Science Education: Should Facts Come First?

Abstract

In their Education Forum “Application of Bloom's taxonomy debunks the ‘MCAT myth'” (25 January, p. [414][1]), A. Y. Zheng et al. suggest using Bloom's taxonomy as a tool for assessment of lower- and higher-level thinking. We think that Bloom's taxonomy should be considered more carefully before it is applied to the assessment and reform of undergraduate courses. Bloom's taxonomy demonstrates a progressive sequence in human cognition, from simple (lower) to complex (higher) thought processes. However, it does not account for one important factor: a temporal or chronological sequence. At different stages of the whole educational process, instructional purposes are different. Assessments should reflect such purposes. Time-consuming lower-level fact instruction at earlier stages will contribute to and guarantee higher-level thinking. Without assessment of lower-level thinking (that is, the students' knowledge base and comprehension) at students' earlier stages, instructors may not know whether students are well equipped to advance to concepts that require higher-level thinking and how far the students could go. All of the sources used by Zheng et al. were admission tests or first-year tests. The goal of this kind of test is to identify gaps in a student's mastery of basic facts, and higher-level questions are less effective in meeting this goal. It may be unrealistic and dangerous in assessment to jump to a greater proportion of higher-level thinking at the cost of possible ignorance of students' mastery of basic facts. # Response {#article-title-2} Guo is correct in pointing out that the explicitly hierarchical level of Bloom's taxonomy implies a chronological sequence in instruction ([1][2], [2][3]). The literature does not, however, support the claim that factual recall should be the primary focus of early courses in a curriculum and that higher-order thinking should be reserved for later courses. Most educators believe that students should be working at higher levels in Bloom's hierarchy as often as possible. An author on both the original and revised Bloom's taxonomy ([1][2], [2][3]) writes that educational objectives above the Factual Knowledge level “are usually considered the most important goals in education” [page 213 in ([3][4])], including primary and secondary education. The recent revision of Bloom's taxonomy introduces a two-dimensional framework designed to assess how well the educational objectives from any course fulfill all elements in Bloom's framework ([2][3], [3][4]). In addition, we are not aware of data supporting Guo's assertion that “[t]ime-consuming lower-level fact instruction at earlier stages will … guarantee higher-level thinking.” In our experience, an overemphasis on lower-order thinking at early stages of instruction impedes progress in later courses that also demand higher-order thinking. Problems arise because students have been trained to associate memorization with academic success. Guo's letter reflects a view held by a substantial proportion of instructors that introductory science courses should focus primarily or even exclusively on factual content. The data in our Education Forum (25 January, p. [414][1]) indicated that biology students who intend to pursue medical or graduate school are poorly served by such courses because the exams required for admission emphasize questions above the bottom rung on Bloom's taxonomy. 1. 1.[↵][5]1. B. S. Bloom , Ed. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain (David McKay, New York, 1956). 2. 2.[↵][6]1. L. W. Anderson, 2. D. R. Krathwohl , Eds. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Longman, New York, 2001). 3. 3.[↵][7]1. D. R. Krathwohl , Theory Pract. 41, 212 (2002). [OpenUrl][8][CrossRef][9][Web of Science][10] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1147852 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1. in text [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2. in text [7]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3. in text [8]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DTheory%2BPract.%26rft.volume%253D41%26rft.spage%253D212%26rft.atitle%253DTHEORY%2BPRACT%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1207%252Fs15430421tip4104_2%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [9]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2&link_type=DOI [10]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000179371600002&link_type=ISI