Student Achievement of Course Learning Goals in an Asynchronous Distance Learning Course Redesigned using Fink's Taxonomy of Significant Learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i4.3934Keywords:
Fink's Taxonomy of Significant Learning, instructional design, distance learning, learning goals , higher educationAbstract
Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning (FTSL) is an instructional strategy that provides an effective framework for (re)designing course learning experiences to achieve student-centered learning goals. Originally developed for in-person courses, little research exists around its application to effectively design distance learning (DL) courses. This study aims to evaluate if the DL community can also utilize FTSL as a strategy for supporting online learners toward achieving significant learning goals. To address this aim, an asynchronous DL general education course for undergraduates was redesigned by applying FTSL during the development of course learning goals, assessments, and learning activities. A deductive, manifest content analysis was conducted to measure achievement of course learning goals across all nine written course assessments (n=40 student participants). Then, learning frequencies were quantified for each category of significant learning. Study findings indicate most student participants engaged in learning experiences related to five of the six categories within Fink’s taxonomy several times throughout the semester, with higher frequencies of learning in categories for application, followed by the human dimension and foundational knowledge, then caring and integration. In conclusion, study findings support that applying FTSL during the course (re)design process also supports online learners toward achieving significant learning goals, with course assessments that include analysis, aesthetic learning, and self-reflection as useful exercises for achieving said goals. Future research can build on this study by evaluating if online learners that achieve significant learning goals also experience long-lasting change relevant to the learner’s life (i.e., engage in a significant learning experience).
References
Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Bloom, B. S., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Baldwin, S., Ching, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2018). Online course design in higher education: A review of national and statewide evaluation instruments. TechTrends, 62(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0215-z
Barnett-Itzhaki, Z., Beimel, D., & Tsoury, A. (2023). Using a variety of interactive learning methods to improve learning effectiveness: insights from AI models based on teaching surveys. Online Learning, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i3.3575
Basdogan, M., & Birdwell, T. (2023). Faculty transition strategies from in-person to online teaching: Qualitative investigation for active learning. Online Learning, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i1.3229
Bedi, A. (2023). Keep learning: Student engagement in an online environment. Online Learning, 27(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i2.3287
Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001
Biscotte, S. (2015). The necessity of teaching for aesthetic learning experiences in undergraduate general education science. The Journal of General Education, 64(3), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.5325/jgeneeduc.64.3.0242
Bloom, B., Engelhart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. Donald McKay.
Branzetti, M. (2019). Aiming beyond competent: The application of the taxonomy of significant learning to medical education. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 31(4), 13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2018.1561368
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
Chang, B. (2019). Reflection in learning. Online Learning, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1447
Churches, A. (2007). Bloom’s digital taxonomy. https://www.pdst.ie/sites/default/files/BloomDigitalTaxonomy-AndrewChurches.pdf
Dekissa, T., Liang, L., Behera, P., & Harkness, S. (2014). Fostering significant learning in sciences. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), Article 12.
Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13(3), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399339209516006
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Fallahi, C. R. (2008). Redesign of a life span development course using Fink’s taxonomy. Teaching of Psychology, 35(3), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280802289906
Fink, L. D. (2003). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003. https://www.bu.edu/sph/files/2014/03/www.deefinkandassociates.com_GuidetoCourseDesignAug05.pdf
Fink, L. D. (2007). The power of course design to increase student engagement and learning. Peer Review, 9(1), 13–17.
Fink, L. D. (2012). Procedures for assessing different kinds of significant learning: Some possibilities. https://medicine.wright.edu/medical-education/faculty-development/faculty-development-day#tab=2012
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses (Revised and updated edition). Jossey-Bass.
He, Y. (2014). Universal design for learning in an online teacher education course: Enhancing learners’ confidence to teach online. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 283–298.
Hurtubise, L., & Roman, B. (2014). Competency-based curricular design to encourage significant learning. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 44(6), 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2014.01.005
Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance? Computers & Education, 95, 270–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.014
Kleinheksel, A. J., Rockich-Winston, N., Tawfik, H., & Wyatt, T. R. (2020). Demystifying content analysis. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1), 7113. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7113
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Martin, F., Ritzhaupt, A., Kumar, S., & Budrani, K. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The Internet and Higher Education, 42
Milman, N. (2009). Crafting the right online discussion questions using the revised Bloom’s taxonomy as a framework. Distance Learning, 17(4), 63–65.
Miners, L., & Nantz, K. (n.d.). More significant and intentional learning in the economics classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 119. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl
Morra, T., & Reynolds, J. (2010). Universal design for learning: Application for technology-enhanced learning. Inquiry, 15(1), 43–51.
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406919899220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
Orr, L., Weekley, L., & Reyes, B. (2021). Incorporating innovative instructional strategies to enhance learner engagement in online college courses. In Research anthology on developing effective online learning courses (pp. 1411–1428). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8047-9
Ostrowski, C., Lock, J., Hill, L., da Rosa dos Santos, L., Altowairiki, N., & Johnson, C. (2017). A journey through the development of online environments: Putting UDL theory into practice. In Handbook of research on innovative pedagogies and technologies for online learning in higher education (pp. 218–235). IGI Global.
Partido, B. B., Chartier, E., & Jewell, J. (2020). Evaluation of an e‐book assignment using Fink’s taxonomy of significant learning among undergraduate dental hygiene students. Journal of Dental Education, 84(10), 1074–1083. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12247
Pate, K. A., Pate, A. N., Sampognaro, L. A., Brady, J. H., & Caldwell, D. J. (2017). Design, implementation, and evaluation of an online elective course on current topics in pharmacy. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 9(4), 528–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2017.03.008
Pikhart, M., & Klimova, B. (2019). Utilization of linguistic aspects of Bloom’s taxonomy in blended learning. Education Sciences, 9(3), 235. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030235
Sanchez, S., Park, N., & Fedorek, B. (2020). Creating significant learning outcomes in criminal justice courses: A classroom activity to encourage reflexivity and empathetic thinking. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 31(2), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2019.1705364
Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18(2), 179–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180211
Uhrmacher, P. B. (2009). Toward a theory of aesthetic learning experiences. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(5), 613–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2009.00462.x
Wang, P., Ma, T., Liu, L.-B., Shang, C., An, P., & Xue, Y.-X. (2021). A comparison of the effectiveness of online instructional strategies optimized with smart interactive tools versus traditional teaching for postgraduate students. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 747719. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.747719
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Assn. for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Williams, C., & Katirai, W. (2018). Improving online teaching efficacy using Bloom’s taxonomy. Education and Health, 36(1), 7–9.
Wright, A. C., Carley, T. C., Alarakyia-Jivani, R., & Nizamuddin, S. (2023). Features of high-quality online courses in higher education: A scoping review. Online Learning, 27(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i1.3411
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Molly Downing, Cynthia H. Canan, T'Bony M. Jewell, Diana D. Kang

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions

