Dear Tomas Serey

I am writing with regard to outcomes taxonomy. I think it might a good idea to use Structure of Observed Learning Outcome” (SOLO) taxonomy. We need to make our expectations clear. How can a student demonstrate their sophisticated understanding and how can we ‘rate’ understanding? SOLO Taxonomy is like an umbrella for thinking about understanding; for students and teachers. In SOLO taxonomy we have 5 stages of understanding: Pre-structural, Uni-structural, Multi-structural, Relational and Extended Abstract.

I think that SOLO taxonomy is more suitable for you.

Please find attached SOLO handout as a PDF file.

I hope I have been of some help.

Best regards,

Andrija

Dear Andrija Kozina,

Many thanks for your contribution. I will take a look to the framework that you propose. The approach of an Structure of Observed Learning Outcome is interesting in terms of a programme by competency.

All my best,

Tomás Serey

I think because it is an e-learning programme I would suggest including the Blooms Digital Taxonomy in which the equivalent digital verbs are used for the traditional ones.

Best regards,

Debra

https://globaldigitalcitizen.org/blooms-digital-taxonomy-verbs

Dear Sharon,

I am very grateful for your feedback. I have been working with Bloom Taxonomy, but this adaptation for the digital age opens new possibilities to build the matrix. 

All my best,

Tomás

The SOLO structure strikes me as a very practical and improved application of the original Bloom taxonomy, especially as it pertains to learning, as well as a self-reporting instrument for students to establish their current level of understanding of a subject.

For a taxonomy of learning outcome I prefer  Krathwohl's Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy (2002). The originally unidimensional model has now two dimensions: Knowledge and Cognitive Process. The Cognitive Process dimension is basically the original taxonomy, with few changes. The Knowledge dimension differentiates between factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge.

I see the improvement over the original model in the fact, that it is now possible to rate someone's understanding as high (e.g., 'analyze' or 'evaluate'; cognitive process) in respect of factual knowledge, and at the same time as low (e.g., 'remember') in respect of conceptual or procedural knowlege. In other words, a student may have a thorough understanding of facts, but may not be able to decide which method or technique to use to do something.

The list of 'digital verbs' by Churches, sent by Debra Sharon, may be very useful for your practical work.

You may also find Nahl (2001) on explaining information behavior useful.

Krathwohl, D.R. (2002): A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice, vol 51 (4). Ohio State University.

Nahl, D. (2001): A conceptual framework for explaining information behavior. In: Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education, vol 1 (2). University of Toronto Press.

I attach both documents, as well as my own masters thesis on a taxonomy of information literacy, in which I make reference to these and others.

Dear Tomas, I see Krathwohl's Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy (2002),SOLO  and Bloom's Taxonomies as the right ones for explaining cognitive processees but what about other aspects you might consider when working on gender.I don´t have the complete context of why you separate "women" and "men" (from my point of view) regading entrepreneurship competencies.

You might have studied that aspect but I nated to contribute here with some literature:

Jennifer E. Jennings  & Candida G. Brush. Research on Women Entrepreneurs: Challenges to (and from) the Broader Entrepreneurship Literature? at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19416520.2013.782190?src=recsys

J. McGrath Cohoon,Vivek Wadhwa,Lesa Mitchelle.The Anatomy of an

Entrepreneur Are Successful Women Entrepreneurs Different From Men? at http://www.kauffman.org/~/media/kauffman_org/research%20reports%20and%20covers/2009/07/successful_women_entrepreneurs_510.pdf.

Chaganti, Radha. Management in Women-Owned Enterprises in ACADEMIC JOURNAL ARTICLE .Journal of Small Business Management at https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-4587541/management-in-women-owned-enterprises

Best regards,

MARTHA MENDEZ

You might be interested in innovation competence.

@Juha Kettunen: your paper makes very interesting reading.

I am working and researching in adult education, your references to the European / National Qualifications Framework (EQF / NQF) are very relevant.

May I ask to what extent the Finnish NQF has developed detailed descriptors, especially for levels 6 and upward. Here in Austria we are somewhat behind, in Germany some work has been done for specific fields like IT management.

One potential area of conflict comes to mind: (In Austria) the responsibility for the description of competencies is largely in the hands of the chamber of commerce, who makes recommendations to the Ministry of Science and Commerce. While this has obvious advantages, I see a danger of overlooking aspects pertaining to the development of indiviuals.