early vs. late skills

It seems obvious that later levels follow after earlier levels. Let’s list the levels again, itemizing their level of difficulty.

knowledge
knowing something – even a hard concept – is something most people find reasonably easy, provided they don’t need to understand
- easy—memorize
  at this level then, the skill is easy: as long as you have a good enough memory, you can do it
comprehension
here, more is required
- fairly easy—show understanding
  although some understanding is required, the level is not very deep
application
now things are getting more difficult
- harder—need to make choices
  in particular, making choices requires some “judgment” (I put this in quotes because the terms acquires a more specific meaning under other headings)
analysis
here, the depth of understanding is higher still
- significant cognitive effort—deeper understanding
  analysis requires deeper understanding to allow components of a solution to be applied, which implies understanding interactions, rather than just simple behaviours
synthesis
skills for synthesis are significantly more difficult than for previous levels
- major cognitive effort—significant creative skills
  a major creative step is required: deciding on the overall structure of a solution, which I argue is a significant creative skill, certainly not something I would expect of a beginner
evaluation
this is Bloom’s most advanced cognitive skill; a minimal application of “evaluation” can certainly be done at lower levels, but the full application of this skill level implies research or advanced courses
- advanced cognitive effort—make judgments
  making judgments implies a deeper understanding than simple creativity: it implies the ability to see different perspectives, to be able to analyze the logic of an argument or construction, and to be able to find non-obvious flaws

In summary, Bloom’s Taxonomy defines a hierarchy of cognitive skills, and I argue that the highest ones are meant to be most difficult to master – the whole point of the taxonomy. Hence, care should be taken to weight introductory courses lower on the scale.

That’s not to say that the lower skills never apply in an advanced course (clearly, you pick up new facts all the time), or that the higher skills have no place in introductory or intermediate courses. However, some balance is needed. Often, in curriculum design, the degree of “advancedness” of the content is the major criterion for deciding how early to teach that content. I argue that the cognitive skills that must be applied are more important: most subjects can be treated in an introductory way, or with more demands placed on the students.

Programming Early Considered Harmful SIGCSE 2001 23 March, Charlotte, NC