Appendix D:

Theoretical Underpinnings of the Scale for

Cognitive Level Assessment of Writing

The Scale for Cognitive Level Assessment of Writing is based on the work of Bloom and his colleagues (1956), who divided cognitive behavior into six broad categories: Knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Beginning with knowledge, each successive category of cognitive skill was thought to reflect an increased level of complexity over the preceding category. The categories were considered to be hierarchical, in that each cognitive category was assumed to include, and be dependent upon, the cognitive skills of the categories below it. The cognitive skills in the Bloom structure include both implicit and overt behaviors. The authors noted that the classification is one of intended behavior - the ways in which individuals are to act or think as a consequence of instruction.

The hierarchical structure proposed by Bloom and associates (1956) appears to hold for the lower and mid categories of cognitive behavior. However, Madaus and his colleagues (1973) found that higher up in the hierarchy, a branching occurs, as illustrated by the following schematic.

Analysis Evaluation/Synthesis

Application

Comprehension

Knowledge

The findings of Madaus, et al. (1973) suggest a hierarchical structure that has four levels, with the fourth level representing a broad category of cognitive skills that can include any or all of the top three cognitive behaviors.

Taking our cue from the work of Bloom et al. (1956) and Madaus et al. (1973), we have constructed a scale that identifies four distinct levels of cognitive skills, with the fourth level sufficiently broad to include the behaviors of analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation.

Scale Uses

Uses of the Cognitive Level scale fall within three primary contexts: Assessment, Learning and Instruction, and Research.

The most direct application of the scale occurs within an assessment context. For those teachers whose writing objectives include a focus on the cultivation of higher order thinking skills, the scale provides a means to gauge the extent to which students area achieving those objectives, as expressed through their writing products. Bloom et al. (1956) viewed higher order intellectual skills as synonymous with levels 2 and above. Therefore, higher order thinking would require that students show evidence of comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis or evaluation within their writing. Assessment of the latter three would represent the most convincing evidence of higher order thinking.

A second use of the scale occurs within the context of learning and instruction. Bloom and his colleagues noted that their hierarchical system was not a classification of instructional methods or materials used by teachers, nor of the ways in which teachers relate to students. It is left to teachers to determine what methods, techniques and experiences are most effective in promoting thinking skills among their students. Through a consistent application of the scale over time, teachers can monitor the growth of thinking skills through their students’ writing, and thereby, adopt or adapt approaches that show the greatest promise for achieving the objectives they’ve set in this area.

The third use of the scale concerns its potential as a tool for theoretical and applied research on the expression of thinking through writing. The contribution of the scale to programs of research on writing will depend on the extent to which the administration of the scale can be standardized through training and upon a determination of the reliability of the scale for populations of interest. If the scale proves to be reliable, then research can proceed that probes the inferences that attach to the scale and the scale’s relationship to critical aspects of thinking and writing behavior.

Works Cited

Bloom, B. S. (ed.)( 1995). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook 1: Cogntive Domain. New York: McKay.

Madaus, G. F., Woods, N. E. & Nuttal, R. L. (1973). A causal model analysis of Blooms' Taxonomy. American Educational Research Journal, 10, 253-262.