Improve Learning with the Significant Learning Taxonomy

Larita J. Killian Posted on
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Abstract

 For decades, educators and accreditation bodies have used Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives to design and assess instruction.  An alternative, Fink’s (2013) significant learning taxonomy, may be preferable for some purposes.  The SLT goes beyond Bloom’s taxonomy and encourages instructors to incorporate new learning dimensions into a course.  The SLT is simpler, more accessible, and especially effective at incorporating ethics.  For typical instructors who must balance teaching with research and service, the SLT is a proven and accessible route to improved learning. This paper reviews the purpose of learning taxonomies, summarizes the comparative advantages of the SLT, and describes the SLT dimensions with examples from accounting that can be adapted to other disciplines.  Assessment and lessons-learned are also discussed.  It is not an “either-or” proposition, however.  Both the SLT and the revised Bloom framework can add value, in different ways, to instructional design and assessment.

Introduction

For decades, educators have used Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives to design instruction and assess learning.  Whether implicit or explicit, Bloom’s influence is clear.  For example, the ACBSP accreditation standards call for active learning where students engage with “such higher order thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation” (2023, p. 48).  Likewise,  the AACSB cites Bloom in its literature (Kotee & Nguyen, 2021) and incorporates Bloom’s concepts into its accreditation standards, noting that graduate programs should include “higher-order learning experiences, such as synthesis and integration” (AACSB, 2020, p. 43).  The Indiana Commission for Higher Education (2018) prescribes that the state’s core competencies include analyze, apply, evaluate, and create – concepts from the original and revised taxonomies.

The original Bloom taxonomy (1956) featured six competency levels: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.  Bloom posited that learning is directional and hierarchical; students must first master lower-level competencies before they can engage with higher-level learning.  Based on more recent research, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revised the taxonomy to acknowledge that learning is more complex; a strict, sequential hierarchy may not always pertain.  They retain the general principle of hierarchy, however.  The revised Bloom taxonomy includes these cognitive dimensions: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create.  

In the revised Bloom taxonomy, the six cognitive dimensions are divided into 19 subcategories of learning activity (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).  To incorporate the more recent, nuanced understanding of how learning occurs, it also includes four knowledge dimensions divided into 11 subtypes of knowledge.  Together, the cognitive and knowledge dimensions form a two-dimensional grid.  In other words, anyone attempting to apply Bloom’s taxonomy, as now conceptualized, may juggle up to 30 subcategories of knowledge and behavior.  The updated taxonomy may improve upon the original in reflecting the nature of learning, but it is complex.  This complexity may discourage anyone not motivated to become a curriculum design expert.  Busy instructors who want to improve their courses while maintaining other commitments may need a simpler approach.  

Though lesser known, Fink’s (2013) significant learning taxonomy (SLT) has been used by educators in multiple disciplines and countries to improve learning.  Compared to Bloom’s taxonomy, the SLT is relatively simple, as depicted in Figure 1.  The various dimensions work together, synergistically, to deepen and enrich learning (Fink, 2013).  Students might engage with several dimensions to study a single topic; as more dimensions are engaged, learning becomes more meaningful and enduring.  Bloom’s taxonomy is often applied to an entire curriculum, intending that students will progress from lower-level to higher-level competencies as they move from introductory to advanced courses.  Ching and da Silva (2017) used revised Bloom to redesign a business curriculum in Brazil and grappled with the issue of when to introduce new, higher levels of the taxonomy.  In contrast, the premise of the SLT is that multiple dimensions, preferably all dimensions, should be incorporated into a single course to improve learning at any point in the curriculum.  

Figure 1:  The Significant Learning Taxonomy

Source: Derived from Fink, L. D. ( 2013). 

Certainly, students need a good grasp of foundational knowledge before they can engage with challenging tasks that involve application and integration, but this does not mean that foundational knowledge must always “come first.”  For instance, if the goal is for students to learn FASB1 guidelines on the classification of investments, students might first study the sanctions levied on companies and executives who failed to report investments properly.  Engagement with the human and caring dimensions will help motivate them to study the foundational material.  

Both taxonomies can play a role in improving business education but, for busy instructors whose immediate goal is to improve learning in their own courses, the SLT is a proven and accessible route.  This paper introduces business educators to the SLT and provides examples from accounting courses.  These examples can be adapted to other disciplines. The remaining sections of this paper address the value of taxonomies in instructional design and assessment; comparative advantages of the SLT; examples of incorporating the SLT dimensions into accounting courses; and lessons learned.  The concluding section discusses how the SLT and Bloom’s taxonomy can complement each other to strengthen business programs.    

General Benefits of Learning Taxonomies 

Before exploring the comparative advantages of the SLT, it might be useful to review the purpose of learning taxonomies in general.  Most learning taxonomies serve as a guide to instructional design and assessment.  They help clarify goals and answer these questions: What change do we hope will occur for our students, and how will we know it has occurred?  By including multiple dimensions in instructional design, we can be confident that important skills and competencies are not overlooked and that learning activities “make best use of precious time and resources” (Anderson & Kratwohl, 2001, p. 3).  The ultimate goal is more proficient graduates, but taxonomies also benefit instructors by providing a framework for course design.  They reduce uncertainty and enhance confidence that the results will be worth the effort (Karanja & Malone,  2021).  

Having selected a taxonomy, instructors create objectives that align with each learning level or dimension.  This helps prioritize learning objectives and resolve difficult decisions about what objectives must be dropped to make time and space for other, crucial objectives.  With the SLT, for example, if instructors find there are abundant objectives related to “application” but little related to “integration” or “learning how to learn,” they need to make trade-offs, dropping some objectives and adding others to ensure all significant dimensions are engaged.  Both the revised Bloom and SLT frameworks suggest verbs to match different learning dimensions.  For instance, Anderson and Kratwohl (2001) suggest the verbs “hypothesize” and “design” for the revised Bloom dimension “create.”  Fink (2013) suggests the verbs “commit” and “prioritize” for the SLT dimension “caring.”  

After learning objectives are identified, the next step is to design an assessment for each objective.  This is “backward course design,” a principle popularized by Wiggins and McTighe (2005).  Starting with the end goals (learning objectives), instructors work backward to design assessment methods for various objectives, then design learning activities to help students achieve the objectives.  This process ensures alignment among learning objectives, assessment methods, and learning activities — all tied to learning dimensions.  

Frequently, instructors who follow this process must introduce new, nontraditional means of assessment.  In accounting, for example, the “human” and “caring” dimensions require students to work beyond journal entries and multiple-choice tests.  Ching and da Silva (2017) used revised Bloom to create learning objectives and redesign an undergraduate business program in Brazil.  Killian and Brandon (2009) and Stewart et al. (2012) used the SLT to redesign accounting courses at their U.S. university.  The revisions led to more student-centered, active learning and new modes of assessment, they report.  Fink (2013) provides substantial guidance on designing assessment methods appropriate to various learning dimensions.  He encourages instructors to aim for rich learning experiences that involve multiple dimensions.  

Comparative Advantages of the Significant Learning Taxonomy

Any attempt to prove the superiority of a particular learning taxonomy is dubious, and that is not the purpose of this paper.  Rather, the purpose is to illustrate advantages of the SLT so more instructors might use it to improve student learning.  A brief comparison with the revised Bloom taxonomy reveals comparative advantages of the SLT (Figure 1).  This comparison is appropriate since Bloom is often cited in business education literature and is likely the most well-known learning taxonomy.  The advantages of the SLT include relative accessibility and ease of use; relative absence of issues of hierarchy; and inclusion of learning dimensions that are often overlooked.   

Relative Accessibility and Ease of Use

Revised Bloom has been tested and shown effective through research (Anderson & Kratwohl,  2001; Feliberty & Rodriguez, 2022; Ching & da Silva, 2017; Karanja & Malone, 2021).  Business accreditation standards frequently reference Bloom, implicitly or explicitly, evidence that it is widely accepted.  Revised Bloom is complex, however, comprising 4 categories and 11 subdivisions in the knowledge dimension and 6 categories and 19 subdivisions in the cognitive dimension (30 subdivisions combined).  It is beneficial for full-time curriculum developers, faculty relieved of other duties to lead program review or curriculum revision efforts, and for faculty who are strongly motivated to become instructional design experts.  Typical professors, however, must find ways to improve their courses while continuing to teach, conduct research, and meet service commitments.  For them, revised Bloom may seem daunting and cumbersome.  Ching and da Silva (2017) considered it necessary to educate instructors on the revised taxonomy before asking them to use it in course design.  Figure 2, adapted from Anderson and Kratwohl (2001), depicts elements of the revised bloom taxonomy.    

Figure 2: The Revised Bloom Taxonomy

Knowledge Dimension

(Together, the Knowledge Dimension elements contain another 11 subtypes.)

  • A. Factual Knowledge
  • B. Conceptual Knowledge
  • C. Procedural Knowledge
  • D. Metacognitive Knowledge


Cognitive Process Dimension

(Together, the Cognitive Process  Dimension elements contain another 19 subtypes.)

  • Remember
  • Understand
  • Apply
  • Analyze
  • Evaluate
  • Create

Derived from Anderson & Kratwohl (2001), who use alpha characters for the Knowledge Dimension and numericsfor the Cognitive Process Dimension.

In comparison, the SLT is more accessible. The six learning dimensions (Figure 2) are straightforward and relatively easy to comprehend.  Fink (2013) promises and research shows that instructors without special preparation can adopt it to revise courses and improve learning.  Like revised Bloom, the SLT is backed by peer-reviewed research.  Instructors have used it to improve learning in psychology (Fallahi 2008), pharmacy (Krueger et al., 2011), music (Smith, 2013), finance (Stewart et al, 2012), and accounting (Killian & Brandon, 2009). 

Relative Absence of Issues of Hierarchy

Anderson and Kratwohl (2001) devote considerable scholarship to the question of hierarchy in the revised Bloom taxonomy, seeking evidence that a progressive hierarchy exists and if so, the proper order of learning dimensions.  They reviewed multiple studies in search of evidence and “spent several hours arguing this issue” (2001, p. 294).  Their conclusions include the following:  

“The results of the meta-analysis provide slight support for the cumulative hierarchy assumption… Our re-analysis supports the conclusions reached in most of the individual studies – namely, that, excluding knowledge, the support for a cumulative hierarchy is clearest for the simpler categories of the structure” (Anderson & Kratwohl, 2001, p. 293).

They further report: 

“Kreitzer and Madaus (1994) concluded that data on the placement of Knowledge were ambiguous.  There is some support for that conclusion in our re-analysis” (Anderson & Kratwohl, 2001, p. 293).

Ching and da Silva (2017) were similarly challenged by the notion of hierarchy: 

“In aligning Bloom’s taxonomy to competences, the biggest challenge was to know in which period and discipline which cognitive levels were more appropriate than others for developing patterns of competence expected by professors” (2017, p 124)

Recognition that a progressive hierarchy of learning is sometimes ambiguous, or simply absent, was part of the motivation to revise Bloom’s original taxonomy and replace it with a matrix (Anderson & Kratwohl, 2001).

In contrast, instructors who adopt the SLT for course design are not beset by questions of hierarchy because the SLT takes a more wholistic approach to learning.  Certainly, as students progress through a curriculum, they move from less complex to more complex material.  The principle behind the SLT, however, is that students will have a richer, more meaningful, and more lasting learning experience at every level of complexity if multiple dimensions are engaged.  To maximize learning, students should engage with all dimensions in a single course.   

Inclusion of Learning Dimensions that Are Often Overlooked   

Another advantage of the SLT is that it prompts engagement with learning dimensions that may be overlooked with other taxonomies.  Learning objectives aligned with the “human” and “caring” dimensions prompt students to consider the social and ethical impacts of a discipline.  No course is complete unless students consider how individuals and society are impacted by the knowledge, skills, and practices they are learning.  In accounting, for example, students should grapple with questions such as:  

What career paths are available in accounting?  What rewards and challenges are typical of accounting careers?  How do practicing accountants perceive their role within a company, and how do others inside the company perceive them?  What responsibility do accountants have toward external clients?  How do accountants manage to keep abreast of changes in their field?  Who should have the power to influence accounting standards, and why?  What are some ethical challenges faced by professional accountants, and what is the role of professional codes of conduct?  Whose needs are served by current accounting practice, and are some important needs overlooked?  

When course design includes the “human” and “caring” dimensions, students likely will engage with such questions.  Of course, the Bloom taxonomy does not preclude such concerns.  For instance, one subcategory of the knowledge dimension in revised Bloom is “self-knowledge,” which relates to the human and caring dimensions of the SLT.  One subcategory of the cognitive dimension is “critiquing,” and the critique could involve human and ethical as well as technical concerns.  The difference is that with the SLT, these aspects of learning are intentionally included and not overlooked.  

Fink acknowledges our debt to Bloom and then summarizes the rationale for moving beyond the original and revised Bloom taxonomies to the SLT, as follows:  

“There is no question about the value of what Bloom and his associates accomplished by creating this taxonomy.  Any model that commands this kind of respect half a century later is extraordinary.  However, … individuals and organizations involved in higher education are expressing a need for important kinds of learning that do not emerge easily from the Bloom taxonomy, for example, learning how to learn, leadership and interpersonal skills, ethics, communication skills, character, tolerance, and the ability to adapt to change.  My interpretation of the aforementioned statements is that they are expressing a need for new kinds of learning, kinds that go well beyond the cognitive domain of Bloom’s taxonomy and even beyond cognitive learning itself (Fink, 2013, p. 34).”

Dimensions of the Significant Learning Taxonomy

The six learning dimensions of the SLT (Figure 1) are synergistic, working together to promote meaningful, lasting learning. “[E]ach kind of learning is related to the other kinds of learning … achieving any one kind of learning simultaneously enhances the possibility of achieving the other kinds of learning as well” (Fink 2013, p. 37).  Nor is there a prescribed sequence of engagement with the various dimensions.  In a recent accounting course, for example, the first assignment was for students to review material on the myriad careers that involve accounting skills.  The goal was to dispel stereotypes about what accountants do and inspire thoughts of how accounting skills might benefit students personally.  In other words, students engaged with the human and caring dimensions before foundational knowledge.  Descriptions of the SLT often start with “foundational knowledge,” however, since this dimension is easily understood.  Descriptions often end with “learning how to learn,” emphasizing the need to prepare students for continued, life-long learning.  This section follows that convention.  

Since learning is synergistic, the precise distinction between dimensions is sometimes unclear, but this is not an important limitation.  If instructors intentionally pursue an array of learning dimensions, they are more likely to design rich experiences that go beyond foundational knowledge and application.  The following paragraphs describe the six dimensions and provide examples of learning objectives for each.  These examples are from accounting, though the SLT can be deployed in any discipline.  This section draws primarily from Fink (2013) but also incorporates other material, especially Dennis and Huber (2007) and Killian and Brandon (2009).   

Foundational Knowledge

Foundational knowledge concerns the basic concepts, facts, procedures, rules, and principles that underlie a discipline.  Foundational knowledge is often unique to a discipline and distinguishes one from another.  Action verbs related to this dimension include “recall,” “identify,” and “describe.”  Fink (2013) provides examples of behavioral objectives for this and other dimensions.  Here are two examples in foundational knowledge for an accounting course.  Instructors can create similar objectives for other disciplines:   

  • Identify 3 current asset accounts and 3 long-term asset accounts that are typically found on the balance sheet of public companies in the United States (introductory) 
  • Describe the two criteria that must be met, per FASB guidelines, for current liabilities to be reclassified as long-term liabilities (intermediate)  

In designing a course, instructors often start with foundational knowledge.  This is acceptable, but for meaningful learning that lasts, other dimensions must be incorporated.    

Application

Application concerns putting foundational knowledge to work and allowing it to have consequences.  Action verbs for application include “create,” “use,” “decide,” “critique,” “calculate,” and “solve.”  Traditionally, application drives a substantial portion of a course.  This is certainly true in accounting where students create journal entries, calculate ratios, and use the accounting equation to solve for missing amounts.  In accounting, learning objectives in this dimension might include:  

  • Given a random list of accounts from a single company, solve for the current ratio (introductory)
  • Given a random list of accounts from a single company, create the income statement and balance sheet following FASB guidelines (intermediate)

Integration 

Integration is about making connections.  It is the ability to “connect dots” in new ways or connect prior learning to new learning, enhancing the impact of knowledge and skills.  In making connections, students leverage their knowledge and personal efficacy.  Students engage with integration when they connect coursework to their personal lives, connect current coursework to learning from prior courses, or connect perspectives from varied disciplines, such as integrating accounting principles with concepts from ecology and sociology.   Action verbs for integration include “connect,” “relate,” “compare,” “link,” and “integrate.”  In accounting courses, learning objectives for integration might include:  

  • Use ratios you have studied in this course to compare the financial performance of Apple and Google for fiscal year 2023 (introductory)
  • Relate elements of the COSO internal control model to internal controls practices at your most recent place of employment and identify the greatest control risk at the company (introductory or intermediate)

Human Dimension 

The human dimension is an area where the SLT most clearly contrasts with Bloom.  It brings the human significance of what is learned “front and center.”  The goal is for students to consider what importance their learning has for themselves and others.  This dimension “sometimes gives students a new understanding of themselves (self-image), a new vision of what they want to become (self-ideal), or greater confidence that they can do something important to them” (Fink,  2013, p. 36).  It also promotes a better understanding of why others act as they do and how to interact successfully with others.  Every discipline has human significance; including this dimension in course design ensures students will engage with the human significance of technical material.  Fink uses a two-word phrase for this dimension: “learn about.”  Other verbs are “interact,” “understand,” and “decide to become.”  Any behavior where students consider the importance of what they are learning for themselves and others falls within the human dimension.  Frequently, this involves learning beyond the classroom.  In accounting, learning objectives for this dimension might include:    

  • Discuss how this course has impacted your notion of the work performed by accountants (introductory) 
  • Interview a local accounting professional of your choice, then summarize why he/she chose this career path and what he/she finds most rewarding and most challenging about the career (introductory or intermediate)  
  • Review the core competencies for accounting careers posted on the AICPA website, then  discuss which competencies are your strengths and for which you need improvement   (intermediate)
  • Describe three specific aspects of inventory accounting that require judgment by accountants and others in the firm (intermediate)

Caring 

Caring is the most difficult dimension to define.  While other dimensions have some form of subject matter, caring is about energy.  Students have engaged with caring if they “now care about something to a greater degree than they did before or in a different way” (Fink 2013, p. 36).  Caring falls in the realm of feelings, interests, and values.  When students care about what they are learning, they bring more energy to their work and are likely to make new learning a part of their lives (Fink 2013, p. 36).  Dennis and Huber (2007) suggest “value,” “appreciate,” or “care about” as markers for this dimension.  After years of experience using the SLT, it remains a challenge to differentiate the caring and human dimensions.  Perhaps this should be expected: often, it is through the human dimension that students are inspired to care more about their learning.  The distinction may lie between, “What are the potential rewards of a career in accounting?” and, “Which of the potential rewards of a career in accounting would be most important to you?” 

Ethics is an important aspect of accounting education (The Pathways Commission, 2015; Institute of Management Accountants, 2019) and for business education in general (ACBSP 2023).  It is also an effective means for incorporating the caring dimension into courses.  Ethics deals with questions of faithful representation, full disclosure, objectivity, professional codes of conduct, and how certain decisions and practices might impact various parties.  Learning objectives within the caring dimension might include:  

  • Discuss how your interview with the local accounting professional impacted your study habits, your attitudes toward the accounting profession, and your approach to this course (introductory)  
  • Discuss ethical issues related to reporting of accounts receivable and how the company’s staff accountants may be impacted by those issues (introductory) 
  • Discuss the value of Article 2 of the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and the various parties it is designed to protect (intermediate) 
  • Discuss the accounting principles and procedures involved in the WorldCom criminal case: What was the proper accounting procedure, how was it violated, and how did the fallout impact various parties including senior executives, staff accountants, and employees (intermediate) 

Learning How to Learn 

Learning how to learn should be emphasized throughout a curriculum.  The goal is for students to learn more effectively during the course and to continue learning after the course ends and they leave the university.  Life-long learning is critical for any discipline, none more so than accounting where standards and practices change.  Students engage this dimension when they set learning goals and agendas, make decisions about what to study and how, identify and retrieve resources, and study more intentionally.  Students make these choices within parameters set by the instructor (Darby and Lang, 2019; Fink, 2013; Brown & Adler, 2008).  Even in introductory courses, students can be offered some choice in what they will study and how.  The more we encourage students to locate and utilize resources beyond the textbook and classroom, the better we prepare them for life-long learning.  Action verbs such as “inquire,” “interpret,” “choose,”  “identify,” “retrieve,” and “synthesize” are used for this dimension.  In accounting courses, learning objectives might include:  

From the SEC website, retrieve the official, audited financial statements for a public company chosen by your friend and interpret the statements for your friend (introductory)

Select a local business person to interview about the uses and limitations of financial statements and submit a brief summary of what you learned (introductory)

Retrieve the specific paragraph of the FASB codification that outlines steps for recognizing revenue from contracts with customers, then restate these steps in language that non-accountants could understand (intermediate)

Choose one of these professional organizations, review the resources and activities available to its members, and describe how accounting graduates could benefit from belonging to that organization  (intermediate)

Learning how to learn is most successful when it involves iterative exercises; students perform the work in stages and review their work as they proceed (Fink, 2013).  Such exercises often involve multiple learning dimensions.  Here is an example from an upper-division accounting course:   

  • Part 1: Identify an accounting issue that you would like to explore in depth this semester and explain why this question is important to you. (When students have choice, diversity emerges.  Students have chosen topics that range from the role of AI in accounting to gender equity in CPA firms.)
  • Part 2: From this list of academic journals, identify three articles that relate to this issue.   (In accounting, for example, students might choose from the myriad journals published by the American Accounting Association.)  
  • Part 3: Briefly summarize the main points from each article you selected and discuss how the article contributes to understanding or resolving the issue. (Students submit a short paper on each article on successive dates).  
  • Part 4: Compose a paper that synthesizes information from these articles and summarize your conclusions regarding the issue.

This iterative exercise is primarily about learning to learn, but also involves the human and caring dimensions (Step 1) and integration (Step 4).  Likewise, the two objectives for learning to learn in an introductory course, shown above, are best implemented in phases.  

Lessons Learned

Course design is a creative activity.  Different instructors bring different goals, values, and talents to the task.  The value of the SLT is that it helps all instructors, whatever their personal strengths, design richer, more meaningful, and thus more lasting learning experiences.  One can safely predict that most courses will include a large measure of foundational knowledge and application.  Instructors will vary in the relative emphasis they place on other dimensions, though none should be omitted.  Scholars have shown that when students engage with all the SLT dimensions in a single course, they have more significant learning experiences (Smith, 2013; Stewart et al, 2012; Krueger et al., 2011; Killian &Brandon, 2009; Fallahi, 2008).  Drawing from this literature and my personal experience in different courses over multiple years, a few lessons emerge.  These insights may help other instructors make best use of the SLT.      

Assessment 

Taxonomies help instructors align assessment with learning objectives.  Thus, adopting the SLT and its multi-dimensions will result in new forms of assessment.  In accounting, for example, traditional exams are effective for assessing tasks in foundational knowledge, application, and to some extent, integration, but they are insufficient for assessing engagement with the human, caring, and learning to learn dimensions.  In a course based on the SLT, assessments will include open-book as well as closed-book tests (professionals consult documents frequently), written reflections, resources beyond the classroom (such as retrieval and analysis of official documents and scholarly articles), and may involve outside individuals, such as feedback from peers or local professionals.  In some cases, the learning activity and assessment will be the same.  Consider these learning to learn objectives:

From the SEC website, retrieve the official, audited financial statements for a public company chosen by your friend and interpret the statements for your friend (introductory) 

Locate and retrieve the specific paragraph of the FASB codification that outlines steps for recognizing revenue from contracts with customers, then restate these steps in language that non-accountants could understand (intermediate)

In both cases, retrieving the appropriate material is simultaneously a learning activity (practice with professional resources) and an assessment (proof students can perform part of a task).  When students interpret the statements or rephrase the guidelines, they display further competence in deploying professional resources.   

Personal Adjustments

Many students are accustomed to courses that feature foundational knowledge, application, and perhaps integration, but are unaccustomed to expectations involving the human, caring, and learning to learn dimensions.  Alternatively, they may feel such tasks belong to specialized courses such as “business and society” or “business communications” but not in disciplines such as accounting.  To help students adjust to the unexpected and engage with new learning dimensions, instructors should provide clear expectations, interim progress checks, and added reinforcement.   

The new approach is also challenging for instructors who might be accustomed to letting the textbook company design their course (Fink, 2013; Killian & Brandon, 2009).  When instructors reduce their reliance on textbooks and ask students to engage with resources beyond the classroom, it can be unnerving.  How will students respond?  With plenty of clarity (instructions and expectations) and reinforcement, most students respond quite well.  To reduce the risk of overwhelming themselves and their students, instructors can introduce changes gradually and adjust as they proceed.  For example, if the SLT inspires ten new learning objectives and related assessment activities, it may be best to introduce them over three or four semesters rather than simultaneously.   

Necessary Trade-offs

As instructors apply the SLT, it may be necessary to omit some foundational knowledge to make space for other dimensions within the confines of a course.  These trade-offs are part of any course design effort, however.  The SLT helps us make these decisions intentionally and more intelligently.  When students have been empowered through significant learning, they can continue to learn and integrate new material, including foundational knowledge, without our help and after leaving the course (Fink 2013; Killian et al., 2022).  

Conclusion

This paper presents the case for using the SLT to improve learning in business education.  Since most instructors are familiar with Bloom’s taxonomy, the SLT is compared to the revised Bloom framework.  The value of Bloom’s taxonomy is undisputed, but the SLT encourages instructors to incorporate important dimensions that might be overlooked with Bloom, such as the human and caring dimensions and learning how to learn.  Further, the SLT is effective in helping students engage with ethical issues.  It is simpler and more accessible than revised Bloom, and thus, especially valuable for busy instructors.  Using the SLT, instructors can make immediate improvements to student learning while maintaining their normal workloads in teaching, research, and service.  

It is not an “either-or” proposition, however. The revised Bloom taxonomy is well-suited for some purposes.  Curriculum design specialists, or faculty in charge of program review, might  use revised Bloom to guide the assessment and revision of the entire, multi-year program (Feliberty &  Rodriguez,  2022; Ching & de Silva, 2017; Karanja & Malone, 2021).  Accreditation standards incorporate language from Bloom’s taxonomy (ACBSP, 2023; AACSB, 2020), so those who communicate with accreditation bodies should be conversant with Bloom.  However, for typical instructors who want to prepare students to deal with complex, evolving aspects of professional life after college, the SLT is an excellent place to start.

References

  • Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP). (2023). ACBSP Unified Standards and Criteria for Demonstrating Excellence in Business Programs. https://cdn.ymaws.com/acbsp.org/resource/resmgr/docs/accreditation/Unified_Standards_and_Criter.pdf
  • Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman: New York.
  • Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2020). Guiding Principles and Standards for Business Accreditation. https://www.aacsb.edu/educators/accreditation/business-accreditation/aacsb-business-accreditation-standards
  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive and affective domains. David McKay: New York.
  • Brown, J. S., & Alder, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 16-32.
  • Ching, H. Y., & da Silva, E. C. (2017). The Use of Bloom’s Taxonomy to Develop Competences in Students of a Business Undergraduate Course. Journal of International Business Education, 12, 107-126.
  • Darby, F., & Lang, J. M. (2019). Small Teaching Online: Applying Learning Science in Online Classes. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
  • Dennis, D., & Huber, M. (2007). Creating significant learning in the classroom. Paper presented at the American Accounting Association annual meeting, Chicago, IL.
  • Fallahi, C. (2008). Redesign of a life span development course using Fink’s taxonomy. Teaching of Psychology, 35(2), 169–175.
  • Feliberty, M.A.V., & de los Angeles Rodriguez, R. (2022). Designing Assessment and Measuring Longitudinal Student Performance in the Management Program. Transnational Journal of Business, 7(June).
  • Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. (Originally published 2003).
  • Indiana Commission for Higher Education. (2018). Statewide Transfer General Education Core (STGEC). https://www.in.gov/che/files/STGEC-Guidance-11.1.2018.pdf
  • Institute of Management Accountants. (2019). Management Accounting Competency Framework. www.imanet.org/research-publications/statements-on-management-accounting/ima-management-accounting-competency-framework?psso=true&gclid=Cj0KCQiA-62tBhDSARIsAO7twbaJ76Tluz7vA0UF_ZwcfSoUXZ_JJen8KSEeg89DGbSS1AjSVwuoRb8aAt9pEALw_wcB
  • Karanja, E., & Malone, L.C. (2021). Improving project management curriculum by aligning course learning outcomes with Bloom’s taxonomy framework. Journal of International Education in Business, 14(2), 197-218.
  • Killian, L., & Brandon, C. (2009). Using the significant learning taxonomy and active learning to improve accounting education. Journal of Faculty Development, 23(3), 30-36.
  • Killian, L. J., Monje-Cueto, F., Huber, M. M., & Brandon, C. (2022). The ethics interview: Can a single interview exercise help students experience the benefits of professional engagement? Issues in Accounting Education, 37(1), 59-77.
  • Kotee, T. & Nguyen, C., (2021). Instruction vs. Discovery Learning in the Business Classroom. https://www.aacsb.edu/insights/articles/2021/07/instruction-vs-discovery-learning-in-the-business-classroom
  • Krueger, K. P., Russell, M. A., & Bischoff, J. (2011). A health policy course based on Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 75(1), 1-7.
  • Smith, E. L. (2013). Using a New Taxonomy for Significant Learning in the Theory Classroom. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 1, Article 2. https://digitalcollections.lipscomb.edu/jmtp_ejournal/vol1/iss1/2
  • Stewart, A., Houghton, S., & Rogers, P. (2012). Instructional design, active learning, and student performance: Using a trading room to teach strategy. Journal of Management Education, 36(6), 753–776.
  • The Pathways Commission. (2015). In Pursuit of Accounting’s Curricula of the Future. American Accounting Association, Sarasota, FL.
  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.