacity)

•engaging intentionally (willingness)

•attitude

•making choices.

Jonassen and Tessmer believe that their categories are suitable for widespread general use in education and training and regard their taxonomy as a suitable instructional design tool in tasks such as mapping a curriculum and developing materials and assessments.

268 Frameworks for Thinking

They seek to combine the steps of task analysis and outcome classification to make them ‘a concurrent design process’ (Jonassen, Tessmer and Hannum, 1999, p. 31). They suggest that knowledge of a taxonomy can facilitate task analysis in instructional design (Jonassen et al., 1989). In 1999 they make the stronger claim that ‘if you are unable to articulate the kind of thinking (by classifying the kind of learning outcome required) that you expect learners to accomplish, you have no business trying to design instruction to support that learning’ (Jonassen et al., 1999, p. 31).

Evaluation

This is a broad-brush framework rather than a coherently-structured taxonomy. The authors do not specify a single organising principle used to distinguish different kinds or features of thinking, although they do see task analysis in terms of creating learning hierarchies in which a higher-order outcome (such as problem-solving- or constructing a mental model) depends upon lower-order outcomes (such as concept formation or information processing) which need to be mastered by the learner first. As it stands, however, the scheme is not strictly hierarchical and is therefore best seen as a framework.

All kinds of learning outcome, whether cognitive, motor or psychosocial, can be categorised by using the framework. It brings together cognitive, metacognitive, affective and conative (motivational) dimensions. While it can be argued that the main categories are comprehensive, some areas are treated in more detail than others, the section on motivation (dispositions) being far from complete. In a later paper Jonassen provides more detail about problem-solving, setting out 11 types of problem-solving outcome along the well-structured to ill-structured dimension (Jonassen, 2000).

Gagne´’s taxonomy (Gagne´, 1985) and Merrill’s Component Display theory (Merrill, 1983) are acknowledged by the authors as influencing their own thinking (Jonassen et al., 1999). Cognitive and constructivist ideas predominate and the analytic assumption is made that ‘knowledge and human activity can be characterised as discrete cognitive states’ (Jonassen et al., 1999, p. 30). All of the learning outcomes are expressed in mentalistic rather than behavioural terms and some (such

as ‘allocating cognitive resources’ and ‘defining problem space’) would be very difficult to operationalise.

The theoretical constructs for the framework come from contemporary educational research in psychology and sociology, as well as drawing on philosophical concepts. For example the importance given to metacognitive and motivational aspects of learning implies an active model of knowledge construction. The authors also acknowledge the importance of context for learning, by including a category of situated problem-solving (see Jonassen, 1997; 2000).

We concur with the authors’ claim to have improved on the taxonomies of Bloom, Gagne´ and Merrill by including learning outcomes which:

a.reflect learned behaviours (by which they seem to mean abilities rather than skills) including inferencing, analogising, assessing task difficulty and decomposing problems;

b.reflect cognitive structures acquired in learning such as structural knowledge, self-knowledge and mental models; and

c.are traditional, such as attitudes, procedures, rules, concepts and problem-solving.

In each of the main categories there are some headings and terms which are somewhat different from those used in other taxonomies, such as ‘ampliative skill’ and ‘structural knowledge’ (Jonassen, Beissner and Yacci, 1993). However, it is possible to relate these to other conceptualisations. For example, a ‘conceptual network’ is what other theorists have called a ‘schema’ and ‘ampliative skills’ refer to aspects of critical and creative thinking.

By having an ‘ampliative skills’ category (by which they mean how a learner reasons beyond given information through analogy and inference), Jonassen and Tessmer imply that the issue of transfer in learning is not included or well covered in other accounts. Here they draw on Moore’s work in critical and creative thinking (Moore, 1968) and claim that these ‘knowledge enhancement skills’ aim to make learning more efficient and personally relevant, as learners generate new knowledge and make meaningful connections within what they already know.

As the framework explicitly draws on a number of fields, the terminology includes some unfamiliar terms, which may make it